Is it OK to copy projects from the magazine?
A reader is curious about the ethics of building other people's designs.
I’ve been a longtime reader of Fine Woodworking and I am extremely grateful to the many talented woodworkers from whom I’ve learned almost everything I know about woodworking. Recently, I spent some time scrolling through an active discussion on Finewoodworking.com on the “ethics of copying.” At the root of the issue is the question of whether or not it is ethically or morally right to build someone else’s design. When I read your magazine and see an article about a build, I see it as an invitation to build, and I’ve developed lots of good skills from doing so. But I’m struck by the strongly held views of some that putting your work into Fine Woodworking is not permission for readers to go ahead and build it. I’m not sure what to think. What are the limits of the use of the information you publish? Can I build a featured project for myself? Do I need to contact the original builder for permission? Can I build one for a charity auction? Can I build one to sell? What principles should I use to guide my decisions when I’m considering copying the work of others?
—Gerry Giesbrecht, Calgary, Alta., Canada
Editor’s reply:
The short answer is that it’s fine to build a piece for yourself or family and friends based on a project published in the magazine. I feel that’s perfectly OK, even if you are being compensated (lumber isn’t cheap!). However, if you are embarking on a professional career, you should get permission from the author before replicating a specific piece of work.
For me, a bigger question to consider is why a woodworker would want to make an exact copy of someone else’s work. I think that this defeats the purpose of building handcrafted work, and more important, it misses an opportunity to invest your own creative vision into the work you make. Designing original work can be a big challenge. When you start woodworking, it’s a good idea to use an existing piece as a reference. But the more you build, the more you will begin to develop a library of techniques and design details from previous projects that you can draw from in future projects. In this way, you can chart a path from basing work on existing designs to building work that more closely reflects you as a maker. Just about everything I make now still owes its form to many pieces and influences that came before it. In the end, while building from an existing plan can be an instructive exercise, you’ll see greater rewards in the long run if you instead use it as a jumping-off point to an original design.
—Michael Pekovich
From Fine Woodworking #296
Fine Woodworking Recommended Products
Drafting Tools
Stanley Powerlock 16-ft. tape measure
Blackwing Pencils
Comments
For a hobbyist woodworker, and in particular one who is still on the steep part of the learning curve, the copying of a project from an article in a publication to which you subscribe, with said article basically presenting plans for building same, I can see no moral/ethical objection to building/copying said work. There is rarely, if ever, any significant, measurable effect on income for the original designer/builder in such instances.
The rai·son d'ê·tre of FWW is, as I understand it, to foster the learning and growth of those taking up the activity, at pretty much any level. For beginners and hobbyists that produce one-off "copies" for friends, family, etc., I believe it is not just accepted or even expected that the article may prompt construction of the project, but it is actually encouraged.
It should be noted that a sincere attempt to copy every detail is probably less common than one might expect without reflection. Substitution of wood species, changes in dimension, alteration of details of joinery, finish, and more are all common, and constitute varying levels of real change. So there's that, too.
For those who are hobbyists but holding greater woodworking acumen than the beginner, the "rules" are essentially the same, I believe. The inclination to make such alterations to the plans and execution thereof as to make it "one's own" will be greater, and such is generally encouraged here and elsewhere.
There is another (perhaps not so) small point to be made. It is always dishonest to present a work made from another's plans as entirely one's own, from design through execution, and thus, at least generally, wrong.
The more interesting question for the professional furniture makers, etc., is, "How much change/alteration is necessary in order to claim a piece as one's own?" My photograph of a particular famous barn in one of our national parks might look very similar to that taken by a famous professional photographer, and may even have been inspired by that particular image. Is the work not my own? How much inspiration must come from that other image before I should acknowledge the existence and importance of that inspiration? These issues are more complex, and made even moreso by the fact that there are only so many ways to meaningfully alter the design/build of a Shaker-style bedside chest, for instance.
Now, all this having been said, it's never wrong to say, "I built this based on a piece I read about in Fine Woodworking. Mike Pekovich designed this cool wall-mounted tool chest and showed how to build it in the article. Mine is made from balsa wood and bubble gum instead of cherry and hide glue, but the rest is the same."
what this guy says ...
If it's causing so much internal strife, don't do it.
If FWW didn’t want us to build the pieces, then why put plans in the articles?
Ditto.
I’ve never had a second thought about it. I guess if you were going to sell projects based on copyrighted plans then you should probably get permission, although not sure how that would be enforced. If FW wants to give me detailed plans then I’m going to use them.
Hmmm, so when someone in FWW'ing has an article on building a Shaker Table, did they get permission from Mother Lucy Wright (or her descendants)? Arts and Crafts from John Ruskin?? Morris chairs from 'Ole Billy Morris??? Building a table or chair is not quite as unique as Einstein publishing E = mc**2. Wood items have been made for many years. Anything done now is just a variation on a theme.
I think Mike and the first commenter nailed it. I can build a very solid piece but as far as coming up with a design that has pleasing proportions and lines not so much. I have never built an exact copy, just very similar. I only have time to build for myself and feel as others do that if FWW didn't expect readers to build the projects in the magazine they wouldn't put detailed, dimensioned drawings in the article and would include verbiage that use of the plans/designs is prohibited.
That said, in the the 80's when personal computers were new and software was expensive I probably lost a friend or two for refusing to sell them copies. I have a brother who is an engineer and had designed some products that took a year or so to develop, test and get to marker. The price would be higher than the cost of the parts and the time it would take to put it together because he was trying to recoup the time he spent getting it to market. There were a few times that he came up with something popular and before long someone else was selling the same thing. I also remember hearing an interview with Sam Maloof where he said of all the hundreds of people selling copies of his rocker, no one ever ask permission to use his design. That's wrong. When Michael Fortunes' Adirondack Chair was in the magazine I really wanted to build a couple of them but I didn't want to go to all the trouble of building all the forms for all the bending just to build two or three chairs. I thought about contacting Michael to ask how much it would cost to license his plan. I thought I would build some chairs to sell to cover the cost of materials and time for building the forms. In the end, I decided I didn't want to spend the time to build the forms and never spoke with Mr. Fortune but I would never have considered stealing his or any plan to build and sell.
It's kind of a fine line sometimes. The world has been spinning for a long time and like ysu65 pointed out, there are aren't many totally unique ideas anymore. For personal use, I wouldn't worry about it. If I were going to sell it, I would check with the author. If I thought it was my own design, I would try to see if someone had done something very close to it before.
Be safe, have fun, and make some sawdust.
Mike's response didn't address the trickier question of making copies from pictures in the Readers Gallery. A lot of those pictures are submitted by professionals who are making their living by selling unique objects. And a lot are by amateurs just having fun and the reader doesn't know which is which. If I see something that really lights my fire, is it a sin to try to replicate it? I wouldn't think so if it was just for my own use. If I tried to sell it, that would be wrong.
It would be wonderful if we were all so creative that we could think of unique solutions to all of the endeavors that we throw ourselves at, but if somebody wants to make replicas, more power to them. There are lots of FWW articles on replicating classic pieces of furniture. I presume that is because a lot of people like to do that. If they want to replicate something new, I don't think we should look down our noses at them. To try to shame those people for not being creative enough is wrong. They are doing something productive and rewarding to themselves and that should be commended.
All furniture is really just a step in the long evolution of design and making skills. We’ve all learned from past masters of the craft and consciously or unconsciously incorporated aspects of pieces we’ve seen into our own ‘unique’ designs.
I do agree that an absolute copy of something from the mag is a bit cheeky, but hey! everyone has to start somewhere.
(Warning: there maybe a golden idea here if you can get past the grammar and spelling!) My two cents to Gerry Giesbrecht and anyone else who wants to copy and sell for a profit any of the projects from a woodworking magazine. Go for it. For some reason people get hung up on the profit part. Don't. If you are trying to pay the bills working with wood, and you are new to the craft, just copy whatever design you purchased in a magazine without any second thought. I'll use Mike Pekovich as an example since it is his response I am countering. If Mike or anyone else wanted their design to be theirs alone and for no one else to profit from it, they should have talked to an intellectual property lawyer and patented their unique design. It sounds like "trying to have your cake and eat it too" if you want to claim some thing as uniquely yours and at the same time sell blueprint copies with step by step instructions. Coke-a-cola will continue to win in court guarding their unique recipe up until the day they decide to sell that recipe and publish it in a magazine.
The second part where people get hung up with this question is how long have you been in the craft? Of course Mike Pekovich should not just straight copy others work, because that would not be an improvement for him. He has been doing this for 30+ years. The people who ask the "is it ok to copy" question are normally cutting their first pair of mortis and tenons. If you are just starting out in the craft, get your fundamentals down by copying and selling designs you purchased from a publisher. They are tried and true. As you progress you will start to develop your own since of style, and will progress in your craft by increasing your design capabilities. Be kind to yourself and don't set the bar so high you can't cross it. You should not be trying to design your own original piece of furniture as you cut your first set of dovetails. All in due time. That is the conclusion I came to having recently gone down this path. Best of luck friend. - Mark
I agree with most everything that has been said but just because someone didn't copyright the plan that they built their piece by, if they even drew a detailed plan, does not make it yours to sell. There are many $$$$ reasons why a one to 100 person shop wouldn't want to copyright or patent their work or plans. After one of my brothers products got stolen I ask him why he didn't patent things. Aside from the cost, he explained that some big companies had what he and other small companies called patent voltures, lawyer engineers that hung out at the patten office looking for good ideas that they could steal. That could make a patent application the best way to get your idea stolen. After you patent or copyright your idea you have to protect it in court. How many weeks could any of us afford an army of lawers at several hundred dollars per hour every time someone tried to steal our idea. If you are Coke-a-Cola and have your own army of lawers, you would be happy to pull them off the gulf course and into court, anytime someone stepped on your toes. For the vast majority of woodworkers that get in the Readers Gallery, all they can affford to do is kick the cat and go on.
The question was "is it ok" not can you get away with it. If I had the talent to design and build a piece that was worthy of a spred in this magazine, I would be fine with readers building it for personal use but not to build and sell copies of my work for their profit. I have see two pieces here that I liked well enough to build exact copies and bought the plans. However I don't feel owning the plans gives me the right to make and sell thoses pieces for profit without permision from the author/designer. Buying the plans gave me full size drawings of some curved parts that saved a lot of layout time and that's what I feel I'm paying for, not full ownership of the idea. Plan purchase is a different question but that's my take on it.
Be safe
I'm the original poster (Gerry Giesbrecht) who posed the question to Mike. I want to thank all of you for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion. I make my living as an academic; a professor at the University of Calgary. Intellectual property is something I think about all the time. In academics there are well-defined rules and mechanisms for acknowledging the ideas and people who have contributed to your own work (references/citations). You want others to reference your work in theirs because the reputation of an academic increases every time someone cites their work. Like woodworking, there are very few completely original ideas. I have no difficulty navigating this problem in my academic life because the rules and mechanisms for acknowledging the work of others is clear. The same is not true in woodworking. If I build Michael Pekovich's tool cabinet (I have, and its a great addition to my shop), how do I acknowledge his contribution? I must admit that the first thing out of my mouth when people ask about it is not acknowledging Mike's contribution, in part because I forget to mention it and in part because sometimes the flow of the conversation would be awkwardly disrupted by adding this kind of parenthetical acknowledgement. I have come to a place of being okay with that missed attribution in part because people aren't asking about the design so much as about the actual build, and my friends are interested in my contribution rather than Mike's (sorry Mike). But the ethical aspects of replicating, even if it isn't an exact copy, retain some tension for me because I know that even the builds that I design myself are strongly influenced by the work of others and there is no straight-forward way for me to acknowledge this. Woodworking is therapy for me, so there's an inherent good to me for getting into the shop. I am fortunate to have a career to pay the bills and a hobby to keep me sane. Along with that, I try to use my woodworking for the good of others. Right now, every spare minute I spend building projects that are being sold as a fundraiser to support the work of the Mennonite Central Committee's peace and refugee work in Ukraine. As I develop my craft, more and more of my work reflects my own sensibilities and style. But I would be deceiving myself if I thought that my builds were truly my own. So I will say with humility "I built this" and if the conversation allows, I will talk about all the wonderful work that all of you do that has inspired my own.
Like you, I built Mike's tool cabinet, with a few changes. I have posted photos on a couple of sites where it attracted quite a bit of attention (42,000 views in one case); I have given credit for the plan to the point of providing a link to purchase.
That said, it would be impossible to build a perfect copy of anything. I also think it would be very difficult to pursue an infringement suit on a piece where the plans were placed into the public domain via a magazine article with plans and dimensions. That would be a very hard sell to a jury. The viewpoint that a defense lawyer would take would be that if the developer wanted it to be proprietary, why publish it in a magazine; I think even I could sell that to a jury.
While I have built a number of pieces using published plans, in every case, there was something that was changed because I either didn't like the look, didn't have the right materials or router bit or other tool, or simply wanted to do it differently.
I'd like to throw in an aspect from someone who dabbles in the music industry too. There is music in the "public domain" (past copyright date or too old for copyright) & music that has a copyright. You can play anything you want for your personal use/satisfaction but you can't perform for money or publish/sell it without compensation to the rights holder. Copying Peckovich work for personal use should be seen as a compliment. Selling multiple copies would be unethical, but likely also very inefficient if created the way & he & Tom McLaughlin & Becksvoort make furniture. When a musician creates a song it's a huge compliment when others play it--as long as the author is recognized & compensated.
I agree with Michael Pekovich that it is indeed OK to build furniture for yourself or others based on projects in Fine Woodworking and other publications. In fact, I believe Fine Woodworking has been encouraging it - I have over 25 years worth of Fine Woodworking issues in my shop, most every one includes a project with detailed plans, instructions, and cut lists (some of which you are encouraged to purchase on the website). Where I depart from Mr. Pekovich, is his question of “why a woodworker would want to make an exact copy of someone else’s work?” As other comments in this blog have said - woodworking fulfills different aspects of their lives for those who do it. I use woodworking as a way to unwind and mentally relax. I find looking over a detailed visual plan, reading through and following directions, and trying to understand the benefits or drawbacks for said plans brings a sense of calm and order. I also look forward to the Reader’s Gallery each issue to examine and pour over the work pictured, trying to imagine how something was made - seeing if I can envision how to take the piece apart in my head - seeing the joinery and steps that were taken in the construction. I have built copies of many pieces from the reader’s gallery - and I find it very satisfying.
Not all Fine Woodworking readers are on a woodworking career trajectory - for one reason or another. And that has to be ok - even with the major contributors and editors of the magazine. If someone builds a beautiful cabinet and it finds its way into the magazine, they need to be ok with others admiring it and pushing their own skills to replicate that. Now if I’m doing so and making 50 copies and selling them up and down the east coast, another discussion has to take place - but I don’t think that’s what Mr. Giesbrecht was insinuating. I like to think of it this way - I take guitar lessons (and am not all that great at it) - I know I am never going to write my own songs or music - I am never going play like Paul McCartney - but should I not even bother to try and learn to play the guitar then? Some of us enjoy and thrive on the, as Mr. Pekovich states, “instructive exercise” of building from plans or trying our best to replicate a piece that says something to us. We shouldn’t, as another post said best, be made to feel shame about doing so.
I have considered this topic in the past and did a quick search.
I found the following that seems to apply to the case of wood working plans. The original article is protected by a copyright but the plan and the article made are not eligible for copyright protection.
In the United States, patterns are generally not eligible for copyright protection as copyright does not apply to methods or “procedures for doing, making, or building things.” Additionally, an item created from a pattern also lacks copyright protection if it is considered to be a functional object.
https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2014/07/14/patterns-and-copyright-protections/#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20patterns,to%20be%20a%20functional%20object.
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Sign up Log in