Thank goodness adults in the room weighed in on this: I thought trying to copyright a shape like that was ludicrous.
I don’t think that has anything to do with the shape copyright dispute. The low volume act is addressing regulatory restrictions on cars which were too onerous for very small manufacturers. The litigation over shape copyrights is a completely different issue having only to do with intellectual property. The act you’re referring to is also only applicable in the US, while the C and D type actions by JLR are done in international copyright court.
2 Likes
I think somebody needs to test the waters in the good 'ol USA.
1 Like
I believe here in the States, we have already settled this issue. < Replica Cars No Longer Have to be Sold as a Kit Under New Federal Rules >. I think that JLR would not be able to sue companies like Realm, etc. here in the States. Too bad the EU doesn’t see it the same way?
1 Like
“First, registrants will no longer have to submit documentation or possess a license to the intellectual property necessary to make a replica vehicle, but simply certify to the fact.”
Manufacturers would have to have licensing rights to a particular design is how I am reading this
We’re definitely mixing issues here.
The copyright issue and the appeal haveq not been finalized, but according to some of their statements JLR were only really after people making replicas professionally (i.e. for profit. However, they have not been 100% reliable in some of their communications, so the jury is not only out, it hasn’t been assembled yet.
The US may not only have very different copyright interpretations for this kind of thing but the low-volume issue is also completely unrelated. A small element of it touches on permission from the rights holder to build several hundred ‘copies’ per annum but JLR are still at the stage of trying to establish their right to grant or withold such permission.
I’m building a D for myself, but it was only an issue for those making replicas for sale AFAIK.
3 Likes
Here is the latest on the JLR vs Magnusson appeal. …JLR lost and the Magnussons awarded damages…however not all great news as the courc decided that JLR have the copyright the the C tyoe design…extract from Porter press…
JLR C-type Replica Court Case - The First Witness
STOP PRESS (23/03/23): We are exceptionally pleased to say that the Magnussons have won their appeal against the lower Swedish court’s decision in favour of JLR with regard to their C-type replica which JLR were insisting they must destroy. Not only have the Magnussons won the case but they have been awarded considerable costs. It is, though, not all good news. It seems that this court accepts JLR have copyright in the C-type design (which they incorrectly credited in its entirety to Malcolm Sayer) and so in theory no-one can now build C-type replicas commercially. The Magnussons won because private use of a copyrighted item is permitted. It seems that the Magnussons have bravely won their battle but the larger community may have lost the war.
Hi,
A really weird move to credit it only to Malcolm Sayer, as in EU countries generally copyright expires 50 years after release, manufacture or death of author, all of which now are expired.
Of course I think it’s ok that way, he was the one who created the shape of both C and D-type (and E-type & XJ13). JLR of course has the rights for the Jaguar brand, but maintaining a copyright for any material produced over 50 years ago just seems like a complete waste of time.
Cheers!
Not really though? I guess they can keep the car they have built, but their plan to make more of them would appear blocked.
It does make me wonder what Jaguar are up to these days. Are they still developing and making new cars?
1 Like
WORLDWIDE PRESS RELEASE Friday 24th March 2023
Swedish C-type replica builder won in court against Jaguar Land Rover
Karl Magnusson (70), a lifelong Jaguar enthusiast who built a replica of the Jaguar C-type, has won an extensive copyright dispute against Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) in the Svea Court of Appeal. The judgment states that JLR has given consent to Magnusson’s replica manufacturing and that they will not have to scrap the car nor pay one million in damages.
JLR has never before raised any objections to replica manufacturing of their historic models, and instead have accepted and supported the independent, world-wide replica industry, growing since the 1970s. Mr Magnusson and his wife, being avid classic car enthusiasts their entire life, were well aware of this relationship during the nine years they spent researching and building their C-type replica.
Magnusson was even invited to JLR where he reported in detail his planned replica C-type project and was encouraged by JLR to continue. Suddenly and without warning, JLR’s attitude changed, and they sued Magnusson for his hobby business in the villa garage. JLR demanded one million in damages and that the then almost-completed car be destroyed.
JLR won the first round in the Stockholm District Court in 2020, but now lost in the higher Svea Court of Appeal in a very important judgment for the classic car community. The court says in its judgment that JLR has no right to claim copyright infringement in the already-built replica. The court finds that for several decades, there has been a global replica market that Jaguar has accepted and supported and that this constitutes a general consent.
- It is both incomprehensible and distasteful that JLR, as a large international automotive group, would threaten the lives of two private individuals in a peripheral market with a legal process. This has created tremendous economic and mental pressure for more than five years, says Mr. Magnusson.
Mr. Magnusson does not want to speculate why JLR chose to sue him and his wife in Sweden, considering that there are thousands of C-type replicas in the world. Perhaps JLR thought it would be an easy win that would set a precedent worldwide.
- But worse is that Jaguar, with its heritage and position, chooses to put its entire trust at stake and make itself infinitely unpopular in the classical car community, which they themselves benefit from. It is surprising, to say the least, says Mr. Magnusson.
The court states that JLR’s general consent can be withdrawn. This is a prejudicial warning bell, not only for replica Jaguar enthusiasts but for all replica owners of other brands worldwide.
For further information, contact:
Karl Magnusson, creareform@gmail.com, +46 73 399 44 37
I think JLR shot itself in its collective foot: this could’ve been handled in a much better way.
Certainly sours me towards the company. It comes off to me, much more like a company in desperation.
3 Likes
Unfortunately we’re all witnessing Jaguar unnecessarily die on the vine.
Anyone who even considered Jaguar’s claims as being valid or justified, at any level (internal or external), needs to be shown the door.
2 Likes
Martin Robey make complete bodyshells… SNGB make thousands of replica parts badged as the same “C” or “BD” numbers as Jaguar did. At what point does the intellectual property (“IP”) of the whole replica car get separated from the IP of the constituent parts? If you drill down further, it implies that every replacement parts manufacturer will have to obtain JLR approval and the costs involved for that will pass down to us.
Going forwards, it’ll be a deep irony that if you make a perfect copy of a Jaguar part, you’d have to pay them for IP, but if it is a poorly fitting craptastic part then it must be materially different from the Jaguar part and therefore the argument that IP has been infringed is not as good.
kind regards
Marek
3 Likes
Hi Marek… some of the major suppliers already have agreemets with JLR…so were already paying extra to cover the costs. …Steve
Do you know that for a fact?
I havent actually seen the contracts…but i believe that what i said is correct…Steve
Several decades ago, there was a case in the UK between car makers and manufacturers of after market exhaust systems. The car makers claimed copyright on bits of bent pipe. I can’t remember the result. But I guess it may have set a legal precedent.
Yes there was. The automakers lost. So again, show me the proof that major suppliers actually have agreements with JLR.
3 Likes
Thanks Mike for that article - very interesting. I read it, and it’s interesting to note that several manufacturers of aftermarket parts in non-automotive areas (eg printer cartridges, and vacuum cleaner spare parts) tried to leverage this precendent and failed in the courts. It is clearly one of those areas where it can go either way. The summarizing advice at the end of the article is " The overall lesson here is that the exceptions to UDR created by the Act do not give a carte blanche for pattern spares. Those who wish to make spares during the period of design right must design their own spares and cannot just copy every detail of the OEM’s part. To be on the safe side they will have to make them different as far as is possible—for trying to navigate by the chart provided by this crude statute is a risky business.. Or as mentioned earlier in this thread - better to design/sell a craptastic part that doesn’t fit, as then you can’t be accused of copyright infringement…
So in plain American, what is the “period of design right”? I think that only applies to patented items.
What if the copy is made in China? Does British IP apply?