Copyright Insanity? 300 SL destroyed

What do you guys think of this? I personaly think it's an INSANE position to take for a 60 year old car.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/23/daimler-crushes-unauthorized-mercedes-benz-300-sl-body/

Unlawful replica of a Mercedes-Benz 300 SL destroyed

Daimler AG takes a firm line on vehicle replicas

Stuttgart – Mercedes-Benz Classic has destroyed the replica body of a Mercedes-Benz 300 SL. The courts have ruled that it is not legal to market the body, which was seized by German customs officials.

The body shape of the legendary gullwing model has been trademarked by Daimler AG. Anyone building, offering or selling replicas of the vehicle is in breach of the Company's rights. This even applies if the replicas do not incorporate any logos or trademarks of the Company. Daimler AG has long taken a tough approach to vehicle replicas.

As a work of applied art, the body of the 300 SL has been under copyright protection for a number of decades. The employees who designed the famous gullwing model in the 1950s granted Daimler AG comprehensive exploitation rights. The body shape has also been trademarked by Daimler AG, as recently confirmed by the Stuttgart regional court (case no. 17 O 304/10, final and binding judgment dated 9 December 2010, following withdrawal of an appeal).

A case had arisen in which a company based in Germany had built an unlawful replica of a Mercedes-Benz 300 SL (W 198 series). The first step in destroying the replica was to separate the chassis from the body. The Mercedes-Benz used-parts centre, which is also responsible for scrapping all Mercedes-Benz prototypes from the development units, then destroyed the body on behalf of Daimler AG. The certified equipment used in the centre includes two presses, each applying over 30 tonnes of pressure. The replica sports car had a fibreglass body weighing precisely 148 kilograms, which the compressor smashed into small pieces. This dramatic end to the unlawful body was officially documented with a signed and stamped 'confirmation of scrappage'.

The Mercedes-Benz 300 SL (W 198 series) is one of the best known cars in the world. It was launched on the market in 1954 as a coupé with distinctive gullwing doors. In 1999, an international panel of judges voted it 'sports car of the century'. Today, the original gullwing model and its roadster variant, which was introduced in 1957, are two of the most coveted vehicles on the international classic car scene. All the major car collections worldwide feature the 300 SL – an icon of design and engineering expertise.

I understand them. This car is NOT a real 300 SL, and it isn't even old, so it doesn't have any historical value (like an old replica would have). The Mercedes logo has been used all over the thing, the shape is owned by Mercedes and the builder of the replica must have known he was violating the law.

Although I think it's a shame such good craftsmanship gets destroyed, I believe Mercedes has done the right thing. For the company itself and for the owners of real 300SL's.

just seems to me a fake? I think a modified image from photoshop

I don't understand them at all....it's a replica, there are thousands of replicas of rare old cars....why should any of them or their bodies be destroyed? Or a better question why should replicas of cars that are not being built in more than half a century matter in terms of copyright?
Mercedes can never build another 100% accurate original 300 SL and sell it as such and neither can anyone else. I just can't fathom this issue.

Honestly I think copyright and patent law need to be adapted to the present.

Dario, it's not a fake, there are other pictures on autoblog showing it.

[Killrob]

While copyright and patent law are in dire need of a rework for present day technology, this case is very well covered by it's old mechanics.
From your OP I gather that you are missing THE point in the whole thing: it is not that they just made a single replica model for the love of it,
but want to sell them for profit ("The courts have ruled that it is not legal to market the body."). And that my friend, does break the law.
Mercedes does hold the rights for the car shape, and it doesn't matter how old it is, they pay lots of money every year to actually keep those
rights! So now someone comes along and wants to make a business with selling replicas of your stuff and your rights? Of course you would
call that bullshit too if you were Mercedes.

Even so I still think that there should have been a better solution for all parties involved than destroying that body.

Further more I think what should be illegal is the ability to buy rights to something and keep them indefinitely. Like they said in their statement the designers and engineers who made that car don't hold any rights to it, Mercedes does. A corporation is not a person it doesn't creat and doesn't really die and its only purpose is making money.

If the "artists" of the work don't get compansated than to me rights to something shouldn't belong to anybody but to us all.

[Killrob]

Sure, I agree with the general sentiment you present, but definitely not in this case.

Take this fictional example for instance:
Ferrärï builds a Limited Edition car in 1976. It is stunningly beautiful and over the years it gets a huge fan base.
Then in 1999 Kübböz Mottors decides "Hey, everyone loves it, so we just replicate it! Awesome business model!".
So now the Limited Edition not limited anymore if the copy is perfect, and thus it loses value and causes confusion.
Every model not in production anymore basically is a limited series model!

In your world that would be okay for Kübböz Mottors to do? I would see it as unfair.
You are viewing it like a "music industry" case where the artists get ripped off and never see a dime. Here the lead
designers have probably been paid a fair bit more than required to make a living off it! Also Ferrärï has invested
tons of money in order to create that original, while Kübböz Mottors doesn't have those costs. To draw a line in
time for when it's okay and when not is always arbitrary.

Sure, there would have been a solution, licensing it! Which is the legal way to do it. But they could probably not
afford that because Mercedes doesn't want to have replicas on the market, for good reasons.

I think it should be allowed even in the example you mentioned with 3 conditions:
-the number of replicas produced every year is tiny, 10 or so.
-the replica is not a 100% perfect copy. (Similar but different engine, chassis)
-the car replicated is more than 30 years old.
For more a license would be needed. I doubt that low a number of them would do any damage, it would just wet our appetite.

In my opinion the full rights to anything should not last more than a certain period 30-40 years at most, after that another 15-20 years limited rights and then no rights at all, public domain.

That is what seems fair to me.

This is only to do with the body though so point 2 is moot. They could stick a rotary or a V12 in there, wouldnt make a difference.
Doesnt really concern car age unless copyright has run out/not renewed?

And still, ten cars at say a hundred thousand each is still a million a year less costs, which you're earning from a design that ISNT yours. As Killrob pointed out, if your car company produced a car in the 60's and it was an international phenomenon, would you want someone to come along present day and start making money off a design you own? Not only that but Mercedes have a somewhat reputation to keep up, so if these knock off Gullwings start having problems i.e brakes suddenly failing or engines suddenly combusting into fireballs, it wont look good on them since the design screams "Mercedes" to anyone who doesnt look at the details...

The point is that I don't think it should be allowed to renew copyright after exceeding the 30 year limit.