View Single Post
Old 26th October 2021, 12:09
NeilF355 NeilF355 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Teesdale
Posts: 230
NeilF355 is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by rossnzwpi View Post
Forced to close because Ferrari sent a legal team after him for breach of copyright and damage to their brand.

I believe that this “breach of copyright” claim re the shape of the car is not tenable.

As you say Ferrari already tried this approach against Ares and it failed, even after they had the 250 GTO declared a “work of art” by a court in Bologna in an attempt to get the “work of art” copyright protection which, being the life of the artist plus 70 years after their death, is considerably longer than the normal protection enjoyed by an industrial design.

Jaguar Land Rover have used the same submission in their case in the Swedish court against a couple's C Type replica see

The heart of this approach is that the cars are “works of art” (which does suggest that both companies are well aware that their normal copyright protection on these vehicles expired decades ago).

I refer to a case brought in the UK which makes a ruling on the nature of “works of art” which is contrary to Ferrari and JLR’s claims.

This concerned litigation brought by Lucasfilms against a manufacturer in the UK of replica Starwars Stormtrooper Helmets claiming that the helmet was a “sculpture” and therefore protected by the copyright laws covering artistic works. The trial judge ruled against Lucasfilms on the basis that the helmet was a movie prop and was not “created by the hand of an artist, for artistic purposes” (see

To support his decision the trial judge gave the following example (para118 part viii)
“A pile of bricks, temporarily on display at the Tate Modern for 2 weeks, is plainly capable of being a sculpture. The identical pile of bricks dumped at the end of my driveway for 2 weeks preparatory to a building project is equally plainly not. One asks why there is that difference, and the answer lies, in my view, in having regard to its purpose. One is created by the hand of an artist, for artistic purposes, and the other is created by a builder, for building purposes”

This decision was upheld in the appeal court (
and by the supreme court in the UK (

It is my view that this judgement applies to the vehicles manufactured by Ferrari and by JLR as they "lack artistic purpose" and are created as Cars and not “Works of art”.

As for “damage to their brand” which is more damaging?
this replica
or this original Ferrari Dino with just 14000 miles on the clock

Last edited by NeilF355; 26th October 2021 at 12:30..
Reply With Quote