On Jun 1, 8:18 pm, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just got the newest Woodcraft magazine. There is an article in it
> about building the New Yankee Workshop Adirondack chair. Only problem
> is they give no credit to Norm or the New Yankee Workshop. I wonder
> if Russ Morash will sic his lawyers on them.
>
> Dick Durbin
I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
article, your average run of the mill,
generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
Yankee Workshop don't appear.
Keith
On Jun 2, 12:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
> article, your average run of the mill,
> generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
> Yankee Workshop don't appear.
This is a specific design that the New Yankee Workshop developed and
published several years ago. I would have thought that, since the
article in Woodcraft didn't even go to the trouble to make some subtle
changes to avoid infringing on the copyright, the originator of the
design might have some recourse.
On Jun 2, 8:18?am, Olebiker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
> > article, your average run of the mill,
> > generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
> > Yankee Workshop don't appear.
>
> This is a specific design that the New Yankee Workshop developed and
> published several years ago. I would have thought that, since the
> article in Woodcraft didn't even go to the trouble to make some subtle
> changes to avoid infringing on the copyright, the originator of the
> design might have some recourse.
Did NYW develop a specific design, or did the moderately adapt a
design from the generic Adirondack chair that has been around for
generations? If the made adaptations, did the one in Woodcraft exactly
follow that in NYW? If that's the case, did the one in NYW...basic
Adirondack chair design was around in the '20s, I know. Over the
years, changes have been made in seat and back curvature, fastening
and arm rest design, but the basic design remains the same, and in the
public domain. Much depends on the quality of NYW's changes and how
many of those changes Woodcraft might have reproduced.
Somewhere on here, someone says you can copyright the drawings, but
not the design. That is nonsense. What would be the point in
copyrighting the drawings if the design shown on them wasn't also
protected?
Not neccessarily so. A lawyer only provides advice to the client. All
decisions remain the responsibility of the client and not the lawyer.
Sometimes there is no sense in spending tens of thousands of dollars
defending a case when it can be settled "out of court" for much less.
"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:32:26 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Settled out of court is the significant phrase in your reply.
>> If the plans were stolen, that is an offense and, plus, you
>>can sue for anything. It may or may not be worth it to fight
>>it in court. Settling with an agreement not to build sounds
>>pretty cheap.
>
> I agree that settlement was the significant phrase. No lawyer will
> recommend settlement unless you are about to lose.
>
>
> Mike O.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jun 2, 12:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
>>> article, your average run of the mill,
>>> generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
>>> Yankee Workshop don't appear.
>>
>> This is a specific design that the New Yankee Workshop developed and
>> published several years ago. I would have thought that, since the
>> article in Woodcraft didn't even go to the trouble to make some subtle
>> changes to avoid infringing on the copyright, the originator of the
>> design might have some recourse.
>
>
> I strongly suspect that the design was not copyrighted.
Copyrighting is not a formal process, but one will have to prove they had
that design first.
In which case the _other_ lawyer won't settle.
It needs both sides to accept they may lose for an out-of-court to work.
In any case, copyright only applies to something written (or drawn) on paper or other directly
readable media. The plans could be copyrighted, and so could not be used (or copied and the copies
used). New plans would have to be created, which could use large parts of the original design.
"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:32:26 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Settled out of court is the significant phrase in your reply.
>> If the plans were stolen, that is an offense and, plus, you
>>can sue for anything. It may or may not be worth it to fight
>>it in court. Settling with an agreement not to build sounds
>>pretty cheap.
>
> I agree that settlement was the significant phrase. No lawyer will
> recommend settlement unless you are about to lose.
>
>
> Mike O.
Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
> Somewhere on here, someone says you can copyright the drawings, but
> not the design. That is nonsense.
No it isn't. It's the law.
>What would be the point in
> copyrighting the drawings if the design shown on them wasn't also
> protected?
You can't make up new laws because you feel like it.
As I understand it, copyright usually means the exact output of your
work. If it's words, it's a copyright on the exact phrases. If it's a
diagram, it's the exact picture.
Change it a little, and it no longer violates the exact original form.
Re-write the words, and it's legal.
Recreate the drawing from scratch, and it's legal.
You can't COPYRIGHT a design. Period.
You can patent an invention or process.
You can register a trademark.
You can copyright a publication.
But you can't, by law, copyright a design.
That's why there are so many rip-offs in every industry.
There are those that duplicate a tragemark, like Rolex. That's illegal.
But copycat designs are all around you.
EXT wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Jun 2, 12:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
>>>>article, your average run of the mill,
>>>>generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
>>>>Yankee Workshop don't appear.
>>>
>>>This is a specific design that the New Yankee Workshop developed and
>>>published several years ago. I would have thought that, since the
>>>article in Woodcraft didn't even go to the trouble to make some subtle
>>>changes to avoid infringing on the copyright, the originator of the
>>>design might have some recourse.
>>
>>
>>I strongly suspect that the design was not copyrighted.
>
> Copyrighting is not a formal process, but one will have to prove they had
> that design first.
I think that you are laboring under a false assumption. You
cannot patent or copyright a design like that.
Let us use the example of house plans. If I have some house
plans designed by an architect, I cannot reprint them without
permission. I can build the house without the architects
permission. Even if I build a house EXACTLY like his plans
show, there is nothing that the architect can do to stop me.
If the architect has some plans for a house, his drawings are
protected. The design is not.
Same with a chair. If anyone has any rights to the design, it
would be Mr. Adirondack, anyway.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> From: <http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-architecture.html>
>
> Architectural Works
>
> An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of
> expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is
> subject to copyright protection as an architectural work. The work
> includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition
> of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual
> standard features or design elements that are functionally required.
>
> The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and
> intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and
> office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures
> designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches,
> museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.
I designed the two story house. If you are living in a two story house I
will be suing you, unless you send me a royalty check every year for $200.
Please make checks payable to Mr. CASH.
Mike O. wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:01:48 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Let us use the example of house plans. If I have some house
>>plans designed by an architect, I cannot reprint them without
>>permission. I can build the house without the architects
>>permission. Even if I build a house EXACTLY like his plans
>>show, there is nothing that the architect can do to stop me.
>
>
>
> We recently had a builder (builder 1) sued for building a home for
> which the home owners provided the plans. The problem was that the
> homeowners basically stole the plan from another builder (builder 2)
> who had the plan designed for his company. It took several months
> and several lawyers and was finally settled out of court. Builder 1
> had to pay builder 2 and agree not to build that plan in the future.
>
> Mike O.
Wow! I hope I never accidentally build that house! I could
be sued for building the only protected house design in the
country!
Settled out of court is the significant phrase in your reply.
If the plans were stolen, that is an offense and, plus, you
can sue for anything. It may or may not be worth it to fight
it in court. Settling with an agreement not to build sounds
pretty cheap.
Think about this; Who owns the design for the one room cabin?
Do you need to contact them if you want to build one?
You cannot own the design of a home. You can only own the
drawings.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
The Other Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
: This isn't true. You need to produce a work "substantially different" You
: can't change just a little. See the George Harrison "My Sweet Lord" vs. Phil
: Spector " He's so fine" lawsuit.
Or, if you're Swingman, Phil Ramone!
-- Andy Barss
Finding the keyboard operational
Maxwell Lol entered:
> As I understand it, copyright usually means the exact output of your
> work. If it's words, it's a copyright on the exact phrases. If it's a
> diagram, it's the exact picture.
>
>
> Change it a little, and it no longer violates the exact original form.
> Re-write the words, and it's legal.
> Recreate the drawing from scratch, and it's legal.
>
This isn't true. You need to produce a work "substantially different" You
can't change just a little. See the George Harrison "My Sweet Lord" vs. Phil
Spector " He's so fine" lawsuit.
Bob
--
--
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:32:26 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Settled out of court is the significant phrase in your reply.
> If the plans were stolen, that is an offense and, plus, you
>can sue for anything. It may or may not be worth it to fight
>it in court. Settling with an agreement not to build sounds
>pretty cheap.
I agree that settlement was the significant phrase. No lawyer will
recommend settlement unless you are about to lose.
Mike O.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:09:56 -0500, Mike O. <[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree that settlement was the significant phrase. No lawyer will
>recommend settlement unless you are about to lose.
No, if you are about to lose, the opposing lawyer won't settle. If
you can settle however and not pay all the legal costs, court costs,
etc., especially when the settlement isn't all that much to begin
with, that's a lot better for everyone. There are plenty of cases
where it costs more to litigate a case than you can potentially make
back from it.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:01:48 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Let us use the example of house plans. If I have some house
>plans designed by an architect, I cannot reprint them without
>permission. I can build the house without the architects
>permission. Even if I build a house EXACTLY like his plans
>show, there is nothing that the architect can do to stop me.
We recently had a builder (builder 1) sued for building a home for
which the home owners provided the plans. The problem was that the
homeowners basically stole the plan from another builder (builder 2)
who had the plan designed for his company. It took several months
and several lawyers and was finally settled out of court. Builder 1
had to pay builder 2 and agree not to build that plan in the future.
Mike O.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:01:48 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I can build the house without the architects
>permission. Even if I build a house EXACTLY like his plans
>show, there is nothing that the architect can do to stop me.
>
>If the architect has some plans for a house, his drawings are
>protected. The design is not.
In the USA, it might be.
This might be why the builder mentioned in another message settled out
of court.
From: <http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-architecture.html>
Architectural Works
An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of
expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is
subject to copyright protection as an architectural work. The work
includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition
of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual
standard features or design elements that are functionally required.
The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and
intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and
office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures
designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches,
museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.
For details on how to register architecural works, please see Circular
41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works.
On 03 Jun 2007 07:25:28 -0400, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Somewhere on here, someone says you can copyright the drawings, but
>> not the design. That is nonsense.
>
>No it isn't. It's the law.
Check this out:
<http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-architecture.html>
"Architectural Works
An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of
expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is
subject to copyright protection as an architectural work. The work
includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition
of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual
standard features or design elements that are functionally required.
The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and
intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and
office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures
designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches,
museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.
For details on how to register architecural works, please see Circular
41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works."
"Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 2, 12:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> I must be missing some inside joke or something. Just read the
>> article, your average run of the mill,
>> generic, seen one you seen them all Adirondack chair. The words New
>> Yankee Workshop don't appear.
>
> This is a specific design that the New Yankee Workshop developed and
> published several years ago. I would have thought that, since the
> article in Woodcraft didn't even go to the trouble to make some subtle
> changes to avoid infringing on the copyright, the originator of the
> design might have some recourse.
I strongly suspect that the design was not copyrighted.