Reply With Quote
Depends if you believe this or not - 'fakes are fine' report
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-EU-study.html
I came across this at auction last week - surely it can't be legal to sell repros / fakes through auction houses??
Depends if you believe this or not - 'fakes are fine' report
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-EU-study.html
He's probably hoping the word "reproduction" woudl make it seem like its actually worth what he's asking for it.
Notwithstanding its legality, I think 'reproduction' is a misleading term.
Does seem odd that a (presumably reputable) auctioneer would handle a blatant fake.
Makes you wonder about everything else they handle, doesn't it?
M.
What a ridiculous report. It sounds like it parrots some of the most naive things people blurt out when they haven't thought through the issue of fakes at all.Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK)
Exactly this.
e.g. a main car dealer will probably take almost any car as a trade in, but will only keep the <4yr olds with service history and move the older cars & crash repairs on to 'other channels'
Why?
The word 'reproduction' is a neutral, objective wording whereas 'fake' is not.
Regardless of what one may think of it, the choice of word is entirely correct.
Disagree. Reproduction implies moral neutrality, fake implies opprobrium.
I think moral opprobrium is exactly the called for response to theft.
interesting article in this weeks Sunday Times about fake make up (mainly from China surprisingly enough) and the physical dangers such products could present because of the sometimes toxic ingredients used by the scammers.
in this context reproduction could be misleading. A piece of reproduction furniture may have intrinsic value, but a reproduction Rolex may be worth at most a fiver when bought off the beach in Turkey. I wonder if the thing works?
Why would the report be ridiculous. Can you argument that?
Imo the State sponsored protection off ludicrous margins is an unjust waste of tax payers money in the interest of the luxury good manufacturers and contrary to consumer interests. Even of those buying the Veblen goods.
Imo the whole trademark/copyright thing should be seriously reviewed and limited. CERTAINLY not enforced by tax payers money.
I think the report makes entirely valid points. Not pursuing the issue is beneficial for customers than detrimental for a few investors.
Of course it's legal because nobody is being deceived. Fales are only dangerous when they purport to be the real thing. If you admit they're fakes then there is no attempt to mislead.
'Reproduction' is a commonly used term
In the antiques trade.
I'm sure that you can appreciate that there's two sides to this argument. Simply stating that 'the public have no appetite for clamping down on it because they like the fakes' is not enough. The public apparently have no appetite for paying for music and films either, does that imply people shouldn't be paid anything to make them?
A piece of reproduction furniture may be crap too and a reproduction Rolex can be of quite high quality with Swiss ETA and all.
Worth is a dire subject as vfm is highly disputable and in many cases the homage/repro/fake offers WAY more tangible product for the money than an original.
The crux is the WORDING and 'reproduction' is as objective as it gets.
Now, the LEGAL issue is something else. I don't know about the finer distinctions of that and my personal opinion that the current situation in not ethical is irrelevant.
But, as the watch bears Rolex logos, it's not just like a Parnis Panerai or Alpha Rolex lookalike.
They clearly state they are NOT the real thing, this (for all the sellers 'reproduction' protestation) IS claiming to be a Rolex. Once sold it's, to all but the knowledgeable, 'A Rolex'.
M
Sure I do. The CURRENT situation however has gone WAY over the top and is not in the general consumer interest. The reasonable arguments concerning protection of intellectual property have derailed into State sponsored exploitation.
Just have a look at the 'Nato' thing:
On the one hand someone has patented/trademarked 'G10/Nato' and on the other Swiss OEM ignores this and offers them at scandalous prices.
That is ONE BIG ethical shambles.
The holder of the rights has no hope of tackling the big money backed Swiss OEM so those do as they please.
The smaller manufacturers/seller can and are being tackled.
It is a legal mess, unethical and the consumer is the worst off.
Have a look at Eddies broad arrow experience too and tell me the consumer is better off with that.
I would say that it is better to let it all go.
The Telegraph is pretty clear that the report authors think that it's up to brands to defend their trademarks.
The fake Rolex above clearly infringes whereas a Steinhart homage does not.
If we're arguing semantics here, I always thought that reproduction means that something previously produced is brought back by the original manufacturer, by someone else with OM's consent — or at least legally, e.g. after a patent has expired. I have no problem with calling a fake a fake, but if you must find a more neutral term, wouldn't replica be more suitable?
I have no problem with 'fake' either.
The point however was whether a neutral term is misleading and I think it is not.
Replica too is fine with me.
Again neutral, objective.
Letting it all go is going too far for me, as I've seen too many talented musician friends robbed of a career when people decided they preferred stealing music to paying for it. At the time napster and the like kicked off, I was directing music videos, a job which became a hobby overnight as budgets suddenly shrank by ten times. Now the same could happen to feature films, and in the end we will all lose if there is no incentive to make them.
People have difficultly in sympathising with what they see as snooty Swiss brands making overpriced baubles for the overpaid, they perhaps feel there's a Robin Hood element to faking. But the issue is far more complex than that, it affects real people trying to make an honest living doing beneficial things. It may even amount to state sponsored economic warfare.
It may be necessary to rethink some aspects of copyright and IP as the technology to reproduce physical objects improves in the same way as copyng digital files already has, but there's no justification for stealing a trade mark, and the extreme that no one should be rewarded for doing anything original or creative will help none of us in the long run.
I am a writer and have been plagiarized MANY times.
Also have been stiffed on royalties by editors who did get the revenues and then declared bankruptcy.
Protection is only as solid as one's lawyers. That too is just a business not in my little individual interest at all.
That already is accepting the current legal definitions/situation.
Again; have a look at the 'Nato' strap: Swiss OEMs are both ripping of customers with THEIR protection yet steal from the bloke who has the rights on 'G10/Nato'...
It seems to me that if there is demand then, eventually, a new financial/compensation model will be found.
New technologies and new cultural trends bring with them disruption but genuine demand always eventually brings a new model of production and reward.
That fully satisfactory new model has not yet been found for creative content but it will come. Smaller scale might well be acceptable to the market for a time. Things also go in cycles, so thing may scale up again in due course.
No, not the case. there is already legal precedent on this. A market trader was selling fake branded watches and successfully argued that at the price he was selling that at nobody could be in any doubt that were not getting the real thing. The judge agreed.
What happens when the watch is resold is the same as now; if the seller sells it as a fake then no harm done, but if they re-advertise it as the real thing then they will be committing an offence.
- - - Updated - - -
Ironically, I have a friend who wants to buy a really good fake Rolex. Anyone know where he could buy one?
I think the new terminology for this item is "aftermarket".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you trying to say there should be rights for a very generic strap?! If that's the case then surely the person that "invented" the belt should be being paid by the millions of manufacturers of belts worldwide.
There may be two sides to the argument, but the way fakes are dealt must be black or white, it cant be a grey area where some fakes are "okay" because those companies are just making too much money, or the people who buy them wouldn't buy the real thing argument. Fakes go beyond watches, handbags and clothes.
Fake car parts, so there's cars going about with everything from suspension, brakes, steering wheels, seats, engine components being for people that want a brand or look on a budget... and these have been tested to be ridiculously unsafe yet are widely availiable.
Fake Optics, sights, grips, rails for weapons (i'm not talking airsoft, but the ones that are all out fakes down to packaging), and have duped folk serving abroad... and the last thing you want when there is someone shooting at you is to be aiming with a £5 red dot that can't hold zero with a 5min battery life.
Fake electronics that are fundamentally unsafe due to inferior products or lack of QC, Fake drugs, fake baby food, fake health products etc. and the list goes on. All of which are potentially hazards to the user/or those around them.
Essentially almost everything is faked, and all have to be treated equally without loopholes.
Granted branding itself is no sign of quality.
We've all bought something that was a lemon at some point, and sure a lot of companies trade on their name rather than the quality of product, But what the brand does ensure that some minimum standard (of that brand) that we expect is met, so that the products are safe for use (and those around you), or function as expected, at least until the day after the warranty expires, where they'll undoubtedly fail.
Replica/Reproduction/Homage/Looky Likey where the original branding is not used are a different story but are products similar in nature to the original, ie Steinhart watches, Rota Wheels, Michael Kors, Sightmark etc.
They may even improve upon or out perform the original the item they are replicating, and some times input their own design twist on a item.
The main thing is they have gone through their own QC, saftey process and have met a certain standard that we expect from that "homage" brand, and after a point they are accepted as a brand in their own right, through providing a quality of product that would not be present if the sole purpose was to dupe people.
Look a bit further: it, the 'G10/Nato strap', recently HAS been claimed and rewarded!! There is even legal action with the bloke winning his case concerning sales on Ebay.com
Last edited by Huertecilla; 3rd March 2015 at 11:39.
In that case, I'd be interested in seeing more details what was being claimed and the outcome?
So.... It's down to Rolex to sue for damages?
Tudor make some nice Rolex fakes
M
Is selling a fake illegal in the UK?
Yes.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Unless, of course, you do cosmetic plastic surgery and offer augmentations. ;)
Best wishes,
Bob
Mmm - This DOES seem pretty clear...
http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/en...punishment.htm
M.
No.
(Saved you a thread.)
Quite.
Far more detrimental yet big business and allowed.
Funnily enough I can think of situations when fake tits can be of benefit.
I cannot however think of situations where tits wearing fakes are of benefit.
Interesting. I can not.
Excepted mastectomy restoration and even then with ???
Posting Permissions
