Ferrari P4/5 all scale model

I had wondered about that also. Why pay, when you don't have to. If I had to guess I would think that its easier to work out a deal thats beneficial to both parties when you are a big company like Hot Wheels, then it is to get sued. Just because Ferrari CAN sue someone, does not mean they will win. But it does mean you have to answer that lawsuit. Less headache is easier for a big company. For a small model company who might make 200-300 replicas its different. But with Ferrari, since they do grant licsensing, its actually beneficial for a small comapny to say the are "official" products. But thats just a courtesy, its not required. And the advertising aspect is another matter too. The maker of the scupture can use the words to describe the item but might not be able to use logo's in there advertising without licsensing.

I also do not think HW pay very much. We will never know as HW is not gonna say. They might even imply its alot as they would not like everyone jumping in. And if they do pay lots in royalties its only because they made a tremendous amount more.

I remember doing research into this years ago so I wouldn't get in any trouble with my miniatures.

The best thing to do if anyone is considerting making a model is contact a good Patent Attorney. It will not be very expensive to get all the info and is well worth every penny.

Also, when a company gets licsencing for THERE model car, it does not prevent another company for creating there own model car. What can't be done is making a direct COPY of ANOTHER creation. In other words, I can not cast a copy of a hot wheels and sell it. So HW does not own the right to a specific vehicle, regardless of what they say. They might want you to think that. They own the right to there OWN creations. Anyone can make there own scuptures of the same cars if they want. But what could make this one problematic and I don't know if this would apply is if HW makes an 18th scale car of car X. And someone else does car X in the same scale. They both look very very similar. HW could say the car was copied, even if it wasn't.

The trademarks/copywrites/patents all cover different things.

Making a model sculpture is not copying there design as its not a functioning car. If I was a real auto maker, and competing with them, than it would be. It is limited. It does not cover artforms, miniatures, sculpture or photography.

 

You have the right to say what you want. And Ferrari has the right to sue. Anyone can sue anyone. But according to everything I'm hearong they will not win. In fact, it would probably get thrown out. And they could be subject to a countersuit if the maker of the sculpture loses wages as he is legally making his own product. The proof of lost wages/profits has much to do with this.

I am trying to get the actual laws and will post them up.

 

Well, over here in Holland, Ferrari sued a toy manufacturer because they built miniatures of the F50 and the Enzo, which DIDN´T feature any logo or any reference to Ferrari, other than that this particular model had a resemblance to mentioned Ferrari types. So in this case, it was all about the proportyrights of the particular design and Ferrari won.

 

This is a great thread. As a photojournalist my wholelife I'de like to add a few points as I have come to understand them over the years. Actually, it gets much more complicated about selling the photos. It depends on how and to who (whom?) you sell them. I can sell pics to a magazine or publication , ( as I have done many times) but I could not for instance make posters or t-shirts. This is a completely different category of product. Editorial use states free gain, thus if I saw Nicole Kidman with her boob falling out in public I could sell it to magazines.
What bothers me is having hundreds of thousands of photos of Ferrari's over the years at speed etc. and with permission of the owner, I would like to be able to sell T-shirts or posters. I believe this to be my artistic interpretation of the subject, but my understanding is that I still can't sell them without Ferrari's permission. It seems unfair, because painters do it all the time with lithographs of originals. And by the way major magazines reguarly sell posters of shots of cars in their mags.

 

so say this guy wants to sell his car, OR make 2 more and sell them maybe ONLY cause someone asked him?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5721579124059513186

could he?

and is it wrong to sell (ready to drive) kit cars?

and one more.....why when ppl sell kit cars like this one....they blur the logos?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1962-250-GTO-LIMITED-PRODUCTION-RECREATION_W0QQitemZ160035403415QQihZ006QQcategoryZ7251QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I know they are not fully up to a real ferrari...but what if It was just as fast?

like this Lambo looks real from a far....but what if it handled better and was faster then the real deal....BUT cheaper....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2006-Lamborghini-Murcielago-kit-car-Fiero-conversion_W0QQitemZ140036981283QQihZ004QQcategoryZ7251QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Please no discussions about replicas in here. FChat has a dedicated thread for replicas here:
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19010

Now back to the P4/5 discussion.

 

very well.

so who sells this model? I didnt see...
(ether kit or pre-built)?

 

Quick question for you - who makes the Cizeta spyder kit? I had one custom built from a coupe, but would like to research if there is an existing kit for the spydr.

Also, I have that Jiotto Caspita - just looking for the silver one!

 

I'm going to pipe in for just one sec about licensing - every country is different, with (according to my knowledge) some European countries have IP laws that allow production under a specific number.

However, in the U.S. this is not the case, and some foreign law doesn't trump where a model is made or sold.

I should know, I license and produce 1/400 aircraft models. It's a PITA, and it ain't cheap either.

 

I belive James to be quite correct in his statement, certainly for most Western countries. It is also not so much the law, as it is how far the the entity that is being copied will allow you to go. Ferrari may not want to deal with a model maker producing a handful of kits, but when it comes to numbers, they want the control to make sure that the quality is representative of their name. I own molds to reproduce a 1/1 scale very special Ferrari of which only 5 exist today, and I had to sign a waiver that I would not reproduce the car for profit, nor would I ever call the parts authentic Ferrari. I can make one car and a some spare body parts, that's it.

 

WOW, which car? 288 GTO Evo, that is the only one off the top of my head that is only 5 made.

 

Yes.

 

WOW, that is one of my all time favorite cars. I can only imagine what you went through to get that. Congrats!

 

These are not the original molds, Michelotto likely still has those. These cost a small fortune, but when Ferrari shut down the operation, they sat in a warehouse, and I just happen to come along at the right time.

One of my all time favorite Ferraris.

 

Please, oh please say 1/12 scale Tamiya. That would be soooooo cool.

 

ABC has license, and i believe Ilario has license as well.

 

Ilario has a license since 2005 according to his site.

 

This is meant in a serious tone.

How is a poster defined differently than a large photograph? You can surely sell your photo in any size or any paper, and I do not see how selling a poster size photo on poster like paper would be any different than selling a photo on normal photo paper. Can you explain this for me?



Very interesting thread, I had never really thought of all of these things. I'm really seeing both ends of the spectrum, and the only major difference I can see is that the designer owns his design. Though this may seem as though the car company owns it, did the person creating the model not design (though very similar to the original design) his own interpretation of it? Every logo, every curve, every detail will be altered, and therefore it is his own design, not Ferrari's nor Pininfarina's nor anyone else's even if it has 'their logo" it is solely an interpretation.

I can only see a photo being more of an exact interpretation of an original design since it takes the design (relatively) exactly. So how is a model that is relatively different than the full scale car charged more highly than a set of photographs or videos that are, to the closest possible interpretation of the time, perfect?

Peter Hatch

 

Yes I made a small number of models for myself and for others, but they were cars of companies that no longer existed, and the technical information was public domain material.

 

As far as I am aware, yes....but you can do a "one-off" for yourself...

 

Doesn't someone who makes a trans-kit need some sort of agreement with the actual kit maker?

 

Or just think of some of the artists on here. Would -for instance- Carsten (Bugattiart) violate Ferrari's copyrights in anyway when he sells his drawings? I mean, they almost are photographic. That would make no sense. In that case, Carsten would have a disadvantage in relation to any other artist, who nearly isn't as capable as Carsten in capturing the design of the actual Ferrari on paper. Surely, the latter would have a harder time getting his drawings sold, but it would strike me as odd when the quality of the drawing and the craft of the artist would be a the keyfactor in determining whether or not a copyright in any sort is violated when selling a drawing.

 

I tend to say no. A transkit only adds to the original design, it doesn't take anything away from it. If you buy a Ferrari (or any car) you are free to add all sorts of bodykits, and I don't believe the manufacturer of a bodykit, needs the consent of the builder of the actual car, nor does the person who installs the kit, since there is no actual infringment of the intellectual copyrights.