Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Cheshirechappie":1qug2vun said:
I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.

Not that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of sources.... and noting that reproduction of a partial listing falls under "fair use" provisions of copyright legislation, I submit the following excerpt:

Legal issues

It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Mickey Mouse character is only copyrighted. In fact, the character, like all major Disney characters, is also trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization.

Because of the Copyright Term Extension Act of the United States (sometimes called the 'Mickey Mouse Protection Act' because of extensive lobbying by the Disney corporation) and similar legislation within the European Union and other jurisdictions where copyright terms have been extended, works such as the early Mickey Mouse cartoons will remain under copyright until at least 2023. However, some copyright scholars argue that Disney's copyright on the earliest version of the character may be invalid due to ambiguity in the copyright notice for Steamboat Willie.[65]

The Walt Disney Company has become well known for protecting its trademark on the Mickey Mouse character, whose likeness is closely associated with the company, with particular zeal. In 1989, Disney threatened legal action against three daycare centers in Florida for having Mickey Mouse and other Disney characters painted on their walls. The characters were removed, and rival Universal Studios replaced them with Universal cartoon characters.[66]

Cheers -

Rob
 
CC, I think they have to buy the rights from Disney and make under license (could be wrong). For the creative industries it seems the work is viewed as truly unique. An interesting example.

"Oddly enough, the most popular Bowie creation of late has been Bowie Bonds, financial securities the artist himself backed with royalties from his pre-1990 work. Bowie issued the bonds in 1997 and earned $55 million from the sale. The rights to his back catalog were returned to him when the bonds matured in 2007."

And just today the ruling against Pharell Williams & Robin Thicke shows how even when someone passes what they created can still be unique and a commodity. Best thing about that headline was finding Mr Gayes original "Got to give it up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM&t=100.

However, I still feel that "if" patent laws were respected, even as a gents agreement, 20 years should be a fair period for manufactured goods before copying or very similar versions become available.

Very interesting and some of the attitudes to the similar sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQyl1hcB1mA
 
The first car I owned was a Morris Ital (anybody remember those?). That was a bit Mickey Mouse.....wouldn't accelerate, wouldn't brake, wouldn't go round corners. Never let me down, though.
 
Blimey - even a suggestion that 'Stairway to Heaven' might have been a rip-off!

Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....
 
Cheshirechappie":3m3267bb said:
I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.


Bit worried Disney might sue me for a repair I did today, mind you the thing was Donald Ducked
 
Rob Lee":38vb6nmx said:
Jacob":38vb6nmx said:
(snip)
So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. (snip)

Sorry Jacob - your bread analogy falls flat - and is not really representative of the typical examples being discussed here...

Try making your arguments using Mickey Mouse as an example...

Why should Disney lose exclusive rights to Mickey? (for the record, I don't believe they should) How would that benefit society? .........
Disney makes a better (or more profitable) class of cartoon - others follow. Disney doesn't have any monopoly over mice or mouse cartoon characters but he does have the trade mark - and you have the Veritas trademark. Same sorta thing pretty well!
 
Jacob":1utirb6k said:
Disney doesn't have any monopoly over mice or mouse cartoon characters but he does have the trade mark

One hates (*) to bring fact to an internet thread, but:

Mickey Mouse is mainly protected by copyright, although Disney have a trademark in the character too.

BugBear

(*) I lied
 
There must still be some commercial protection of innovative products as I have been quite amazed that there hasn't been a plethora of Festool Domino copies (especially taking into account the price point of the original). The original machine was released on 30th March 2007 almost 8 years ago.

By this I mean, after the Lamello Biscuit Jointer (handheld version was first released in 1968) was copied by just about every other tool manufacturer after a few years. The only one that made any changes/improvements were Porter Cable who also offered a smaller cutter and minute biscuits especially for making picture frames, but it was still essentially the same machine.
 
There are still protections in place Ed. They aren't perfect as the existence of patent and trademark law as a very brisk specialty probably proves.

One thing is for sure - if one doesn't bother to apply for the various protection(s), or the product cannot be patented for whatever reason, then you aren't going to have any protection.
 
Rob Lee":2wvnebws said:
Hi -

Yes - I believe it is fair to use ideas or products that have been "discarded" by others.
Rob

Example: looks like to me a straight copy of the Stanley 702 aluminium clamp on vice.
http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41665&ap=1
60f0601s4.jpg

Stanley aluminium 702 vice box .JPG


Rob Lee":2wvnebws said:
Hi -
...
I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).
...
Rob
(headed back to the sidelines)

Does that apply when it's a copy of a copy? What if another company makes another copy of the Stanley 702 vice?

Seems to me some people are saying it's OK to copy something that's no longer being produced but only if you're the first to do it.
 

Attachments

  • Stanley aluminium 702 vice box .JPG
    Stanley aluminium 702 vice box .JPG
    111.8 KB
Lie Nielson makes copies of the Preston/Record shoulder planes, do they complain about Clifton or Woodriver making them?
 
CStanford":2zt6einy said:
Could have been cast right off the original... =D>
They haven't even put brass knobs on it!
Wait til you see the Malcolm Clough-Duck MkII :?
 
Wonder where the Stanley knock-off vice is made.... wouldn't it be the most ironic thing if it were some Asian country?
 
Cheshirechappie":213om1jx said:
Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....

Wasn't the Ital itself a copy of the Morris Marina? Good old BL - so confused they even copied their own products!

They were also produced in China in the late nineties under the Huandu brand, so even that design icon didn't escape homage.
 
matthewwh":7n7xvsa7 said:
Cheshirechappie":7n7xvsa7 said:
Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....

Wasn't the Ital itself a copy of the Morris Marina? Good old BL - so confused they even copied their own products!

They were also produced in China in the late nineties under the Huandu brand, so even that design icon didn't escape homage.

Indeed so! From Wikipedia;

"After UK production ceased, the Ital's production tooling was sold to the Chengdu Auto Works, a company belonging to the First Auto Works Group in Sichuan province, China. In 1998, the Ital estate (utilising a locally-made chassis) reappeared there, under the name Huandu CAC6430. Van and pick-up variants were also produced. Chengdu Auto Works is thought to have closed down in May 1999."

:shock: - that didn't last long, did it! Even the Chinese wouldn't buy their own knock-offs! :lol:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top