Reply With Quotejust like that Queen vs. Vanilla Ice case; queens song went, dun dun dun..dun dun dun....Vanillas went dun dun dun...dun dun ting dun...Vanilla won didnt he?
this shit is really hard to prove and the lawyers end up getting all the money anyways.
It seems that if a customer sees a graphic they really like on another boat mfg. how can you tell them no?? I know alot of my friends have had there boats done in a graphic scheme of another mfg. That Howard only slightly resembles the Dana. Its more the same "colors" than the actual graphic. Just my .02
You say "No... I will get sued."
There is a new sherriff in town. There will be a lot of education going on in the industry with regard to stealing graphics in the next few years. The 10% rule is imaginary. And if you don't think those two boats look nearly identical you need to get your eyes checked.
The shape of the orange, the shape of the red "claw" underneath, the line of the outline etc...
The good news for Howard is that the design is neither copyrighted or particularly original. Not to rain on Atomickitn's parade, but it looks very similar to a lot of stuff already on the market. There is NO QUESTION the Howard is derivative to say the least, and in my eyes it is a near direct splash. As it is "industry standard" there is a small likelihood of getting sued for it.
Mine has no less than 11 "features" that are protected. Shapes, proportions and weight of graphics play a role. The most important thing is what the overall appearance looks like. Mine doesn't look like anyones. It is in the shape of a Trident (trademarked) and is going to be on every boat. If someone hands a builder a picture of my boat, and says "I want it to look like this..." then it probably will. If it does, the first instance lawsuit is for $150,000 dollars plus you have to change the design. If you absolutely cannot sell a boat without my graphic, you can call and buy a liscense to use it. It will be an additional cost you need to turn over to your client, but if it is truly a no-go criteria, they should be willing to pay the person who designed it for the rights to use it.
I can't wait. This industry needs an enema.
just like that Queen vs. Vanilla Ice case; queens song went, dun dun dun..dun dun dun....Vanillas went dun dun dun...dun dun ting dun...Vanilla won didnt he?
this shit is really hard to prove and the lawyers end up getting all the money anyways.
Really?.... pretty farkin close. But even if it was a "copy"... Who gives a shite?
Exactly, Box. It is a good looking boat period, why all the controversy??? The one thing I REALLY dont like is that I dont see dual forward facing seats. Sitting sideways gets old real fast. JMO! :wink: NSF
I cant wait either.All you do is talk about how your stuff is original and your going to sue.Fades and small tribal pointed lines have been done,so how do you expect to call that original?Your strating to get full of yourself,nothing wrong with being proud of what your doing and yes splashing somebody else to a tee is not right.I just dont see you winning in court.If a customer comes in and wants a certain gel scheme done,are you going to comb the face of the earth to make sure nobody else has already done it or what?What if you end up copying somebody else's gel and didnt know it?How can you say the manufacture is liable at this point?
You do a copyright search. It is expensive, and I have done one for mine. As I have said before, I know what is protected indisputably on mine, but unless you do the research, you won't know if it is encroached upon.
ANY gelcoat design is protected from the moment it hits the boat in first use. It is termed a "prior use" argument. You can hit a splasher with a cease and desist immediately and prevent them from doing it again or you can sue. The difference between this and what I have, is that with a copyrighted and trademarked design, you can sue for $150,000 in the first infraction, which goes up from there for subsequent infractions. This falls under the liability coverage of most boat builders so it is an insurance decision whether or not to pay up or fight. It is a no-win situation for them, especially if the only excuse is "my customer brought in a picture of that boat and told me if I didn't copy it I wouldn't be able to sell them a boat". That is a dictionary definition of why you copyright and trademark. That means that they would not have had the business unless that graphic was used. A pre-law student could show that the the deciding factor was the graphic, and should it not be available by any source other than the original and as such that was a sale lost by the originator. If it wasn't truly a deciding factor, the manufacturer should have used a different and original graphic.
A big part of what we do as builders is design graphics. If you lack the capacity as a builder to design them, you shouldn't be able to sell them. You should have to pay someone who can design them or find some other solution, such as to sell all white boats. Imagine how much more impact companies that have good looking original graphics would have if they couldn't be copied by knock-off artists? How much value are these companies taking away from originators by being able to blatently copy graphics? How easily would you be able to tell the difference between the cheaper boats and the good ones?
Time will tell. Cocky? Maybe. I prefer to be considered well informed, and prepared for the battles ahead. Construe that how you want to.
Exactly, Box. It is a good looking boat period, why all the controversy??? The one thing I REALLY dont like is that I dont see dual forward facing seats. Sitting sideways gets old real fast. JMO! :wink: NSF
After looking more closely I may be wrong about the seating, hard to tell, my mistake i guess, still a good looking boat :chi: NSF
Well, getting back to the deckboat. I sure would like to see some interior pics.
You do a copyright search. It is expensive, and I have done one for mine. As I have said before, I know what is protected indisputably on mine, but unless you do the research, you won't know if it is encroached upon.
ANY gelcoat design is protected from the moment it hits the boat in first use. It is termed a "prior use" argument. You can hit a splasher with a cease and desist immediately and prevent them from doing it again or you can sue. The difference between this and what I have, is that with a copyrighted and trademarked design, you can sue for $150,000 in the first infraction, which goes up from there for subsequent infractions. This falls under the liability coverage of most boat builders so it is an insurance decision whether or not to pay up or fight. It is a no-win situation for them, especially if the only excuse is "my customer brought in a picture of that boat and told me if I didn't copy it I wouldn't be able to sell them a boat". That is a dictionary definition of why you copyright and trademark. That means that they would not have had the business unless that graphic was used. A pre-law student could show that the the deciding factor was the graphic, and should it not be available by any source other than the original and as such that was a sale lost by the originator. If it wasn't truly a deciding factor, the manufacturer should have used a different and original graphic.
A big part of what we do as builders is design graphics. If you lack the capacity as a builder to design them, you shouldn't be able to sell them. You should have to pay someone who can design them or find some other solution, such as to sell all white boats. Imagine how much more impact companies that have good looking original graphics would have if they couldn't be copied by knock-off artists? How much value are these companies taking away from originators by being able to blatently copy graphics? How easily would you be able to tell the difference between the cheaper boats and the good ones?
Time will tell. Cocky? Maybe. I prefer to be considered well informed, and prepared for the battles ahead. Construe that how you want to.
Christs sake, way too much info buddy! NSF
I am not sure how much Howard is getting for the boat at this point, I think $100K with a 496. I would be willing to bet it will run over 70 mph with a 496 no problem!
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center...20/383db3m.JPG
This pic doesn't make it look very roomy.
On the flip side of it all... the boat looks bad ass, and those are some really big numbers.
Congrats to Gene and Mike.
Quoting yourself lends credibility to your posts.
HUH??? is that good or bad :idea: NSF
Posting Permissions
