I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few
specific questions.
1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not
otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal
use?
2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
profit if not otherwise disallowed?
Woodworkers, what are your thoughts ??
"YJJim" <[email protected]> wrote
: mmmmm, copyright law, one of my favorite topics. :) Ok, so I'm an IP
: attorney, mostly do patents, but have a good amount of experience with
: copyright.
As a matter of interest, is there any know instance of a legal action been
taken in this context?
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Dusty Workshop) wrote:
>I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
>I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few
>specific questions.
>
>1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
>my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not
>otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal
>use?
Unless the book specifically authorizes you to make items for profit, you may
make items for your personal use *only*.
>
>2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
>creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No. Both the plans, and the designs they embody, are copyrighted. You may not
copy the plans for a friend, and your friend may not sell the item(s) created
from them.
>
>3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
>create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
You may lend the book to him.
He may not sell items created from those plans.
>
>4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
>library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
>profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No. See my response to #2 above. The situation is essentially the same.
>
>Woodworkers, what are your thoughts ??
Thoughts are really beside the point here. It's *facts* that matter. And it's
a fact that nearly everything you're asking about is prohibited by law.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
mmmmm, copyright law, one of my favorite topics. :) Ok, so I'm an IP
attorney, mostly do patents, but have a good amount of experience with
copyright. Standard disclaimer: nothing contained in this message is
intended to be legal advice and is provided for discussion only. If
you want actual legal advice on the subject, I recommend speaking with
an attorney. (you can even talk to me in another context if desired :)
) Also, copyright law in Europe is different from in the U.S. My
comments are limited to U.S. laws.
> 1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
> my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not
> otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal
> use?
You don't really have "rights", but the copyright owner has limited
rights that may or may not affect you. I would say that if the
copyright owner sells a book of plans and doesn't say that you can't
make items from the plans and sell them for profit, you can do
whatever you want with what you make. I haven't researched this topic
specifically, so I could be mistaken here. Making an item from a plan
would likely be considered a derivative work, but I would argue that
an implied license is granted when the plan is sold. If the plan
seller wants to set a limit on what you can do, that is a different
question.
> 2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
> creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No, you can't make copies of the plans. That said, I would argue that
you could make a single copy of the plan to use in your shop so as not
to mess up the book or original. This is a debatable point and some
would disagree. There have been cases going both ways on such
copying, but generally in the shop context, I think you would be fine
making one copy to save your book from harm.
> 3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
> create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
In the U.S., yes. In the U.S., the book is yours and you can do with
it what you wish. You can lend it out or sell it all you want. In
Europe, I believe the answer is no. They have laws about lending that
I do not fully understand so I can't really speak on those. Here, we
have the "first sale doctrine" that says that the copyright owner is
entitled to the first sale of the book, but not to further sales.
Thus, you can resell or lend out your book without paying royalties to
the author.
> 4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
> library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
> profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No. Aruguably, you could check out the book and make a copy of the
page for use in you shop so as not to destroy the library book, but
that is questionable. Printing off the internet is an interesting
question. If it is on the net as a free plan, I would think you could
print it out. Once you have it printed, the implied license would
seem to allow you to make whatever you want from it.
There is a distinction between personal use and for profit use in
copyright law. That said, the plan producer only makes money selling
plans. They are not selling product (generally). Thus, by selling
items from their plans you are not interfering with their market the
way you would be if you sold copies of the plans. If the seller
establishes a royalty scheme for selling items using their plans, then
that would change the equation. Like I said above, I have never
researched this exact issue so I could be off a little, but plan
sellers know people are going to use their plans to make things, so if
they want to control how the made items are used (i.e., if they are
sold), they should be up front about it.
Repeat of disclaimer: This is just my opinion based on my copyright
experience and I would not advise anyone to adhere to my comments
without first consulting with an attorney.
YJJim
Thu, Jan 22, 2004, 4:59pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Dusty=A0Workshop) claims:
I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
<snip>
You haven't check the archives on this, have you? It's been
discussed before. And, before. And, before. Etc., etc., etc.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?as_ugroup=3Drec.woodworking=
&lr=3D&num=3D30
Just in case you didn't know.
JOAT
You have two choices in life: You can dissolve into the mainstream, or
you can be distinct. To be distinct is to be different. To be different,
you must strive to be what no one else but you can be.
- Alan Ashley-Pitt=A0=A0=A0
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 22 Jan 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
In article <[email protected]>,
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> "Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a
>>>> 'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel
>>>> of the publication of the plan itself.
>
>>>One could probably argue that a plan which doesn't explicitly
>>>state a limit, is implicitly allowing the building of multiple
>>>copies.
>
>> *IF* the express 'license' to build one object from the plans is
>> derived from copyright, and not from 'contract law', then the absence
>> of that grant of license means that there is _no_ license to build
>> -any- derivative works.
>
>This would seem to contradict your first statement, quoted above.
>I would take it from that, that you don't beleive the "license
>to build one object" would be derived from copyright law, which
>does sound reasonable.
I stated "can be argued"... not that there is necessarily any probability
of success with that argument. :)
Copyright law, _itself_, does not provide *any* exemptions with regard
to derivative works, per se. Only the general exemptions to copyright
infringement. And the right to create derivative works *IS*, according
to the law, under the 'exclusive control' of the copyright owner.
Now, depending on the nature and purpose of the publication, and, effectively,
the 'intent' of the author and/or copyright owner, the existence of an
'implied license' may be argued. e.g., a book of plans, titled "101 Projects
You Can Build". It would seem clear that the copyright owner *intended*
for you to construct "some" derivative works, from the book. One copy,
for personal use, from any given plan would seem reasonable. Possibly two.
I dunno whether "Sony v Betamax" applies to 'derivative works', or not.
>
>> OTOH, if the restriction, in the cited cases, is a contractual
>> agreement known to both sides _before_ the contract was entered into,
>> then the absence of such 'agreement' means that "whatever the law
>> *allows*" is what one can do. Because you, the purchaser, have _not_
>> voluntarily agreed to "more restrictive" terms.
>
>And, it would seem that "whatever the law allows" in that case is
>not clearly defined.
The law is fairly clear insofar as "you can't do it without the permission
of the copyright owner, _unless_ one of the following conditions is satisfied.."
There has been as *lot* of 'legal squabbling' over 'exactly *what*' does, or
does not, satisfy those conditions.
>
>John
Dusty Workshop asks:
>
>I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
>I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few
>specific questions.
>
>1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
>my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not
>otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal
>use?
>
You usually can make it for sale.
>2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
>creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No.
>
>3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
>create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
Yes.
>
>4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
>library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
>profit if not otherwise disallowed?
No.
>
>Woodworkers, what are your thoughts ?
Simply put, the person who develops the plans usually holds the copyright.
Copyrights prevent copying of the plans, and some claimed rights may reduce the
number of copies permitted. I'm not sure of the legality of such limits.
You generally cannot make copies of any copyrighted plans to pass out, whether
or not you charge for those copies. You can lend the book or plans to anyone
your choose, and they're free to make as many of the projects as they wish, or
as the limits allow, but they are not free to copy the plans.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On 22 Jan 2004 16:59:57 -0800, [email protected] (Dusty
Workshop) wrote:
>I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
This is an international forum. Copyright laws are local, although
they usually follow international guidelines.
>1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
>my rights?
None (by law). If you have any rights, they're granted to you by the
owners of the book's copyright. These will usually be to make anything
you like from the plans, but they're perfectly at liberty to limit you
to only making one of them for personal use, or any similar
restriction.
>2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
>creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
Again, you have no implicit right to do this, and only if you're
granted a specific right. This would be unusual (although it does
sometimes happen)
>3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
>create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
You may not be permitted to lend the book at all ! This is commonly
forbidden, although "personal lending" is generally ignored. If
you're a serious lending library (certainly in the UK) then there's a
centralised scheme where you pay some additional fees for the books
you have available. For the UK authors of non-bestseller romantic
fiction, these library fees are often a significant part of their
income.
Once your friend has obtained the book, then they're as restricted as
you would have been.
>4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
>library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
>profit if not otherwise disallowed?
As for any books, then you may be restricted in how you can copy them.
The restrictions on how you can then use them are as previously
described.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
FWIW I'd like to but an oar in here.
Similar 'discussion threads' have cropped up on the 'boatbuilding' Groups;
i.e. selling 'used' plans. Also, this is not the first time the subject has
appeared on this forum.
a} If *you* BUY a specific 'PLAN' from a designer/author/composer/etc. that
was produced at YOUR behest, and paid for, it is YOURS to do with as you
like. Including putting it into 'Public Domain'. {Unless there were some
specific CONTRACTUAL obligations between Purchaser & Seller}
b} A 'stock plan' usually has, at least, a note on it to the fact ONE boat
per PLAN can be built . . . nothing about how many 'working copies' of the
plan can be made. It is understood that the *one* boat is 'yours', not 'one
boat per purchaser of copy', after copy, etc. There has been some 'splitting
of hairs' on this issue - "If I DON'T BUILD the boat, is it 'fair' to sell
the plans, and does THAT purchaser have the right, etc."
Some plans come with documentation the size of a small 'pamphlet',
equivalent to a contract, and really spelling out what is allowed for the
REGISTERED plan . . . including a serial number !!
c} Typical stock 'arts & craft' plans have a disclaimer allowing a specified
quantity of items that can be build - 25 'pieces' from the ones I've seen.
They anticipate them being built for 'flea market' sales, church & club
offerings, etc. Not 'commercial production', obviously.
d} When a designer creates something 'under contract' the rights belong to
the entity that contracted the work. That's how many designs by Jackson came
into the 'public domain' by being published in the old Popular Mechanics
Magazine. The same for designs by Monk in 'Rudder'.
It is the same for certain designers who publish their works in books .
. . in fact, several of them state that the boats can be built from the BOOK
PLANS. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to ignore LIBRARIES, yet there is NO
admonition about 'only a Purchaser of the book, etc.'
Nor is there any such statements on the plans in the popular woodworking
magazines that publish plans on a monthly basis.
d} It gets sticky when the buyer only uses the plan as a 'starting point'. A
'chair' is a Chair, as a 'boat' is a Boat, and a 'function' can't be
'copyrighted', etc. Changing the color of a item, or shape of a decorative
cut-out can't be claimed as a 'new' item, different from the purchased plan.
But if the shape, multiple design elements, or other obvious factors are
changed . . . it would probably be defensible.
Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{I NEVER take originals into the shop, I make SEVERAL copies of plans to
make *exact* scale models, I make SEVERAL copies of detail elements, and
ALWAYS have at least one 'back-up' copy 'filed'}
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
> >> in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
> >
> >May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
> >Please? Pretty please?
>
> "Working copies" of a work _in_your_possession_ are specifically allowed
by
> law. Depending on circumstances, there is a limit of one to three such
> copies allowed in existence at any given time.
>
SNIP
'Case Law', etc. also SNIPPED> >
"Wilson" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Andy Dingley writes:
> >
> > 4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations.
> > Redesign and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details
> > that determine the individuality of another person's plan. Anything
> > else is out and out theft.
> > On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught,
> > if you are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis,
> > if you sell copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile,
> > sooner or later, you will get caught.
>
> So you're saying that if I bought a book on woodcrafts and make
> projects out of that book, I can't sell them at the craft market?
Just to add murkiness to the discussion, what about plans for
artistic objects such as stained glass? If "artistic license"
is used when making something from plans including representations
of natural objects (trees, birds, cacti, etc.), are the natural
objects copyrighted? How far does inspiration from a copyrighted
work carry for a similar work to be considered derivative?
mojave smirks:
>Just to add murkiness to the discussion, what about plans for
>artistic objects such as stained glass? If "artistic license"
>is used when making something from plans including representations
>of natural objects (trees, birds, cacti, etc.), are the natural
>objects copyrighted?
Birds, cacti? Something close to nonsense, not murkiness.
>How far does inspiration from a copyrighted
>work carry for a similar work to be considered derivative?
>
That's where the courts come in, along with the murkiness.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Andy Dingley writes:
>>4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
>>library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
>>profit if not otherwise disallowed?
>
>As for any books, then you may be restricted in how you can copy them.
>The restrictions on how you can then use them are as previously
>described.
OK. As someone who has some practical experience in writing books, here's my
feeling on the whole deal, with the proviso that:some of this is not clearly
set out in the laws (U.S.), but is my take on the subject (even single copies
of plans may be forbidden, which I think is silly):
1. Make as many items as you wish of MY books' project plans. Do with those
objects as you wish. I've never understood the reason many authors
differentiate between woodworkers who make 18 dowhillickies for gifts and those
who make a dozen for sale.
2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense in
spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten. This may be a
gray area to some, but it has been through the courts (mostly because of
over-copying of textbooks in libraries. The libraries were held as liable as
the professors, IIRC).
3. Lend the book to anyone you want. You are not responsible for someone else's
actions, but it's possibly a good idea to remind him about copying. One copy
for shop use.
4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations. Redesign
and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details that determine the
individuality of another person's plan. Anything else is out and out theft.
On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught, if you
are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis, if you sell
copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile, sooner or later,
you will get caught.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
> The only *AUTHORITATIVE* determination is what the
> judge says, in court.
Which may then be cited as precedent, but is authoritative
only if it's been reviewed by an appellate court? After
review and confirmation, it becomes a part of case/common
law?
You may, but shellac will ruin your copier.
"John McCoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
> > in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
>
> May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
> Please? Pretty please?
>
> Actually, it's a normal part of my shop practice to make a
> copy of whatever plans I'm working from. Altho I don't
> intend to spill shellac on them, I do expect to make pencil
> notations as I go (particularly since a lot of plans manage
> to miss out some dimensions, and even those that don't I
> might change the printed dimensions to fit my needs).
>
> John
I say.. do what you want. Is the copyright police going to knock at your
door and haul you away to jail? I know if I ever had a plan, I would want
to
share it. I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.
"Everett M. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
> > The only *AUTHORITATIVE* determination is what the
> > judge says, in court.
>
> Which may then be cited as precedent, but is authoritative
> only if it's been reviewed by an appellate court? After
> review and confirmation, it becomes a part of case/common
> law?
Wilson writes:
>I say.. do what you want. Is the copyright police going to knock at your
>door and haul you away to jail?
You might very well be surprised.
>I know if I ever had a plan, I would want
>to
>share it. I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.
Well, I'm in it for both, and letting people steal from me takes away from
both.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
>> Wilson writes:
>>I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.
> Well, I'm in it for both, and letting people steal from me takes away from
> both.
Bingo! That's as pithy a sentiment as any in your signature lines.
As a still performing musician, and being married to one, I fully
appreciate, and have felt, the loss of revenue from "copying".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/23/04
In article <%[email protected]>,
Ron Magen <[email protected]> wrote:
>FWIW I'd like to but an oar in here.
>
>Similar 'discussion threads' have cropped up on the 'boatbuilding' Groups;
>i.e. selling 'used' plans. Also, this is not the first time the subject has
>appeared on this forum.
>
>a} If *you* BUY a specific 'PLAN' from a designer/author/composer/etc. that
>was produced at YOUR behest, and paid for, it is YOURS to do with as you
>like. Including putting it into 'Public Domain'. {Unless there were some
>specific CONTRACTUAL obligations between Purchaser & Seller}
That is *PROBABLY* true. There _are_ nuances that can trip you up.
The technical point is "work done for hire". If the piece _does_ qualify
under the 'work done for hire' rules, then copyright rests with the
party that paid to have it done.
The rules are -not- as clear-cut as one might think. If the party doing
the work is a 'contractor', as distinct from an 'employee', then copyright
probably does _not_ rest with the 'buyer'. UNLESS the the terms of the
contract specify that it does.
>
>b} A 'stock plan' usually has, at least, a note on it to the fact ONE boat
>per PLAN can be built . . . nothing about how many 'working copies' of the
>plan can be made.
Absent specific permission from the copyright owner, the purchaser is limited
to what _statute_ says he *can* do. And the copyright owner *cannot*, by
fiat, deny the purchaser something that _is_ allowed by statute.
BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, the buyer can agree to refrain from some action(s) that
the law does allow. And the copyright owner _can_ refuse to sell 'directly'
to that party unless they _do_ so agree.
> It is understood that the *one* boat is 'yours', not 'one
>boat per purchaser of copy', after copy, etc. There has been some 'splitting
>of hairs' on this issue - "If I DON'T BUILD the boat, is it 'fair' to sell
>the plans, and does THAT purchaser have the right, etc."
The latter question is a 'no-brainer' --
The right to build 'runs with the plans', *unless* it has been 'used'.
Once "somebody" has built from that set of plans, they cannot "honestly"
sell those plans "including the right to build one instance from them".
They _can_ sell, "without the right to build from these plans", however.
> Some plans come with documentation the size of a small 'pamphlet',
>equivalent to a contract, and really spelling out what is allowed for the
>REGISTERED plan . . . including a serial number !!
If that 'what is allowed' is more restrictive than simple copyright limitations,
and is -not- disclosed *in*advance* of the purchase, it is an *un-enforceable*
'contract of adhesion'.
>
>c} Typical stock 'arts & craft' plans have a disclaimer allowing a specified
>quantity of items that can be build - 25 'pieces' from the ones I've seen.
>They anticipate them being built for 'flea market' sales, church & club
>offerings, etc. Not 'commercial production', obviously.
>
>d} When a designer creates something 'under contract' the rights belong to
>the entity that contracted the work.
"Not Necessarily." The world on this changed _significantly_ when the U.S.
signed on to the Berne Convention.
"Work done for hire" became much more _narrowly_ defined. Work done by
an *employee* in the normal course of their business _is_ 'work done for
hire', and copyright resides with the employer.
For 'contractors', in the 'modern' (post Berne Convention) world, *UNLESS*
the contract provides otherwise, copyright remains _with_the_developer_,
and the buyer has only acquired a "right to use" license.
> That's how many designs by Jackson came
>into the 'public domain' by being published in the old Popular Mechanics
>Magazine. The same for designs by Monk in 'Rudder'.
Utter cr*p. publication in a magazine does _not_ convert something to being
'public domain'.
>
> It is the same for certain designers who publish their works in books .
>. . in fact, several of them state that the boats can be built from the BOOK
>PLANS. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to ignore LIBRARIES, yet there is NO
>admonition about 'only a Purchaser of the book, etc.'
The strict constructionist legal view is that "While the borrowed book is in
their possession, they can do anything that the owner of the book could do.
HOWEVER, those rights to do those things revert to the party the book was
borrowed from, when the book is returned. Derivative works must be 'returned'
to that party at the same time, or destroyed."
>Nor is there any such statements on the plans in the popular woodworking
>magazines that publish plans on a monthly basis.
The absence of any statement does _not_ convey permission to do anything.
>d} It gets sticky when the buyer only uses the plan as a 'starting point'. A
>'chair' is a Chair, as a 'boat' is a Boat, and a 'function' can't be
>'copyrighted', etc. Changing the color of a item, or shape of a decorative
>cut-out can't be claimed as a 'new' item, different from the purchased plan.
>But if the shape, multiple design elements, or other obvious factors are
>changed . . . it would probably be defensible.
Mostly true. As long as you don't copy 'unique' elements of that specific
design, you're probably safe from even the 'threat' of legal action.
>
>Regards,
>Ron Magen
>Backyard Boatshop
>
>{I NEVER take originals into the shop, I make SEVERAL copies of plans to
>make *exact* scale models, I make SEVERAL copies of detail elements, and
>ALWAYS have at least one 'back-up' copy 'filed'}
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
>> >> in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
>> >
>> >May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
>> >Please? Pretty please?
>>
>> "Working copies" of a work _in_your_possession_ are specifically allowed
>by
>> law. Depending on circumstances, there is a limit of one to three such
>> copies allowed in existence at any given time.
>>
>SNIP
>
>'Case Law', etc. also SNIPPED> >
>
>
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
> in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
Please? Pretty please?
Actually, it's a normal part of my shop practice to make a
copy of whatever plans I'm working from. Altho I don't
intend to spill shellac on them, I do expect to make pencil
notations as I go (particularly since a lot of plans manage
to miss out some dimensions, and even those that don't I
might change the printed dimensions to fit my needs).
John
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
>>> in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
>>
>>May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
>>Please? Pretty please?
>
> "Working copies" of a work _in_your_possession_ are specifically
> allowed by law. Depending on circumstances, there is a limit of one
> to three such copies allowed in existence at any given time.
>
>>
>>Actually, it's a normal part of my shop practice to make a
>>copy of whatever plans I'm working from. Altho I don't
>>intend to spill shellac on them, I do expect to make pencil
>>notations as I go (particularly since a lot of plans manage
>>to miss out some dimensions, and even those that don't I
>>might change the printed dimensions to fit my needs).
>
> 'Limited' copying for such purposes _is_ specifically allowed by
> statute.
>
> Case-law (Sony v BetaMax)
At the risk of sounding pedantic, this has been cited a bunch of times in
this thread. The case is Sony v. Universal Studios, commonly referred to
as the Betamax case not Sony v. Betamax.
In article <[email protected]>,
Everett M. Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Wilson" <[email protected]> writes:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > Andy Dingley writes:
>> >
>> > 4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations.
>> > Redesign and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details
>> > that determine the individuality of another person's plan. Anything
>> > else is out and out theft.
>> > On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught,
>> > if you are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis,
>> > if you sell copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile,
>> > sooner or later, you will get caught.
>>
>> So you're saying that if I bought a book on woodcrafts and make
>> projects out of that book, I can't sell them at the craft market?
By strict interpretation of U.S. copyright statutes (Title 17, United States
Code), that is precisely correct. Section 106 grants the copyright owner
the 'exclusive right' to control the copying and reproduction of those
works, "including the right to make derivative works". The object built
from the plans *is* a 'derivative work'.
*HOWEVER*, only the things that are 'unique' to that particular creative
effort are covered by the copyright.
e.g., a plan for the construction of a "Morris-style" chair is covered
by copyright. You can't photo-copy that plan and give/sell it to others.
This does NOT mean that you cannot draw up a _different_ set of plans
for a Morris-style chair, which is, in broad, similar to the other chair.
And you _are_ free to sell/give _your_ plans to others. The 'common elements'
to "Morris-style" are not protected under any copyright on a specific
set of plans. Nor, except in _very_limited_ situations, are general
construction techniques -- joint types, etc. What counts is the way
they're put together, and the overall effect thereof.
If somebody looks at your work and says: "That's a dead ringer for a
Sam Maloof design", and you _had_ copied from something Sam Maloof designed,
you've got a problem. OTOH, if your work is based on your own modifications
to something you saw Norm build on NYW, and you've never even _heard_ of
Sam Maloof, copyright does _not_ come into play.
>Just to add murkiness to the discussion, what about plans for
>artistic objects such as stained glass? If "artistic license"
>is used when making something from plans including representations
>of natural objects (trees, birds, cacti, etc.), are the natural
>objects copyrighted? How far does inspiration from a copyrighted
>work carry for a similar work to be considered derivative?
As I said in another post, copyright law is a *deep* legal morass.
You've just touched on one of the 'stickier' issues in that morass.
The existent body of case law on copyright *does* allow for "parallel,
_independent_ development" of 'similar' (or even *identical*) works.
There are cases on record where nearly identical things _have_ been found
to be the result of independent development. Extant case law appears
to indicate, however, that if you have _ever_ had access to, or been
exposed to, the other party's 'original work', that it is essentially
*impossible* to then claim that your work _was_ 'independent development';
that, _even_if_you_weren't_consciously_aware_of_it_, that you were
influenced by the other party's work, and, thus, your work is, at least
to some degree, a "derivative work" of their effort',
That said, what copyright protects is the "unique, creative effort" that
goes into the production of an "original work". If an object has components
that are -not- unique to that object/design, then those components
themselves are not protected by the copyright on the object as a whole.
The "great difficulty" arises in determining what parts are, and are not,
actually so protected. The only *AUTHORITATIVE* determination is what the
judge says, in court.
If you find the same design elements, the same proportions, the same 'styling',
etc. in multiple plans, _from_multiple_sources_, it is, almost certainly, safe
to copy those "common features". It's like the old term-paper joke: "if you
steal from a single source, it's plagiarism, stealing from just two sources
indicates laziness, but if you steal from three or more, it's research."
In article <[email protected]>,
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense
>> in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten.
>
>May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first?
>Please? Pretty please?
"Working copies" of a work _in_your_possession_ are specifically allowed by
law. Depending on circumstances, there is a limit of one to three such
copies allowed in existence at any given time.
>
>Actually, it's a normal part of my shop practice to make a
>copy of whatever plans I'm working from. Altho I don't
>intend to spill shellac on them, I do expect to make pencil
>notations as I go (particularly since a lot of plans manage
>to miss out some dimensions, and even those that don't I
>might change the printed dimensions to fit my needs).
'Limited' copying for such purposes _is_ specifically allowed by statute.
Case-law (Sony v BetaMax) expressly okays making a single copy for personal
use. If _that_ copy is damaged/destroyed, making another _from_the_original_
is allowed. (but, making a copy from another copy -- e.g. getting a friend
to dup _their_ copy of an off-air recording to replace your damaged off-air
recording -- is _not_ legal.)
In the U.S. making similar limited copies from a 'borrowed' work is OK _as_
_long_as_the_work_is_in_your_possession_. When the work is returned to the
party it was borrowed from, the copies should be "returned" as well, or
destroyed.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:49:53 GMT, "Wilson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>I say.. do what you want. Is the copyright police going to knock at your
>>door and haul you away to jail?
>
>If you're lucky they will do. If you're unlucky (and this is happening
>_a_lot_ right now), then they'll bankrupt you instead.
> ...
>"The Copyright Police" are already stalking America's streets, togged
>up in black assault vests with "RIAA" lettered across the back.
> ...
While I think that this is a bad situation - it also is much harder
to defend than the "plans" examples we're discussing. This "file
sharing" is massive in nature and it is widely advertised. That's just
asking for trouble.
> ...
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Everett M. Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>> The only *AUTHORITATIVE* determination is what the
>> judge says, in court.
>
>Which may then be cited as precedent,
"Not necessarily", I'm afraid.
In cases of copyright law, the court _frequently_ states
that "the judgement in this case is entirely dependent on
the specific facts to this case, and is _not_ to be relied
on as precedent in any other proceeding." Often in almost
*exactly* those words.
Well, you're free to _cite_ it, but the current court will
probably *not* find it persuasive, in and of itself. You
have to independently establish everything, anyway.
> but is authoritative
>only if it's been reviewed by an appellate court? After
>review and confirmation, it becomes a part of case/common
>law?
Taking things in more-or-less reverse order ---
'Case law' is simply the body of records of _anything_ that
the courts have actually ruled on. "Out of court" settlements,
after a suit is filed, are _not_ part of the body of case law.
"Case law" does -not- provide any guarantee of how a particular
court will rule in any specific case. They can find that the
'facts' at issue are somehow different, and act accordingly.
It remains, however, the "best available indicator" of how any
court is "likely" to rule on in a case that has yet to come before
it.
"Common law" covers the things that are "common law" (things that
'everybody knows'), but are _not_ set out in/by statute. Things
like:
a) "common-law marriage" -- where a pair of consenting adults represent
themselves to the world as 'man and wife', _without_ the formal paperwork.
Depending on jurisdiction, after some period (from as short as 'overnight'
to a span of several _years_), it is held to be _the_same_ as if the
formal paperwork had been done.
b) The legal description of a plot of land describes one boundary of
the plot as the "{mumble} river". But, the river has silted-up,
and it cut itself a new channel, in a _different_ location.
Is the property line the _old_ riverbed, or the _new_ one?
When a river moves a few feet, the issue usually isn't a significant one.
When a river move _several_miles_, it's a whole nuther story.
"_What_ do I own, when I own this piece of property" is not found in
statute, but in 'common law'. It predates the founding of the United
States. Principles involved trace back to the Magna Charta, and even
earlier.
A 'local' court ruling is _not_ binding on any other court,
i.e. they don't "have to follow it". However, it -can- be
cited, as 'persuasive evidence', in any other court. Which
is free to agree or disagree with the cited findings.
A judgement that has been appealed to the 'appellate court', and
affirmed by that court *is* binding on all the lower courts
under the scope of _that_ appellate court. A ruling by the "5th
appellate court" is -not- binding on a lower court that is under
the '3rd appellate court'. However, a lower court _can_ disregard
a 'binding' ruling by a higher court, *IF* (and only if) they can
find an aspect of the issue that the prior higher court ruling did
_not_ address. They can thus take the attitude that _this_ case
is 'different', and the prior ruling doesn't apply. This almost
guarantees an appeal to that self-same higher court, to get a
ruling as to whether this case really _is_ different, or not.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:49:53 GMT, "Wilson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I say.. do what you want. Is the copyright police going to knock at your
>door and haul you away to jail?
If you're lucky they will do. If you're unlucky (and this is happening
_a_lot_ right now), then they'll bankrupt you instead.
http://www.incunabula.org/blog/archive/2003_09_28_index.html#106497086439945852
"The Copyright Police" are already stalking America's streets, togged
up in black assault vests with "RIAA" lettered across the back.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jan/gee20040112023398.htm
>I know if I ever had a plan, I would want to share it. I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.
Excellent news.
Then might I suggest you take a look at the Creative Commons project
for a more flexible look at copyright.
http://creativecommons.org/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy Dingley writes:
>
>
> 4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations.
Redesign
> and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details that determine
the
> individuality of another person's plan. Anything else is out and out
theft.
>
> On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught, if
you
> are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis, if you
sell
> copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile, sooner or
later,
> you will get caught.
So you're saying that if I bought a book on woodcrafts and make projects out
of that book, I can't sell them at the craft market?
Wilson responds:
>>
>> 4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations.
>Redesign
>> and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details that determine
>the
>> individuality of another person's plan. Anything else is out and out
>theft.
>>
>> On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught, if
>you
>> are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis, if you
>sell
>> copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile, sooner or
>later,
>> you will get caught.
>
>
>So you're saying that if I bought a book on woodcrafts and make projects out
>of that book, I can't sell them at the craft market?
>
PLANS. Please read the answer. You cannot copy the frigging PLANS and sell
them.
Some authors also refuse you the permission to sell projects made from their
plans. It has to be so stated, I think, and if you'll check out some magazines,
you'll see that writers not on the editorial staff often put that kind of limit
on their contributions.
As I sad in my first answer, if you'd read the whole thing, I don't understand
that line of thought, but then this world has a lot of things I don't
understand, not just nuclear physics.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Henry E Schaffer <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Jay Windley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>A similar issue arises in music where printed music is bound in a book so as
>>to make it unwieldy while playing the music -- won't stay open on the stand,
>>must turn pages at awkward times. While the copyright owner can
>>legitimately point out that a performance assistant can alleviate this
>>burden, it is generally accepted that copying legally purchased music for
>>the purpose of putting it into a more convenient form -- i.e., making one
>>long strip of paper -- is Fair Use.
>
> IMHO (IANAL) it would be very easy to defend this if you owned the
>book. (I'm also speaking of USA copyright law.)
>
>>Of course the standard criteria for Fair Use come into play: copying to
>>facilitate commercial enterprise, evasion of purchase, relationship of the
>>copied part to the whole, impact upon the market, etc. And that's why we
>>have lawyers and courts. If I, an amateur woodworker, photocopy one page
>>out of a 100-page book called "Easy Woodworking Projects You Can Build" for
>>the purpose of using the plan in my shop while preserving the book from
>>damage, and destroy that photocopy when the project is finished, I would be
>>very surprised and disappointed to be sued for doing it.
>
> If you owned the book - then it would be very hard for the suit to
>demonstrate any damages.
The issue is 'creation of derivative works'. Which is under the 'exclusive
control' of the copyright owner.
You may not have harmed his _book_ sales, but you may have impacted *his*
ability to sell similar 'derivative works'.
*Without* considering the issue of "statutory damages" vs. "actual damages."
You don't have to prove damages to collect "statutory" awards.
>>Similarly, if I were writing such a book I would clarify that particular
>>point somewhere in the book's text: that copying which does not dilute the
>>book's market is allowed.
>
> I think that this is a very important point, and it is particularly
>easy to defend this if one owns a copy of the book.
One would _think_ so. Actual legal history suggests differently.
There is a case on record where the act of simply copying a computer program,
from magnetic storage into the main memory was held to be actual infringement,
and non-trivial monetary damages *WERE* awarded. And the case was _upheld_
on appeal.
I agree with Doug. :)
Being an Editor myself, I think he has just about got it right, although
each book situation may be different.
--
Regards,
Dean Bielanowski
Editor,
Online Tool Reviews
http://www.onlinetoolreviews.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Latest 5 Reviews:
- Veritas Shelf Drilling Jig
- Ryobi CID1802V 18v Cordless Drill
- Workshop Essentials Under $30
- Festool PS 300 Jigsaws
- Delta Universal Tenoning Jig
------------------------------------------------------------
Was his lawsuit successful?
John Emmons
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I read an article about Thomas Moser who published a book for
> Shaker-design furniture. A woodworker followed the plans in Moser's
> book to make and sell pieces, and Moser sued the woodworker. Yet,
> Moser took Shaker plans to create his book and there is nothing
> unusual about Moser's designs. I wonder if the Shakers would approve?
I read an article about Thomas Moser who published a book for
Shaker-design furniture. A woodworker followed the plans in Moser's
book to make and sell pieces, and Moser sued the woodworker. Yet,
Moser took Shaker plans to create his book and there is nothing
unusual about Moser's designs. I wonder if the Shakers would approve?
In article <[email protected]>,
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a
>> 'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel
>> of the publication of the plan itself. Possible exceptions being
>> something like a 'theory of design' book, where the 'intent' is
>> clearly discussion and/or research, and -not- the immediate creation
>> of derivative works.
>>
>> The further you push that implied license, beyond the construction,
>> for one's own "personal use" of "one object" -- or "one set" of
>> objects intended for use in multiples -- the less persuasive the
>> argument gets.
>
>It's common, when one purchases the plans for some things (boats,
>houses) for the plans to explicitly state you have purchased the
>right to build one copy.
>
>One could probably argue that a plan which doesn't explicitly
>state a limit, is implicitly allowing the building of multiple
>copies.
One could so argue, but, based on the 'letter of the law', in the U.S.,
one would _probably_ lose. Copyright law expressly states that the
copyright owner has the "exclusive right" to control the "reproduction
of his work, including the making of derivative works". The object
faithfully built from the plans is a derivative work.
There are two ways a restriction on building objects from a set of plans
could come into play. One is via copyright rights. The other is as a
matter of "contractual terms" concerning the purchase thereof. An attempt
to impose 'contractual terms' to a purchase, that are *not* known to
the buyer _before_ the purchase -- e.g. 'terms and conditions' _inside_
a sealed package, of which there is no other mention -- is what is called
a "contract of adhesion', and is invalid and un-enforceable in every
Jurisdiction in the United states.
As a point of law (Since the U.S. adopted the "Berne Convention" rules, in
the late 1970s), a copyright owner _does_not_ give up any rights by failing
to state them. He doesn't even need to state that the item _is_ copyrighted;
full rights/protection accrue _regardless_. All rights remain with the
copyright owner, unless specifically waived or granted to others.
*IF* the express 'license' to build one object from the plans is derived
from copyright, and not from 'contract law', then the absence of that
grant of license means that there is _no_ license to build -any- derivative
works.
OTOH, if the restriction, in the cited cases, is a contractual agreement
known to both sides _before_ the contract was entered into, then the
absence of such 'agreement' means that "whatever the law *allows*" is
what one can do. Because you, the purchaser, have _not_ voluntarily
agreed to "more restrictive" terms.
When plans are 'custom work', as in the case of hiring an architect to
design a house for you, *absent*CONTRACTUAL*agreement*to*the*contrary*,
that falls under the "work done for hire" rule, and the copyright on it
actually belongs to the party who _hired_ the work done. Commonly, such
contracts do specify that the architect retains copyright ownership and
grants the buyer only 'limited' reproduction rights.
Existent case-law regarding the issue of derivative works does suggest
that building an object from plans, that DOES incorporate 'unique' elements
from those plans, does fall under the 'exclusive control' of the copyright
owner, subject -only- to the 'exceptions' that are enumerated in the
copyright statutes. The Sony v BetaMax case held that single copies of an
object, for "personal use", was -not- copyright infringement. *Presumably*
this extends to a single 'derivative work' -- I'm *not* sure if there is
actual case-law addressing that specific point.
>
>As you suggest, tho, once one moves from the "personal use"
>realm to the commercial, it gets much more complicated.
Even "to/for others" -- as in the case of gifts -- and it is really
messy, *without* money changing hands.
[email protected] (YJJim) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
Making an item from a plan
> would likely be considered a derivative work, but I would argue that
> an implied license is granted when the plan is sold. If the plan
> seller wants to set a limit on what you can do, that is a different
> question.
I think it would depend on the design. If I come up with a completely
novel design for a chest of drawers, radically different from an
artistic standpoint than anything that has ever come before, and if I
then publish an article containing plans for that chest of drawers,
then I probably have intellectual property rights to both the design
and the article/plans. The article/plans would be a copyright, and if
someone makes a chest from the plans, that may also be protected under
the copyright laws as a derivative work.
If, however, I go to a museum and take measurements of a Shaker chest
of drawers from the mid-1800s, and then write an article on how to
make an authentic Shaker chest, I expect my rights would be different.
I would probably still have a copyright in my article, but I cannot
imagine I would have any intellectual property rights in all authentic
Shaker chests hereafter built by anyone based upon those plans,
whether as a "derivative work" or otherwise. I can't recall the
precise rule, but I seem to remember there's some requirement that if
you want to say something is protected under copyright law (whether
the plans/article or the derivative work), it must be an "original
work" or something like that. If I am remembering the rule right, the
article could be an original work even if the chest was not, in which
case the article would be protected but people could make the chests
all they want.
As I look through the articles/plans in most modern woodworking
magazines/books, I don't see much that looks terribly original. While
any given set of plans may not look exactly like something that is
already out there, I think most of the publishers/authors of these
plans would have a really tough time explaining why their piece of
furniture is so different than anything that has ever been crafted
before that it constitutes intellectual property and no one else
should be able to build it.
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a
> 'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel
> of the publication of the plan itself. Possible exceptions being
> something like a 'theory of design' book, where the 'intent' is
> clearly discussion and/or research, and -not- the immediate creation
> of derivative works.
>
> The further you push that implied license, beyond the construction,
> for one's own "personal use" of "one object" -- or "one set" of
> objects intended for use in multiples -- the less persuasive the
> argument gets.
It's common, when one purchases the plans for some things (boats,
houses) for the plans to explicitly state you have purchased the
right to build one copy.
One could probably argue that a plan which doesn't explicitly
state a limit, is implicitly allowing the building of multiple
copies.
As you suggest, tho, once one moves from the "personal use"
realm to the commercial, it gets much more complicated.
John
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> "Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a
>>> 'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel
>>> of the publication of the plan itself.
>>One could probably argue that a plan which doesn't explicitly
>>state a limit, is implicitly allowing the building of multiple
>>copies.
> *IF* the express 'license' to build one object from the plans is
> derived from copyright, and not from 'contract law', then the absence
> of that grant of license means that there is _no_ license to build
> -any- derivative works.
This would seem to contradict your first statement, quoted above.
I would take it from that, that you don't beleive the "license
to build one object" would be derived from copyright law, which
does sound reasonable.
> OTOH, if the restriction, in the cited cases, is a contractual
> agreement known to both sides _before_ the contract was entered into,
> then the absence of such 'agreement' means that "whatever the law
> *allows*" is what one can do. Because you, the purchaser, have _not_
> voluntarily agreed to "more restrictive" terms.
And, it would seem that "whatever the law allows" in that case is
not clearly defined.
John
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Copyright law, _itself_, does not provide *any* exemptions with regard
> to derivative works, per se. Only the general exemptions to copyright
> infringement. And the right to create derivative works *IS*,
> according to the law, under the 'exclusive control' of the copyright
> owner.
I was pondering this, earlier today. What, exactly, is a "derivative
work"? (you may have defined that elsewhere in the thread, and I
missed it; if so I apologize for asking the question again). I
could see where "derivative work" could be construed to mean only
a work which included, in total or in part, the text (or images,
etc) which were copyrighted. By that reasoning, something which
is made from a description which is copyrighted, is not a derivative
work.
Where my thoughts where going with that was, that if rights to an
object which is made from a copyrighted description is held by
the copyright owner, then patents would seem to be unnecessary -
all one would have to do is publish a plan to one's invention to
have control of it indefinately, rather than the 17 years that a
patent grants.
John
Great! Now I have a _good_ excuse for SWMBO when I'm asked why I'm sitting
on my butt, surfing the net, BSing on the rec or _reading_ the latest
woodworking mag instead of being out in the shop building something from one
of the articles in those mags. "Sorry honey, it's the copyright laws!"
(yeah, she'll buy THAT.....like hxll she will)
So I'm headed the an undisclosed major office supply firm to use one of
their devices to make a "pattern" for a project which shall be used only for
the personal enjoyment of the recipient of the resulting "gift". (hope
they don't get caught selling it at a tag sale after I am dead and gone)
When you folks start to see my mug shot above the copier down at OfficeMax,
you'll know why!
DexAZ
In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dusty Workshop asks:
>
>>
>>I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
>>I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few
>>specific questions.
This entire subject is a *deep* legal morass. The *ONLY* way to know _for_
_sure_ whether what you intend is, or is *not*, copyright infringement is to:
(a) try doing it, (b) get sued, *AND* (c) have the judge make a ruling on your
case. The U.S. court system has been "singularly UNHELPFUL" in regard to
clarifying the uncertainties in the law. Virtually *every* court ruling on
infringement is careful to state that "... this ruling is specific to the
facts of the case at hand, and should _not_ be considered as precedent for
any similar case in the future." Usually, in almost those _exact_ words.
It is best to err on the side of caution, since even a _successful_ defense
of an infringement suit will run well into the middle six figures. And
probably take a minimum of three to five years. And the likelihood of the
plaintiff getting a 'temporary restraining order' prohibiting you from
continuing to do 'what you had been doing that led to the suit', until such
time as judgement is rendered.
>>1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are
>>my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not
>>otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal
>>use?
>>
>
>You usually can make it for sale.
This is questionable. The constructed object is, technically, a 'derivative
work' of the copyrighted "original" (the plans).
The making of derivative works, for ones own *personal*use* is generally
_not_ considered infringement of the copyright on the original. Life
gets =much= more murky when commercial sale of the derivative work is
involved. E.g., in the 'believe it or not' category (and I happen to think
it was a *really*bad* ruling), the courts _did_ rule -- in a case involving
a party who bought postcard photographs, trimmed them to match the face
of random-shaped wooden plaques, and laminated the picture to the face
of the plaque -- that _even_though_ the plaque-builder bought an 'original'
fore each derivative he made, that he _was_ infringing on the rights of
the owner of the copyright on the photograph. Once he owned each copy,
he _was_ free to "do with it as he would"; But he was not allowed to
_sell_ that "modified" (a.k.a. a "derivative work") object, _without_ the
permission of the copyright owner.
The swamp gets, potentially, even deeper if "somebody" brings in a set of
plans -- or even just a picture -- and requests that you "build me one just
like _that_ one". Depending on how faithful your 'copy' is, of course,
>
>>2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then
>>creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
>
>No.
Correct. *REGARDLESS* of what use (if _any_) he makes of the plans.
making the copy _itself_ is the forbidden act.
>>
>>3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to
>>create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?
>
>Yes.
Nit-pick -- _You_ don't get into any trouble for loaning him the book,
*even*if* the use to which he puts the content is proscribed. *HIS*
liability is a whole 'nother can of worms.
>>4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local
>>library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for
>>profit if not otherwise disallowed?
>
>No.
Note that there is _no_ legal difference between the situations in
scenarios 3 and 4. Borrowing a book from 'the library' is, _legally_,
no different than borrowing it from 'a friend'. In either situation,
the _lender_ does not incur liability for actions performed by the
borrower. Well, unless the lender "suggests"/"promotes" that action
to the borrower, as a reason for borrowing/using the book. Then one
*does* have potential liability, on the basis of 'enticement'.
REGARDLESS of the 'enticement' issue, the borrower *is* liable for
his own actions.
Checking a book out of the library, and copying *some* of the plans
out of it, for your _personal_use_ is "probably" not copyright infringement.
Again, for an 'authoritative' answer, ask the Court. *grin*
When 'commercial gain' becomes part of the mix, *OR* when you copy a
"significant amount" of any particular work, things get a whole lot
more UNCLEAR. And *really* messy.
"Who created the plans", and how well-known/respected/"recognizable" he, and
his work is, is also a contributing factor. Copying a Sam Maloof design
is much more likely to be found to _be_ infringement than is copying
some 'generic' design used as a teaching model in a drafting class.
>>Woodworkers, what are your thoughts ?
"Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a
'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel
of the publication of the plan itself. Possible exceptions being something
like a 'theory of design' book, where the 'intent' is clearly discussion
and/or research, and -not- the immediate creation of derivative works.
The further you push that implied license, beyond the construction, for
one's own "personal use" of "one object" -- or "one set" of objects intended
for use in multiples -- the less persuasive the argument gets.
The safe path is: "If in doubt, *ask* the copyright owner. Unless you get
an affirmative response, _don't_do_it_."
>
>Simply put, the person who develops the plans usually holds the copyright.
>Copyrights prevent copying of the plans, and some claimed rights may reduce the
>number of copies permitted. I'm not sure of the legality of such limits.
ABSOLUTELY legal. Copyright law expressly gives the copyright holder the
"exclusive right" to control the reproduction of the protected work.
_Including_ control of the creation of 'derivative works'. There are a
handful of specific exceptions to that "exclusive right", that are enumerated
in the statutes. Deciding "whether or not" a specific instance/action is
covered by one of those exceptions is where *all* the legal wrangling takes
place. (Either you have the permission of the copyright owner, and the issue
is thus moot, or you _don't_ have permission, whereupon the only way it is
_not_ infringement is if one of the exceptions applies. Legal note: this
means that it is up to the defense to prove that an exception _does_ apply;
the plaintiff does _not_ have to make a showing that none of the exceptions
possibly apply. Of course, once the defendant asserts that a particular
exception "does apply", plaintiff must show why that assertation is invalid,
to keep the defendant from prevailing. )
>You generally cannot make copies of any copyrighted plans to pass out, whether
>or not you charge for those copies. You can lend the book or plans to anyone
>your choose, and they're free to make as many of the projects as they wish, or
>as the limits allow, but they are not free to copy the plans.
When a 'borrowed' book is in your possession, you can do "whatever the law
allows" you to do if you owned the book, subject _only_ to any additional
restrictions placed by the owner physical artifact that is _the_book_itself_,
as 'terms and conditions' of loaning it to you.
Note: "Just because" the owner of the physical artifact says you "can" do
something, that does -not- mean that it is safe for you to do so.
If the owner "doesn't have the authority' to grant permission for that
act. you can _still_ be prosecuted for acting on that (false) assurance.
Whether or not you _knew_ it was false at the time.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Dusty Workshop asks:
> >
> >>
> >>I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws.
> >>I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few
> >>specific questions.
>
> case. The U.S. court system has been "singularly UNHELPFUL" in regard to
> clarifying the uncertainties in the law.
I think this is all part of the Master Scheme you learn about @ Law School:
"Obfuscation keeps everyone working!"
> It is best to err on the side of caution, since even a _successful_
defense
> of an infringement suit will run well into the middle six figures. And
> probably take a minimum of three to five years. And the likelihood of the
This is what is *so* frustrating. Even if you "win" - you lose!
How's that go again? "First thing we do?..."
"YJJim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| No, you can't make copies of the plans. That said, I would argue that
| you could make a single copy of the plan to use in your shop so as not
| to mess up the book or original. This is a debatable point and some
| would disagree.
A similar issue arises in music where printed music is bound in a book so as
to make it unwieldy while playing the music -- won't stay open on the stand,
must turn pages at awkward times. While the copyright owner can
legitimately point out that a performance assistant can alleviate this
burden, it is generally accepted that copying legally purchased music for
the purpose of putting it into a more convenient form -- i.e., making one
long strip of paper -- is Fair Use.
Of course the standard criteria for Fair Use come into play: copying to
facilitate commercial enterprise, evasion of purchase, relationship of the
copied part to the whole, impact upon the market, etc. And that's why we
have lawyers and courts. If I, an amateur woodworker, photocopy one page
out of a 100-page book called "Easy Woodworking Projects You Can Build" for
the purpose of using the plan in my shop while preserving the book from
damage, and destroy that photocopy when the project is finished, I would be
very surprised and disappointed to be sued for doing it.
Similarly, if I were writing such a book I would clarify that particular
point somewhere in the book's text: that copying which does not dilute the
book's market is allowed.
--Jay
Jay Windley notes:
>Of course the standard criteria for Fair Use come into play: copying to
>facilitate commercial enterprise, evasion of purchase, relationship of the
>copied part to the whole, impact upon the market, etc. And that's why we
>have lawyers and courts. If I, an amateur woodworker, photocopy one page
>out of a 100-page book called "Easy Woodworking Projects You Can Build" for
>the purpose of using the plan in my shop while preserving the book from
>damage, and destroy that photocopy when the project is finished, I would be
>very surprised and disappointed to be sued for doing it.
>
>Similarly, if I were writing such a book I would clarify that particular
>point somewhere in the book's text: that copying which does not dilute the
>book's market is allowed.
If you've got one of my books, current or future, go for it. I will remember to
clarify it in future books.
Photocopy everything you expect to use in the shop, not just one page. Now,
don't go doing this to everyone else's books, too, unless you get permission.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Jay Windley <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>A similar issue arises in music where printed music is bound in a book so as
>to make it unwieldy while playing the music -- won't stay open on the stand,
>must turn pages at awkward times. While the copyright owner can
>legitimately point out that a performance assistant can alleviate this
>burden, it is generally accepted that copying legally purchased music for
>the purpose of putting it into a more convenient form -- i.e., making one
>long strip of paper -- is Fair Use.
IMHO (IANAL) it would be very easy to defend this if you owned the
book. (I'm also speaking of USA copyright law.)
>Of course the standard criteria for Fair Use come into play: copying to
>facilitate commercial enterprise, evasion of purchase, relationship of the
>copied part to the whole, impact upon the market, etc. And that's why we
>have lawyers and courts. If I, an amateur woodworker, photocopy one page
>out of a 100-page book called "Easy Woodworking Projects You Can Build" for
>the purpose of using the plan in my shop while preserving the book from
>damage, and destroy that photocopy when the project is finished, I would be
>very surprised and disappointed to be sued for doing it.
If you owned the book - then it would be very hard for the suit to
demonstrate any damages.
>Similarly, if I were writing such a book I would clarify that particular
>point somewhere in the book's text: that copying which does not dilute the
>book's market is allowed.
I think that this is a very important point, and it is particularly
easy to defend this if one owns a copy of the book.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
In article <[email protected]>,
Kelby <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (YJJim) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>Making an item from a plan
>> would likely be considered a derivative work, but I would argue that
>> an implied license is granted when the plan is sold. If the plan
>> seller wants to set a limit on what you can do, that is a different
>> question.
>
>I think it would depend on the design. If I come up with a completely
>novel design for a chest of drawers, radically different from an
>artistic standpoint than anything that has ever come before, and if I
>then publish an article containing plans for that chest of drawers,
>then I probably have intellectual property rights to both the design
>and the article/plans. The article/plans would be a copyright, and if
>someone makes a chest from the plans, that may also be protected under
>the copyright laws as a derivative work.
Quite correct.
>If, however, I go to a museum and take measurements of a Shaker chest
>of drawers from the mid-1800s, and then write an article on how to
>make an authentic Shaker chest, I expect my rights would be different.
> I would probably still have a copyright in my article, but I cannot
>imagine I would have any intellectual property rights in all authentic
>Shaker chests hereafter built by anyone based upon those plans,
>whether as a "derivative work" or otherwise.
In this case, the plans _themselves_ are a 'derivative work' of the
museum's property. Any copyright that may have existed on _it_ has
long since expired. The _only_ copyright you hold is on the 'derivative'
part. Making a copy of the plans _themselves_ is potentially infringing
on your derivative copyright. Building the object thus described is using
-only- the elements that belong to the 'original work'. To which copyright
no longer applies.
> I can't recall the
>precise rule, but I seem to remember there's some requirement that if
>you want to say something is protected under copyright law (whether
>the plans/article or the derivative work), it must be an "original
>work" or something like that.
You're close. Copyright is to protect "original works of creative endeavor".
> If I am remembering the rule right, the
>article could be an original work even if the chest was not, in which
>case the article would be protected but people could make the chests
>all they want.
Yup. The article _is_ an "original work of creative effort", the plans
are a derivative work, and you have rights *only* to _your_ 'original
creative effort' in those plans -- essentially the manner/style/etc, in
which the 'ink' was laid down on the paper.
>As I look through the articles/plans in most modern woodworking
>magazines/books, I don't see much that looks terribly original. While
>any given set of plans may not look exactly like something that is
>already out there, I think most of the publishers/authors of these
>plans would have a really tough time explaining why their piece of
>furniture is so different than anything that has ever been crafted
>before that it constitutes intellectual property and no one else
>should be able to build it.
Yup. "Common elements" are not protected by copyright. The precise manner
in which they are combined into a whole, _can_ constitute the 'creative
effort' required for copyright protection. Whether or not it "does" is
something that only a court can decide. This is, in fact, one of the
"first line" defenses to a copyright infringement suit -- that the work
copied did _not_ have sufficient original creative effort to qualify for
copyright protection. Absent sufficient 'originality', one -cannot- have
actionable infringement. :)
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:45:33 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>No. Both the plans, and the designs they embody, are copyrighted.
A design cannot be copyrighted.
There may be "design rights", but these are distinct from copyright.
Copyright is automatic (it's copyrighted even if it isn't labelled or
registered as such), but design rights have to be specifically claimed
and filed. They're also usually only available for quite short
periods, in comparison to a copyright or even the lifetime of a
library book.
The _expression_ of a design may be copyrighted (ie a drawing or plan
of it). You can be in breach of copyright on this even if you never
saw it, and if you never copied it - copying the design of the item is
sufficient, provided there's also a pre-existing drawing.
>You may lend the book to him.
>He may not sell items created from those plans.
Why not ? If there's no specific restriction forbidding this, why
should one reader be distinct from any other ? I agree that this is a
_possible_ situation, if the license to construct the item was only
granted to the _owner_, but that's pretty contrived.
Jeff Gorman wrote:
> "YJJim" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> : mmmmm, copyright law, one of my favorite topics. :) Ok, so I'm an IP
> : attorney, mostly do patents, but have a good amount of experience with
> : copyright.
>
> As a matter of interest, is there any know instance of a legal action been
> taken in this context?
Yaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn.............