Close
The Graphics List
Re: Intellectual property rights question
Michael,
I think you've realised that the automobile industry have design leaders, who set the pace, and also-rans who try to play catch up. Typically, the concept cars that feature at the big motor industry exhibitions ( I was going to use the word shows but look what comes next) show elements of the design trends that are developing in the major car design studios. Manufacturers use these events, together with good old spycraft, to try to second-guess their commercial rivals so that when they either face-lift their current range or bring out new models, they are not significantly out of step with design thinking and no other manufacturer has a significant styling advantage. Just now the vogue seems to be to give cars massive front grilles. Once upon a time, everyone was giving their cars tail fins. Some manufacturers don't play this sort of game e.g. Renault and Citroen. The latter have always had highly individualistic car designs. Renault, these days,
seems to be going down the same route.
But to try to answer your question - in the UK the basic protection is via the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of Parliament. The actual appearance of the car reflects the artistic endeavours of one or more people - and has the protection of copyright. Technical elements of the physical entity which may be genuine innovations, such as new door locking mechanisms with special features e.g anti-burst locks, key-less locks etc, may be protected by patented designs.
But, the advantages enjoyed by holders of copyright and patented designs, although technically available for x years, can quickly be superseded by "improved" designs. This was the process typically used by the Japanese when they targeted key industrial sectors during their post-war renaissance. The Japanese looked at what we were doing, took our stuff apart, improved the products and the techniques used to make them and before we knew what had hit us, we were presented with Honda 50 and 90 commuter motorcycles and even bigger bikes with fast-revving four-stroke engines and we simply didn't have the wit to realise what was happening to us and just lay down and let them take over our markets. And so it was with watches and cameras and ultimately cars too. As soon as a new car comes out, competitors are stripping it down to see what they can learn and how they can do the same or better.
Only blatant, near-perfect copies would be actionable. I'm reminded of one of the classic cases.
"Some early tractors, like the Fordson, had a disturbing tendency when the plough they were pulling hit a large enough rock, the plough would stop, and the tractor would try to keep going. Many tractors would pivot on the drive wheels, flip over and often kill the driver. The British government ordered tractor manufacturer Harry Ferguson to cure the problem.
Ferguson came up with the idea of mounting the plough both low on the drawbar and up higher in a triangle arrangement. If the plough hit a rock underground, the increased force would transfer onto the upper link point. That would force the front of the tractor down rather than up.
He took the idea one step further, adding a hydraulic mechanism to easily raise and lower the implements and automatically control the depth of the plough. He built a few of the tractors in England in partnership with the David Brown company, but sales never took off.
Then, in 1938, Ferguson demonstrated his tractor to Henry Ford on Ford's Fairlane estate farm. Ford was so impressed that the two men quickly worked out a partnership deal and shook hands on it. They never wrote out a contract, but Ford was back in the tractor business.
Within months, the Ford tractor with the Ferguson hitch system was at dealers. It was a small tractor that out-plowed machines weighing far more. The hydraulic system made control of the implements precise and easy. The tractor had a four-cylinder vertical engine that produced 17 hp on the drawbar and 23.5 horsepower on the belt in Nebraska tests.
The tractor sold for $600, a full $100 more than the Allis-Chalmers "B" or the IH Farmall "A." But Ford claimed their tractor could do more work. By 1942, the Ford-Ferguson had captured 20 percent of the tractor market, compared with IH's 40 percent. By that year, there were 100,000 Ford-Fergusons in the field.
Ferguson wanted to increase production to a million tractors a year. But by the mid-1940s Ford's tolerance of the handshake deal was growing thin. A questionable accounting study claimed that Ford was losing money on the deal, and so the company announced that another company was going to take over sales of the new Ford 8N tractor that, by the way, had a very similar three-point hitch system. Ferguson sued for patent infringement and, after years in court, eventually settled for $9.25 million.
In the meantime, Ferguson set up his own manufacturing operation, and Ferguson tractors began appearing in American fields. But the protracted legal battle had opened up the three-point hitch patents to exploitation by other manufacturers. By 1953, Harry Ferguson was aging and suffering from bouts of depression. So he merged his company with Massey-Harris. The new Massey-Ferguson company became a major player in the tractor market of the late 20th Century." See www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_0204..html
That's capitalism folks!
RegV
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Brady <jbrady-AT-email.unc.edu>
To: The Graphics List <graphics-AT-lists.graphicslist.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 August, 2007 2:32:30 PM
Subject: Intellectual property rights question
What kind of legal protection can be applied to the visual appearance
of automobiles? Is the "look" of a Taurus or Camry or Corvette
protected by some kind of copyright or trademark? How much can
another manufacturer crib or imitate the appearance of car? I
remember a famous series of Ford TVCs in the 80s in which the sales
pitch was that the small Ford looked so much like a Mercedes it
fooled people (cue scene where person walks up to the Ford parked
next to the Mercedes).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
www.michaelbradydesign.com
----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
I think you've realised that the automobile industry have design leaders, who set the pace, and also-rans who try to play catch up. Typically, the concept cars that feature at the big motor industry exhibitions ( I was going to use the word shows but look what comes next) show elements of the design trends that are developing in the major car design studios. Manufacturers use these events, together with good old spycraft, to try to second-guess their commercial rivals so that when they either face-lift their current range or bring out new models, they are not significantly out of step with design thinking and no other manufacturer has a significant styling advantage. Just now the vogue seems to be to give cars massive front grilles. Once upon a time, everyone was giving their cars tail fins. Some manufacturers don't play this sort of game e.g. Renault and Citroen. The latter have always had highly individualistic car designs. Renault, these days,
seems to be going down the same route.
But to try to answer your question - in the UK the basic protection is via the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of Parliament. The actual appearance of the car reflects the artistic endeavours of one or more people - and has the protection of copyright. Technical elements of the physical entity which may be genuine innovations, such as new door locking mechanisms with special features e.g anti-burst locks, key-less locks etc, may be protected by patented designs.
But, the advantages enjoyed by holders of copyright and patented designs, although technically available for x years, can quickly be superseded by "improved" designs. This was the process typically used by the Japanese when they targeted key industrial sectors during their post-war renaissance. The Japanese looked at what we were doing, took our stuff apart, improved the products and the techniques used to make them and before we knew what had hit us, we were presented with Honda 50 and 90 commuter motorcycles and even bigger bikes with fast-revving four-stroke engines and we simply didn't have the wit to realise what was happening to us and just lay down and let them take over our markets. And so it was with watches and cameras and ultimately cars too. As soon as a new car comes out, competitors are stripping it down to see what they can learn and how they can do the same or better.
Only blatant, near-perfect copies would be actionable. I'm reminded of one of the classic cases.
"Some early tractors, like the Fordson, had a disturbing tendency when the plough they were pulling hit a large enough rock, the plough would stop, and the tractor would try to keep going. Many tractors would pivot on the drive wheels, flip over and often kill the driver. The British government ordered tractor manufacturer Harry Ferguson to cure the problem.
Ferguson came up with the idea of mounting the plough both low on the drawbar and up higher in a triangle arrangement. If the plough hit a rock underground, the increased force would transfer onto the upper link point. That would force the front of the tractor down rather than up.
He took the idea one step further, adding a hydraulic mechanism to easily raise and lower the implements and automatically control the depth of the plough. He built a few of the tractors in England in partnership with the David Brown company, but sales never took off.
Then, in 1938, Ferguson demonstrated his tractor to Henry Ford on Ford's Fairlane estate farm. Ford was so impressed that the two men quickly worked out a partnership deal and shook hands on it. They never wrote out a contract, but Ford was back in the tractor business.
Within months, the Ford tractor with the Ferguson hitch system was at dealers. It was a small tractor that out-plowed machines weighing far more. The hydraulic system made control of the implements precise and easy. The tractor had a four-cylinder vertical engine that produced 17 hp on the drawbar and 23.5 horsepower on the belt in Nebraska tests.
The tractor sold for $600, a full $100 more than the Allis-Chalmers "B" or the IH Farmall "A." But Ford claimed their tractor could do more work. By 1942, the Ford-Ferguson had captured 20 percent of the tractor market, compared with IH's 40 percent. By that year, there were 100,000 Ford-Fergusons in the field.
Ferguson wanted to increase production to a million tractors a year. But by the mid-1940s Ford's tolerance of the handshake deal was growing thin. A questionable accounting study claimed that Ford was losing money on the deal, and so the company announced that another company was going to take over sales of the new Ford 8N tractor that, by the way, had a very similar three-point hitch system. Ferguson sued for patent infringement and, after years in court, eventually settled for $9.25 million.
In the meantime, Ferguson set up his own manufacturing operation, and Ferguson tractors began appearing in American fields. But the protracted legal battle had opened up the three-point hitch patents to exploitation by other manufacturers. By 1953, Harry Ferguson was aging and suffering from bouts of depression. So he merged his company with Massey-Harris. The new Massey-Ferguson company became a major player in the tractor market of the late 20th Century." See www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_0204..html
That's capitalism folks!
RegV
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Brady <jbrady-AT-email.unc.edu>
To: The Graphics List <graphics-AT-lists.graphicslist.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 August, 2007 2:32:30 PM
Subject: Intellectual property rights question
What kind of legal protection can be applied to the visual appearance
of automobiles? Is the "look" of a Taurus or Camry or Corvette
protected by some kind of copyright or trademark? How much can
another manufacturer crib or imitate the appearance of car? I
remember a famous series of Ford TVCs in the 80s in which the sales
pitch was that the small Ford looked so much like a Mercedes it
fooled people (cue scene where person walks up to the Ford parked
next to the Mercedes).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
www.michaelbradydesign.com
----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
Previous message in thread
Thread
Intellectual property rights question / Michael Brady / 07 Aug 2007
Re: Intellectual property rights question / "Caustic Castle" <kenny-AT-804noise.org> / 07 Aug 2007
RE: Intellectual property rights question / "Pat Harrell" <pharrell-AT-engr.uga.edu> / 07 Aug 2007
• Re: Intellectual property rights question / Reginald Vernon <regvernon-AT-yahoo.co.uk> / 08 Aug 2007
List Archives