insulted by a kit car

Why do so many people think they know the reason others build kitcars? You want to know why I do it? I'll save you the trouble of asking.

Because I like the challenge of it. Any repair you do on a car is basically taking something off and putting something back on. Build a replica, even a good kit, and you will be figuring out how to do things, fabricating your own parts, building something that did not exist before you put it together. It is a huge challenge and incredibly rewarding. I want to experience building a car, so why not build one that I really like the look of?

Not a chance. How could I possibly feel humiliated for producing something that very few people have the skill to do? I have never had anyone look at one of my replicas and make fun of it; if they did it would be saying more about them than me.

I honestly feel sorry for car enthusiasts that put down replicas. There is so much to it that you are not understanding. It is another branch of the car hobby.

I have a Ferrari in the garage with a partially completed replica beside it. They can exist together.

 

I get the whole "I want to build a car with my own hands" stuff. What I don't get is why people put Ferrari emblems and horses on their kit cars. The only possible reason is so they can pretend they have a real Ferrari and impress or fool people that don't know the difference.

 

I would say he modified his car rather than he turned it "...into a kit car." Not for me, but if he likes it, okay. A Lotus 7 is a kit car, and still retains its own identity, and same for the Caterham 7s still sold today.

Re-bodying a car to resemble another car makes no sense to me on any level. But then, neither does opera, and lots of people like that, too. Live and let live.

 

Please. "The challenge of it?"

There is absolutely no difference between building a replica and being a wannabe artist on the street painting a copy of the Mona Lisa.

I don't give a rats about the "challenge" or the "art" of it. It's being a copycat to someone else. A wannabe with no creativity to do something on their own merit. Spare me and the rest of the world. I'll have the real thing.

 

C'mon. You know what the point was. Identity theft is far more than mimic of "style".

Were they actually calling themselves Jennifer Anniston or Madonna?

Ditto, above.

Are you saying that unless one is wearing the absolute FIRST shirt ever made, it's an imitation? Pretty big leap, IMO. You can be sure, however, any labels found in/on any product I own were put there by the manufacturer.

We agree and disagree, sort of...

 

Building something original would require creativity and ingenuity or in other words, real talent. It would mean the design would have to stand on it's own merit and not ride the coattails of a prestigious brand name. That's just way too much work for the replica/kitcar crowd, and without the Ferrari horse on it there is just no fooling people that it's a real Ferrari.

 

What I'm saying is putting a brand on it doesn't mean it's the original. Does that mean buying a recreation (car) is o.k. as long as there's no horse on it? If yes then ok. AFAIK Becks come with Beck logos not Porsche logos. If no, then you need to extend your point of view to your entire world not just your love of Ferrari.

No, not the first shirt, but if you for example started to buy skinny ties over wide ties and the said tie is not couture; it's a copy. You may say your tie was "inspired" to defend your position, but the design house that originally put it on the runway would be arguing your point back to you. Most of the time they don't bother because it's too expensive and tedious to enforce.

Ralph Lauren got sued for infringement a few years back by ADIDAS. Guess what? Ralph lost the case. If you wore or bought the offending collection you were contributing to the theft of ideas. That it said Ralph Lauren on the label was not a defense. It's one example, there are endless more.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

No, those people weren't saying they were Jennifer or Madonna but they were steeling ideas and they knew it. Did the hair stylest who created that cut for Aniston get paid for each hair cut that others copied? No. That's no different then downloading a song or movie (without paying for it) when you think about it. That is the same theft by your own example. If you're against kit cars then you must be against 99% of clothing brands too. Slapping a label on something does not make it legitimate. Runway is where it all starts. Anything down stream is in fact a copy. If you buy it or wear it, your a poser too. Just food for thought.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

What about sampling in music by artists? Sting won/gets 2k a day from the unapproved sampling of Every Breath You Take by Pdiddy. Is that ok because Diddy put his label on it? Theft of ideas is everywhere.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

Ask Apple what they think of the Samsung Galaxy.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

Ask any drug company what they think about generic drugs.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

Have you ever owned any shoe with an air bag that was not a Nike? That would be posing too.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

How about back to watches? Seiko, Timex, Casio, Invicta, etc all copy Rolex identically. The Rolex Prsident and submariner are probably the most copied watches on Earth. What's the difference between wearing one of those and owning/ building a reproduction car?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

A hair style cannot be copyrighted. It's the courts that decide what is allowed and what is not. Theft is everywhere and some people think it's ok to steal. What's your point? If an issue arises it can be decided in court as to the legality. The runway means nothing, a copyright or trademark infringement could start anywhere.

 

Actually its the FDA and its equivalent in other countries. Simply put, there are no generics while on patent. Off patent some companies actually sell branded drug to generics. Still they don't sell it as brand name. Tht would be counterfeit medication, that is illegal and enforced. Not the best example. Nike sneakers are better example or fake Rolex.

 

Tell people its a fake. That laughing from others and lack of credibility that arises is the same. There is no difference. Wannabe = wannabe.

You do know customs intercepts fakes and they steamroll over them every year?

 

It all comes down to whether their designs are protected by patent, trademark or copyright. If they have the rights to a particular feature they have the right to defend it. No one owns the rights to a time telling devise held onto your arm with a band. That is why anyone can legally make a wrist watch. Now put a protected trademark such as the Rolex name and logo on a fake and you are indeed stealing. This should be quite easy to understand.

 

At the end of the day, perhaps my resistance to kit/replica/tribute, or any other adjective one chooses to use other than FAUX, is the fact is simply is NOT what it "appears" to be. A Ferrari with all identifying hardware removed is STILL a Ferrari.

On the other hand, if it didn't start life as a Ferrari it will never be a Ferrari. This is a constant, regardless if the subject is Ferrari, Porsche, Corvair or Volkswagen. It is what it is. No amount of badges or lack thereof changes that.

I've often marveled at the effort some builders put into their creations. One can only wonder why TOTALLY unique self fabrication doesn't appear more often.

Without throwing stones, it seems, like the "music" industry, it's far easier to cover someone else's work. Let others do the heavy lifting.

 

The design patent (if there even was one) on a 63 gto is long expired. Therefore a vintage reproduction is not "fake" by your own retort in the legal sense.

It can't cut one way. The drug companies didn't want their patents to expire. The law says they must. Nike didn't want their utility patent to expire either. It nonetheless has indeed expired. The point is if you consume these copies your actually being the same poser that everyone is chastising here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

The hair stylests design has been robbed in the same sense as many here are arguing for Ferrari. If your wife or girlfriend copied it; She stole an idea.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

As far as I know there is no design patent on any Ferrari. What Ferrari prosecutes is the sale and advertising of the Ferrari name and logo. So, if the GTO reproduction does not have the horse on it; then it's ok? I don't get the sense in this thread that most here agree with that. They have said it's theft through and through.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

Hunh?

Uhhhh No. Building a replica 63 gto and saying it is real is fraud. ESP. If you try to sell it as such.

Patents expire. That's not being debated. Representing a product by putting a trademarked name on it for what it's not is. Invicta makes a chronograph tat looks very similar to a Rolex. Thing is, its not labelled as a Rolex.

If you put a Merck name on the box, or "Lipitor".. It's counterfeit and illegal no matter what the bioequivalence. Not a good metaphor.

 

I know that. The point is that the "designer" of the drugs don't want the patents to expire. When they do any company can duplicate that drug and sell it for a fraction. What's the difference in that vs a reproduction 63 GTO?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

These replicas all have a ferrari logo on them. Many have them on the glovebox and seat headrests, AND wheels and shifter. If "the customer" dindt put the cavallino on car... This wouldn't have been as big an issue.

 

You are ignoring the fact that the Ferrari trademark has not expired and someone applying it to a fake is unlawful. Patents are put in place to allow the inventor time to benefit from their own design. Some things are not granted a patented because they are not original enough or are an obvious progression or use of an existing design or technology with no real ingenuity worthy of compensation. Copyrights and trademarks are very different.