ip of motorcycle

[friday]

Jurisdiction

California

I write mc articles. Im in new zealand and researching Crocker motorcycles of the 1930s.

The owner Al Crocker had drawings / Blue prints drawn by Paul Bigsy (electric guitar) in 1935.
Those drawings were given to Elmo Looper in approx 1941 or 42.
He gave those to his younger brother, Murray in 1952.
Those drawings were "borrowed" in late 1960s by Ernie Skelton and never returned.
This is documented in the book 'Iron Redskin' 1977 by Harry Sucher and earlier 'The Fabulous Crocker' 1971 by Sucher.
The term used was "had come into *possession* of a set of the original shop drawings"
Crocker died 1961, Elmo 1969, Murray 1988, Skelton 1995, Sucher 2015.

Parts were made from those drawings and bikes made from those parts, no royalties etc.

currently the brand name "Crocker mc co" is trade marked in USA and Japan but that is a separate modern day company in L.A.

"Possession" is 9/10th and statute of limitations would have been 1971 or so.
The 2 book publishing's were public notice in public domain.

My question is , who owns the intellectual property ? even though it dates back to 1935.

The drawings have been duplicated many times, pic is an example

 

[flyingron]

Possession means nothing despite the adage. The fact that the actual drawings were given to someone else doesn't necessarily convey copy rights.

There's not enough information in your saga to tell if the plans are protected by copyright and whether the manufacturer of parts from there was an illegal copy. The fact that copyright material appears in a public domain book doesn't make that material public domain.

 

[adjusterjack]

My question is , who owns the intellectual property ? even though it dates back to 1935.

Why are you asking?

Do you want to use the drawings in your articles? Something else?

 

[friday]

A mc goes up for auction promoted as being genuine yet it is a replica, is misrepresented.
a pile of parts can only be considered period correct vintage, if it has an engine stamp, of the period. That engine number quite likely belonged to a mc that went to scrap 70 years ago.

These bikes go for US$500K , that's a lot of coin for a representation of the real thing.

In 1961 Floyd Clymer wrote an obituary in Cycle mag July, that Bigsby said that 64 mc were built. Production went from 1936 to mid 1940 = 4.5 years.
Al Crocker is quoted as saying in 1936 that TWELVE were going into production that year.
12 x 4.5 = 54 total , with the small work force he had.

There is a 2010 Crocker Register that totals 72 mc. Today there are 76 mc , these things appear to be falling out of the trees in California.

yesterday I saw one of the typical TV court programs , there was a case surrounding an invention designer + drawings vs the man that manufactured the prototype of that design and then he made copies and listed them for sale on line, *NONE sold*.
The end result was the Judge said it was a Breach of copyright and the 2 parties had to work something out between themselves.

^^^ this is why I posted on this forum to see what would be the case with the Bigsby drawings as there have been many parts and mc built from them.

Big dollar auctions depend on items being genuine and "NOS" (new old stock) , which is an impossibility when every part can only be produced brand new.

If a Rembrandt goes on auction, experts are brought in to confirm authenticity of brush strokes and signature etc , yet this does not apply to these mc.

There certainly was no permission given from Al Crocker to anyone to manufacture.

This is Ernie Skelton 1980 with a replica #40-61-117 , yet it has always been promoted as genuine. It certainly looks like the real thing. The price paid 12 yrs ago was definitely in the region of US$500k . Being 40 yrs old it is genuinely classified as "Vintage" but it certainly is not 1940 vintage. so there is a pinch of truth and a pinch of something else

 

[Zigner]

yesterday I saw one of the typical TV court programs , there was a case surrounding an invention designer + drawings vs the man that manufactured the prototype of that design and then he made copies and listed them for sale on line, *NONE sold*.
The end result was the Judge said it was a Breach of copyright and the 2 parties had to work something out between themselves.

^^^ this is why I posted on this forum to see what would be the case with the Bigsby drawings as there have been many parts and mc built from them.

TV court programs cannot be relied upon to represent anything other than entertainment. At the end of the day, they are simply binding arbitration.

 

[adjusterjack]

^^^ this is why I posted on this forum to see what would be the case with the Bigsby drawings as there have been many parts and mc built from them.

Again, why do YOU want to know this? What's your goal?

 

[friday]

The TV show means nothing, "Breach of copyright" got my attention.

I want to know how where the ownership lies with the i.p of those drawings.
The drawings were not returned, they could have easily have been photocopied but no.

Everything that has been written surrounding these bikes is misleading.
I don't gain anything but I will not cut n paste a BOGUS history from wikipedia or books written by the guys mentioned above.

This is the register from approx 1979 , it is not worth the paper it is written on. There were no mc built in 1941 or 1942, 40-61-117 is a replica from the 1970s along with others. The first one off the rack is a replica. anything built in 1942 would be non essential / black market.

there is 48 mc listed at that time

 

[Zigner]

Quite simply, there is no way that you're going to find out who owns the IP from this (or any) internet forum. You are going to need to pay somebody to research it for you.

 

[Zigner]

The TV show means nothing, "Breach of copyright" got my attention.

Just as a note: I can't think of any US "court show" that would actually have jurisdiction over this matter except for the fact that both parties agreed to binding arbitration.

 

[army judge]

 

[friday]

Quite simply, there is no way that you're going to find out who owns the IP from this (or any) internet forum. You are going to need to pay somebody to research it for you.

It would be difficult to find someone to pay , as the world of 'counterfeit artifacts' is usually very tight lipped and paper work none existent. no one is ever going to admit to engine stamping.

I would say i.p rightfully belongs to the original owner and has been dishonestly acquired by Skelton. The Drawings since sold to a well known California mc collector.

Crocker's name will always be on the drawings.

The vintage mc market is Corrupt and the auction houses are not complaining

 

[Zigner]

It would be difficult to find someone to pay , as the world of 'counterfeit artifacts' is usually very tight lipped and paper work none existent.

If you believe it would be difficult to find somebody who will accept money to research this matter, then why do you believe the volunteers here would do it for free?

 

[adjusterjack]

the auction houses are not complaining

They why are you? You still haven't said what your goal is. You seem to have an axe to grind about something. You're welcome to write an expose of the corrupt vintage motorcycle market.

 

[friday]

Im not asking anyone to do anything for free or looking for anyone to research.

who owns the i.p of the drawings ?
Is Crocker still owner of the i.p ?
Will he always be the owner of the i.p ?
Al Crocker is long dead.
He did not sell the drawings, the business, manufacturing rights or the Brand name.

Al Crocker paid Paul Bigsby to draw blue prints circa 1935, detailed pics of dimensions for the purpose of manufacture. Those drawings ended up in the wrong hands, no money exchanged.

The majority of these mc are reproduction going to auction represented as genuine. There are even "1942" models. The factory was retooled in late 1941 for WW2, there were no mechanics employed at the factory.

Large quantities of US money is flowing thru the auction houses.
There is nothing wrong with reproduction as long as they are stated as repop, but if there are engine stamps suggesting "genuine" 1930s items, then that has got to be counterfeit and if paper work is also involved then that has got to be forgery.

This is the first sentence at the top of the page = "I write mc articles. Im in New Zealand and researching Crocker motorcycles of the 1930s."

And I'm not complaining, I'm exposing it. I just need to know where the i.p stands.
Does the original owner of i.p , always own it ?

 

[Zigner]

Im not asking anyone to do anything for free or looking for anyone to research.

You say that, but then you go on to ask:

who owns the i.p of the drawings ?
Is Crocker still owner of the i.p ?
Will he always be the owner of the i.p ?

You are going to need to pay somebody to research this and give you answers. An internet forum (any internet forum) is not going to produce the answers you seek.

 

[friday]

I'll say it again

Im not asking anyone to do anything for free or looking for anyone to research.

 

[Zigner]

I'll say it again

Im not asking anyone to do anything for free or looking for anyone to research.

Then what ARE you asking for?

 

[Zigner]

Does the original owner of i.p , always own it ?

This is the only other questions in the post I replied to. The answer to this absolute question is "no". The owner of IP is allowed to transfer his or her ownership as he or she sees fit. There are also other events that could cause the ownership of IP to change.

 

[mister990]

"Copyright" is not quite the same as "patent" and patent no longer applies. Findlaw has much about that. But... if reproduced parts are being passed off as genuine - or a complete motorcycle is - with intent to sell for profit, then that's a felony by California penal code 350 since the Crocker name commands such a value. The rub is that intent to defraud must be shown.

Since patent law no longer applies, I'd suggest that only the California owner of the registered Crocker name has the right to pursue an ip case if the owner can show and prove that counterfeit parts and motorcycles are being made. However, the idea that the owner of the registered Crocker name would ever take such action is exceedingly remote, since the owner may not be of "clean hands" and is alleged to be hiding from creditors. (Beyond scope but hopefully the moderator will allow that to stand)

So, it would be down to a Private Investigator to research the provenance of any Crocker motorcycle presented at auction, probably hired by an prospective buyer. (Interestingly, there is one auction house that refuses to auction Crocker bikes for that very reason - ie lack of originality - while another auction house will. ...again, beyond scope) Even so, the auction house in question may refuse to allow a detailed inspection of the Crocker motorcycle on offer, and be within its rights to do so. That's where 'caveat emptor' applies.

There is a greater question though, that the Crocker registry -- as it currently exists -- has been falsified. That is a matter beyond dispute for some close to the matter, and the determination about who falsified the Crocker registry, why, and when, might easily be deduced. Unfortunately the alleged miscreant is now long deceased, and this author has no idea who or whom maintains the Crocker registry today.

Even so, the true difficulty relates to intent. If a Crocker motorcycle or part is presented at auction in good faith where the auction house legitimately has no idea the bike is a repro, then the damaged party, upon discovering such fakery, must prove that the owner of the Crocker sold it via the auction house with intent to defraud. That's tough. Some record must exist with the owner's admission that the Crocker is fake. After proving same, you'd have to ensure the owner is a deep pocket and able to settle with you. That has never happened and likely never will.

A good example is the Captain America chopper case which has not been resolved. Even so, this motorcycle (and another of the same id) still makes the auction rounds with a disclaimer that it may not be genuine. Even with that disclaimer such a bike may sell for a million or more. Bottom line? It's unrealistic to expect the seller to produce genuine provenance where none possibly exists, and for the buyer to demand same when none verifiably exists. In that place? We have the alleged false registry.

As for ownership of the drawing rights and their ip? At least three reproduced sets of Crocker drawings are known to exist and the genuine originals have been lost. One set of Crocker drawings has been altered slightly so that the dimensions are not interchangeable with original parts! This is the milieu in which we live. And none of it is actionable unless the owner of the Crocker name were to make a case for it.

It's a world that Al Crocker's ghost would no doubt fail to recognize, and surely would outright condemn. Seeking fairness and justice subsequent to such historic chicanery is an impossibility, and every dancer to the hand of the gavel knows it. That's why the fake Crocker - like the fake Captain America bike - will continue to be sold for hundreds of thousands of inflationary dollars... based only on trust and a disclaimer. While Harley sees the Captain America as good PR, there is no Al Crocker to produce or fend for a true registry.

But the moral to the story is that expectation is to accept fakery as real; and real as fakery. That's why NFT's sell for millions, and bitcoin scams and illusion thrive. Example: the comparison of bitcoin to physical gold. That may seem a stretch, but I do not digress. And all of the foregoing is why the Fake Crocker - whether complete motorcycle or part - will not ever be punishable by law... in any real sense...

Now, what is it you wish to know again?

 

[flyingron]

It has ALWAYS been the case that the owner of the IP is the one that has to pursue the infringer. It's not "the times we live in." In fact, for things like trademarks, failure to do so waives further rights.

Again, there may be copyright issues for the reproduction of the plans and making physical objects directly from them, and their might not be. It's going to take someone with the right to make such objections to sit down with an IP lawyer and determine what rights exist and what to do about them.

You as a disinterested party have no right to do anything about it.