Pete said:
I agree-
Chris
Who owns the rights to the GT40 Body?
- Thread starter ChrisMartino
- Start date
I agree-
Chris
This is a funny business when the owner of an object is considered an acceptable authority to permit (or deny) its copying and yet the originator of the design may neither sanction the copy nor receive proceeds from it's replication.
I may have missed something in these posts about the origins of the Meila MKII clip, but unless his clip was sculpted from scratch with no original part used as a starting point, how does it differ from the process that MDA is accused of following?
I am not taking sides here (too little information to do so), but as a designer, I find this an interesting debate about ownership of a design that is actually a copy of an original (albeit one with many variations) work.
I may have missed something in these posts about the origins of the Meila MKII clip, but unless his clip was sculpted from scratch with no original part used as a starting point, how does it differ from the process that MDA is accused of following?
I am not taking sides here (too little information to do so), but as a designer, I find this an interesting debate about ownership of a design that is actually a copy of an original (albeit one with many variations) work.
The bottom line I think is this - most replica car bodies are a copy of a copy of a copy, not the property of anyone unless they are altered to an extent that there are significant changes that disassociate it from the original. Only then one might be able to copywrite the design and sell licensed copies or receive royalties for the use of them. But then think of this: who can stop someone who alters that design enough to call it their own and copywrite it?
It just goes on and on, which is why there are so many products out there that look, feel, operate the same as the next, from TV's to tires, all variations on a theme.
Chris
It just goes on and on, which is why there are so many products out there that look, feel, operate the same as the next, from TV's to tires, all variations on a theme.
Chris
Yes Chris - accepted, but if you created a set of graphics for a customer, for example, this work then becomes unique to you, no matter if it utilises logos or fonts which were in the public domain, and someone copied it, how would you feel? Especially if you thought you had an agreement to sell further examples of the same work to the same source that copied it? I'm not arguing for one party or the other here, because this practice is so rife in almost all walks of life. It's a question of ethics, morals and fair play, rather than "stealing" someone else's skills, especially when you don't have to.
I accept that in business, you have to be rather ruthless, but frankly, in this small arena, I would have though such practice to be, shall we say, short sighted to say the least...It's not as if there were 10,000 pieces made annually is it? How about just 4? So why do it for these kind of quantities (if indeed it has been done) and what does it say about the people that endulge in this practice? That's the real issue here.
Where would you draw the line? Quite honestly, this forum is just recovering from a bout of nefarious business practices that cost people a lot of money and untold private domestic grief even if they were "toys" . I think it a little early to "trivialise" yet another nefarious business practice just because "everyone else does it". I, for one, am vehemently against such practices, as it has been done to me and it almost cost me a business some years ago- and I'm talking far eastern gentlemen buying single items and then ripping the ass out of the design by changing one small component. If you have the skill to copy - you have the skill to innovate and create.
I would reiterate that I am not rushing to judgement and nor should anyone else before all facts are known. I am making a stand against all blatant "copyists".
A pox on them all.
I accept that in business, you have to be rather ruthless, but frankly, in this small arena, I would have though such practice to be, shall we say, short sighted to say the least...It's not as if there were 10,000 pieces made annually is it? How about just 4? So why do it for these kind of quantities (if indeed it has been done) and what does it say about the people that endulge in this practice? That's the real issue here.
Where would you draw the line? Quite honestly, this forum is just recovering from a bout of nefarious business practices that cost people a lot of money and untold private domestic grief even if they were "toys" . I think it a little early to "trivialise" yet another nefarious business practice just because "everyone else does it". I, for one, am vehemently against such practices, as it has been done to me and it almost cost me a business some years ago- and I'm talking far eastern gentlemen buying single items and then ripping the ass out of the design by changing one small component. If you have the skill to copy - you have the skill to innovate and create.
I would reiterate that I am not rushing to judgement and nor should anyone else before all facts are known. I am making a stand against all blatant "copyists".
A pox on them all.
Hi Chris
that's exactly the point my MK11 rear clip was entirely scratch built by me , not splashed from any other body and not a copy of a copy.
If Mark scratch built a MK11 rear clip then let him show us the difference in shape and dimension, let him post pictures to prove his point. Lets see the plug that he made to show it was not made from my work.
Why is his web site still saying that this was being done in conjunction with Chris Melia? (a totally misleading statement) and from what he has now said in his last post a trading standards issue? Why would Mark want to reinvent the wheel and make a totally new MK 11 rear clip when he was so please with the one's I had made according to his web site?
I offered Mark a retrospective licence to produce as many rear clips a he wanted for £1750
$3000 but he wanted to bluff it out.
Regards
Chris.
that's exactly the point my MK11 rear clip was entirely scratch built by me , not splashed from any other body and not a copy of a copy.
If Mark scratch built a MK11 rear clip then let him show us the difference in shape and dimension, let him post pictures to prove his point. Lets see the plug that he made to show it was not made from my work.
Why is his web site still saying that this was being done in conjunction with Chris Melia? (a totally misleading statement) and from what he has now said in his last post a trading standards issue? Why would Mark want to reinvent the wheel and make a totally new MK 11 rear clip when he was so please with the one's I had made according to his web site?
I offered Mark a retrospective licence to produce as many rear clips a he wanted for £1750
$3000 but he wanted to bluff it out.
Regards
Chris.
Last edited:
Chris M. If I understand this correctly, You shaped out the tail as your interpretation of what a MKII tail should look like and not necessarily an exact copy. So, it's your design. If everyone agreed to that fact at that time, no guestion! ........Yes? No?
The Daytona Coupe I did for Factory Five Racing is my interpertation of what I thought a Daytona Coupe should look like, but I did it for Factory Five Racing, so it's theirs...... you would think! But! They cast a mould off it and changed it a little... very little! so, is it their design now?
It would be nice if you two could work it out. I think we could all benefit from it!
The Daytona Coupe I did for Factory Five Racing is my interpertation of what I thought a Daytona Coupe should look like, but I did it for Factory Five Racing, so it's theirs...... you would think! But! They cast a mould off it and changed it a little... very little! so, is it their design now?
It would be nice if you two could work it out. I think we could all benefit from it!
Well, I would feel like a dummy for not protecting my designs, they are but I don't believe for one second that someone else hasn't taken a copy, "tweaked" the design and called it their own. I don't care if it took 100 hours per design to replicate, they can't claim to be the "victim" when I see they are clearly profiting from not taking the time to at least ask me. If you base your copy of a car from a scale model then does that model company deserve something in return, if they paid for the rights to reproduce that car? Does anyone actually contact the original sources for their products and ask permission before going forward?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating or condoning ripping people off but you have to think long and hard in a business world that for the most part has no ethics, no moral responsibilities and be careful about the decisions you make and accept or deal with them accordingly.
Chris
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating or condoning ripping people off but you have to think long and hard in a business world that for the most part has no ethics, no moral responsibilities and be careful about the decisions you make and accept or deal with them accordingly.
Chris
Chris Melia said:
Well didn’t you do the exact same thing you are accusing MDA of doing? You copied Ford, Shelby or whoever actually designed the original rear clip. Now yes you did make your own molds and didn’t pull molds off of an original, but so what. You still copied someone else’s design. Just because the way you went about making the rear clip was more labor intensive doesn’t change the fact that you still copied someone else’s design. Your splitting hairs, the stance your taking is very hypocritical.
To support who might own the rights to the GT40, I noticed on the Superformance data plate that it say ssomething like " Distributed by Superformance LLC under license from Safir" My words, not exact. It might have said Safir parts, but I am not sure.
Mike
Mike
DBLDREW said:
I was commissioned by Ford and Goodwood to recreate the Le Mans MK11 GT40 cars, to do this I made my own version of the rear clip and as I made it from scratch it became my specific design and unique to me, the agreement was that the moulds and design were my property to do with as I please.
A new design is covered by law but designs created 40 years ago are now outside that time scale.
The new GT40 from Superformance has bought into Safir to obtain continuity of chassis numbering and can be regarded I guess as the Mk 6
I will speak to Ronnie Spain about this point for his opinion.
regards
Chris.
Last edited:
Again your splitting hairs, your “version” was a copy of somebody else’s design.
A new design is protected by law if you patent the design, but considering you copied someone else’s design that is already public domain good luck getting that patent.
I understand you being a little upset but as far as I understand it Ford paid you to make the rear clip. It’s not like MDA paid you to design a clip and then stiffed you.
A new design is protected by law if you patent the design, but considering you copied someone else’s design that is already public domain good luck getting that patent.
I understand you being a little upset but as far as I understand it Ford paid you to make the rear clip. It’s not like MDA paid you to design a clip and then stiffed you.
Please note: MDA GT40 UK Ltd 's official website is www.mdagt40.com and any older websites are just that - very old and very out of date. They have been left active to allow past clients to make the hyper link click to the new website.
To minimize confusion and/or mis-information, the older site(s) will be phased out accordingly.
Chris
To minimize confusion and/or mis-information, the older site(s) will be phased out accordingly.
Chris
Thanks for pointing that out as I was using this link?
This site is nice and in colour.hard to tell the old from the new?
http://www.gt40uk.com/mk2gt40.html
This site is nice and in colour.hard to tell the old from the new?
http://www.gt40uk.com/mk2gt40.html
Fran - your silence speaks volumes - you are the one who started this thread.
Chris
Chris
Chris...
sorry I have been a little busy..
shipped two cars today with two more almost ready to ship back to the UK....
My comment was just an observation as I said initially...I was under the impression that MDA and Chris were working togther on the MkII bodies.....shows what I know .....I am sure it will work itself out.
Our community is too small for this kind of situation to continue for too long.
sorry I have been a little busy..
shipped two cars today with two more almost ready to ship back to the UK....
My comment was just an observation as I said initially...I was under the impression that MDA and Chris were working togther on the MkII bodies.....shows what I know .....I am sure it will work itself out.
Our community is too small for this kind of situation to continue for too long.
Chris Melia said:
Hi Chris,
My work with UK IP law, and related law passed by the World Intellectual Property Organization, has led me to the clear conclusion that US and UK IP law are essentially the same in scope, content and application. I have many years of international IP practice as an attorney, including UK. Perhaps you can give a little background on your knowledge base in this area.
1. What experience have you had that would lead to you believe UK IP law is materially different?
2. More importantly, why would you conclude that this falls subject to UK IP law in the first place? There is a highly complex jurisdictional analysis here which is independent of choice of law. Not sure if you're aware of the nuances here to be blunt. So, I respectfully disagree with your simplistic conclusion.
Cliff
Guys,
As an impartial observer. I reiterate Pete's earlier sentiments. Only the lawyers are going to win out here. What is the amount in question? 1750 pounds sterling? And you guys are throwing it over to the lawyers? Lawyers just love guys that get enmeshed over principles!
As I understand it Chris thinks Mark is benefitting from his work and wants recompense. Mark thinks Chris has no claim and is prepared to fight it. Both parties are seeking legal advice.
How much are the lawyers bills likely to be for both parties before all this is resolved? I bet the 1750 will pale into insignificance.
Since both parties appear to be committed to the expense of this escalation, why not save yourselves some money and agree to settle for half the amount. That is Mark pays Chris 875 which no doubt he thinks is outrageous and unjustified. And Chris accepts 875 less than he wanted and will also no doubt feel shafted. But not as much as they will be by the lawyers once they get started!!
And as is frequently the case in most sorts of diputes where the opposing parties present two versions of the "facts", in reality the truth is somewhere in between.....
That's my 2 cents. Settle it now at minmal cost to either side before it escalates.
And keep the GT40 community the relatively peaceful association of pooled interest that it is.
Regards
As an impartial observer. I reiterate Pete's earlier sentiments. Only the lawyers are going to win out here. What is the amount in question? 1750 pounds sterling? And you guys are throwing it over to the lawyers? Lawyers just love guys that get enmeshed over principles!
As I understand it Chris thinks Mark is benefitting from his work and wants recompense. Mark thinks Chris has no claim and is prepared to fight it. Both parties are seeking legal advice.
How much are the lawyers bills likely to be for both parties before all this is resolved? I bet the 1750 will pale into insignificance.
Since both parties appear to be committed to the expense of this escalation, why not save yourselves some money and agree to settle for half the amount. That is Mark pays Chris 875 which no doubt he thinks is outrageous and unjustified. And Chris accepts 875 less than he wanted and will also no doubt feel shafted. But not as much as they will be by the lawyers once they get started!!
And as is frequently the case in most sorts of diputes where the opposing parties present two versions of the "facts", in reality the truth is somewhere in between.....
That's my 2 cents. Settle it now at minmal cost to either side before it escalates.
And keep the GT40 community the relatively peaceful association of pooled interest that it is.
Regards
Last edited:
Jokes on lawyers
A gang of robbers broke into a lawyer's club by mistake. The old legal lions gave them a fight for their life and their money. The gang was very happy to escape.
"It ain't so bad," one crook noted. "We got $25 between us."
The boss screamed: "I warned you to stay clear of lawyers -- we had $100 when we broke in!"
Best,
Marcus
A gang of robbers broke into a lawyer's club by mistake. The old legal lions gave them a fight for their life and their money. The gang was very happy to escape.
"It ain't so bad," one crook noted. "We got $25 between us."
The boss screamed: "I warned you to stay clear of lawyers -- we had $100 when we broke in!"
Best,
Marcus
