Theft would be stealing somebody's Lamborghini. Copyright infringement is building your own.
The standard argument against copyright infringement is that Lamborghini lost a sale by him building his own. However, how likely is it that he would have bought a Lamborghini if he could not build one?
And I agree about trademark being the biggest issue, perhaps coupled with infringement on design patents held by Lamborghini.
No matter what this guy has an extremely strong personal use defense. He has zero effect on the market and is not distributing.
Why not? A car is a sculpture which just happens to be banged out of sheet metal instead of carved out of marble.
Admittedly it's hard to think of a Toyota as a sculpture, but a Lamborghini is definitely one. And a damn lot better looking than most of the sculptures you'll see in galleries.
I stand corrected. Lamborghini and Toyota would have valid copyrights in their design, even if the Toyota is relatively boring.
Personal use defenses still stand however...
Finally a patent only extends to cover something that is in itself patentable. Nintendo is taking forever to get patents on it's DS game cartridges because they're based off of an SD card. If its not found to be useful or inventive then it's not patentable.
Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive.
Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable.
Vehicle patents are very complicated to enforce, namely because if anyone ever tries to enforce one they can actually end up getting it invalidated (which in patent law, abolition happens more than enforcement). Lamborghini might not be able to enforce a single patent because a court might find it an obvious improvement over Henry Ford's original patent or is outright patent infringement of Fords. It's a serious lose-lose business.
I would guess Lamborghini is one of the few that does. Look up "design patent" in wikipedia: "a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item". If the shape and components of a top sports car don't meet this description, it's hard to imagine what would.
In fact, it's not too hard to find automobile patents, e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ (DeLorean) or http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ (Lotus?) -- but these patents seem to have a 14-year term, so even if Lamborghini did patent this shape, the patent (at least in the USA) has probably expired by now.
Wait... looking at the pictures again, I'm pretty sure that's actually the Lamborghini Diablo -- that would make more sense with respect to the timing, since it was made from 1990 to 2001.
If the guy had built an old sedan he wouldn't have a worry in the world about the exterior design as the amount of chassis sharing between companies they're all inherently the same. I do believe you're right though, the patents on the 'ornamental design' seem valid, but as you stated virtually any vehicle design patent seems invalid if it was made before 1994.
I'm wondering if vehicle manufacturers allow these patents to die off after 14 years to allow people to rebuild classics. I mean what would the public reaction be like if Ford sued someone for patent infringement because they fixed up a classic Mustang and couldn't get all the Ford manufactured parts.
Just because an invention is re-invented, or invented independently more or less at the same time, does not mean it is unpatentable, obvious, or that an already granted patent is invalid. At most it is evidence of obviousness.
Or, I'm reminded of that guy in that Borges story who spends his whole life trying to rewrite Don Quixote from scratch.
In copyright infringement cases, people are making exact duplicates without having to work to produce those duplicates. When someone makes a copy of a picture/song/program, they get all of the benefit without having to reward or acknowledge the effort that went into producing the original.
This guy is more like a cover band than Napster.