Greetings all,
Our small (well, very small) woodworker guild has been contemplating the idea of putting together a library of commercially-purchased plans that could be borrowed by members. We’re not talking about thousands of plans, just a few dozens or so to start. On the face of it, it sounds like a good idea — plus we could use this as a recruitment incentive for new members — but I wonder if this is entirely legal and ethical.
It may be assumed that the seller of a specific plan wouldn’t really care how many copies of an object — be it a toy, or a piece of furniture, or a jig — is made by a single person purchasing a plan… or even if the purchaser lends the plan to his brother or his wife’s cousin, and that they consider this type of use absolutely legal. But do they consider it legal if their plan is lent out to five or ten different people who are, in the final analysis, complete strangers to each other?
And it may be that, from a legal standpoint, there is nothing that the plan suppliers could or would want to do. But is it ethical to share plans that way? After all, everyone is entitled to a fair return on their intellectual property.
What do members think? Do some groups or guild already operate such a library of plans?
Replies
is it ok for you to buy one copy of software and let all your friends load it on their machines?
m
Do the plans have a copywrite symbol and date? If not, the scaling and dimensions may have been taken from an existing piece. If you look at copying music from tapes, albums(yeah, I know), CDs, DVDs and other software, it was permissable for someone to copy for their own use, but not for sale or distribution to others. I'm sure the info is out there if you google it.
>>It may be assumed that the seller of a specific plan wouldn't really care how many copies of an object
Don't make that assumption. When you purchase a plan the only assumption you can make is that you have a licence to make one item. Generally, it is OK for the purchaser to make as many items as he/she wants as long as it is for personal use and not for sale to others.
Public libraries do this all the time, I'm not sure how they are treated by copyright laws but there are obviously some situations where this is perfectly legal. I'd ask a librarian about the legalities.
John W.
First the disclaimer...
I am not a lawyer.
Now for some pratical advice - I deal with this type of issue almost every day. Each set of plans printed (hardcopy) plans will have a copyright statement and or a license statement. Read both statements - it will be painful but not impossible. Each plan may have very different restrictions. If the plan creator is publishing something that's original the restrictions will be very different than a "copy" or "derivative" from something that's in the public domain.
Boat designers often copyright their plans granting broad permission to copy and/or republish these plans. However, you must purchase a separate license from the designer to use the plans to build a boat.
Copyrights generally restrict use of the printed materials, licenses restict what you can do based on the plans. It it very possible that you will find plans that don't permit physically copying the paper (copyright restiction) but also don't contain any plan use (license) restrictions.
First of all, a plan does not have to have a copyright symbol on it to be copyrighted. It's pretty much automatic. The symbol just emphasizes the copyright.
Most of the plans I've seen have indicated that it's OK to make a copy for personal use, but it's not OK to sell the plan. Last year when I was doing quite a bit of scrolling, I looked carefully at the different plans' documentation. For most, it was OK to make items from the plan and sell them, but it was not OK to sell the plans themselves. The only exception was with Patrick Spielman's books, which were much more restrictive.
I wouldn't worry about it.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Tom, would you happen to have a good Copyright, and License Statement that you could post here, or, know of an online source where I could go and view some of them ?
I'd appreciate it very much !
Joe Wood,Unfortunately, the copyright/license statements I work with are tailored to software and all of them are covered under attorney/client priveledge subject to non-disclosure by me.I suggest you check out creativecommons.org. They provide "creative" people with a good strategy for copyrighting and publishing creative works.
Ah, I'll go do that right now Tom, and thanks for the tip !
<<First of all, a plan does not have to have a copyright symbol on it to be copyrighted. It's pretty much automatic. The symbol just emphasizes the copyright.>>FG, this opinion has the potential to cause a misunderstanding of the copyright laws. Like a lot of other things involving the law, it ain't that simple. The extent of abuses of copyrights in the information age is overwhelming, but this doesn't change either the intent or the fact of protection afforded by the copyright notice. Yes, it is possible to defend in a court of law the origin/ownership of a unique creation (i.e., a plan) without there having been a formal notice of copyright, but that is extreme. So, to avoid all the hassle of proving ownership of a design (or whatever) and the implication that permission is required to copy it, the notice of copyright is used. Further, this is a convention and practice with great precedence. (I'm speaking as a publisher, not as a lawyer.) It would be quite costly to prove one's ownership of a design in the courts versus simply using the copyright notice. I would even venture to say most people would interpret the lack of a copyright notice on a plan to mean it was in the public domain.As someone else has suggested, however, it may be a non-issue in the real world for a library-like situation as considered in this thread. The real issue is whether the rights of the originator/publisher are being compromised and the best way to avoid this issue is to use the copyright notice as proscribed by the U.S. Library of Congress and to list the permitted and/or prohibited use of the material. In other words, the use of a copyright notice goes way beyond just "emphasis".I come down a little firmly on this as one who has had to defend the use of copyrighted material when such unauthorized use has resulted in a loss of revenue and a compromise of the author's originality. Would it have been a issue if someone made one or two copies of something? No. But what if a hundred copies were made and then sold or otherwise distributed.
I appreciate your first-hand knowledge about copyright issues. I made that point "a plan does not have to have a copyright symbol on it to be copyrighted" partly to dissuade folks from thinking that just because something doesn't have the symbol on it, that it's not protected. The last sentence you quoted, I probably should not have written. :-(forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
As for the library... at a library you can copy materials, which are supposed to bibliographied to the original owner under Educational provisions- 'For Educational Use Only', that is the difference with business vs educational and I dont believe that their rules would apply here unless you were a non profit using the plan to teach a group how to make the object, which still may be stretching the law. ex- all participants may need to buy a copy.
You had better talk with a copyright attorney, but as was mentioned you could always call each publisher it usually expresses that somewhere on the item.
No problem. There is a problem, though, with regard to the public being informed about the meaning of copyright protection and its enforcement. A good example today is the ripping and burning of songs over the internet. It would be hard to imagine anyone not knowing you can be busted big time for doing it, yet people persist. I'd like to see more media attention being paid to copyright regulation. A lot of people, and not just kids, equate desire and capability with permission. A "friend" of mine came to the shop one day and, after noticing my library of woodworking videos, asked if he could borrow them. I suggested he just take one or two at a time and come back for more. Then he said he would like to take them all so he could copy them at one time. He even wanted to make a few extra copies for friends. This guy should/did know better, but think of the money he could save -- and essentially steal from the producers!I have granted permission for others to use certain excerpts from books on an individual case basis, but I drew the line when a teaching staff in a hospital was caught copying whole chapters of a book without even attribution to the author or publisher because the author was affiliated with another (competing) hospital. There was a specific prohibition stated in the book against doing this, too.Moral of the story: "It doesn't apply to me."
Clearly under the scenario you provided the publishers and authors of the plans you intend to put into your library would have the universe of potential purchasers (but not users of their product) reduced by the number of woodworkers in your guild.
That said, public libraries certainly are not illegal nor are various reading rooms one might find.
Long and short - I wouldn't worry too much about it.
It would be no different than any other library, public or private. Use them all you want.
The exception would be if the plans were sold with the explicit restriction of their use. For example, home plans are usually licensed for construction of only one home. But it clearly says that in the purchase offer. If your plans don't limit the design to a certain number of embodiments, then you can make as many as you wish. The restriction is not on the plans themsleves but on the design. The creator can sell you plans but not allow you rights to build the design, or rights to the design without permission to copy the plans, or neither, or both.
This brings to my mind a second issue--can one legally or ethically build a piece from someone's plan, and then sell the piece?
Charlie
I came from the publishing industry, and here's my understanding of the copyright law as it pertains to the scenario you outlined.
You can certainly buy a plan and then make it available to your members through a free lending library. However, if you charge them a fee, then the law says you must seek the official permission of the publisher.
No publisher is going to get bent out of shape if you make copies, but again, technically, you are prohibited from doing so -- especially if you are using the "essence' of the work, i.e. poems, music, and plans.
The author of a plan might state that you can not commercially sell objects made from the plan, but I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on -- unless you are using his name to promote it --i.e. "Sam Maloof's rocking chair".
To protect your Guild, I would suggest a line in the descriptive material such as: Plans are available free for member's use. If you want a set of plans for your personal library, please order them from the publisher."
This will protect the guild, if in the unlikely event, some overzealous copyright attorney sends you a letter. But I think pigs will fly before that happens; these people have better things to do with their time. and even if you get such a letter, it will just be a "cease and desist" kind of thing.
Overall, I think it is a great idea. Any plans publisher wants to maximize the public awareness of their stuff, and creating a lending library is a very good way to do that.
"You can certainly buy a plan and then make it available to your members through a free lending library. However, if you charge them a fee, then the law says you must seek the official permission of the publisher.
No publisher is going to get bent out of shape if you make copies, but again, technically, you are prohibited from doing so -- especially if you are using the "essence' of the work, i.e. poems, music, and plans. "
I'm an amateur musician, and have played with a number of community bands and orchestras. The way I understand it is there are no problems with using the sheet music if we have a free concert, but if we charge admission we need to have permission from the music publisher to use the sheet music. Generally, most community bands and orchestras are incorporated as non-profit organizations, and all that is required is a permission slip from the publisher. I believe the same applies to high school and college bands.
If your guild is also a non-profit, it may make a difference to whoever owns the rights to the plans, whether that is the person who designed them in the first place or the publishing company.
Edited to add: The more I think about it, I'm not sure I got that entirely correct...the permission slip from the publisher is for the right to make photocopies of the music. For instance, if your band has six trombonists but only four copies of the trombone music so you need a couple extra copies. I'm pretty sure there are also regulations about using the music for profit vs. free performances.
Edited 12/8/2004 9:19 pm ET by Stuart
Bois ....
When you find a design you'd like to add to your library, simply contact the designer or seller of the plan(s), explain your situation and ask if it's within the limitations of the seller's intent on selling the plans in the first place.
From Beautiful Skagit Co. Wa.
Dennis
Speaking as an Architect, plans are considered instruments of service by the people who produce them. Per the standard AIA contracts, if you hire me to design something for you, and I give you a set of plans, the plans are still mine. They are not yours to copy, redistribute, or build multiple buildings from. They are considered the intellectual property of the designer, and are loaned to the client to help accomplish construction. If you want to build two of something, you should pay some additional amount to use the plans a second time. Also, they are to be surrendered to the designer on request. (All of this is per the contract, and not neccessarily the way it works in the real world.)Having said all this, when we discuss plans for furniture, it really depends on the intent of the individual designer. In most cases, when you buy plans, you have purchased permission to build one copy of someone's intellectual property. I would say, if the designer has given written permission for unlimited use of the plans in a library type setting, you are home free.
I don't think an individual or group should assume any legal parrallels between themselves and a library or a school. You can't even get the same postal rates.
A plan in a magazine is fair game. A plan sold outright is just like a CD and anything beyond a personal archival copy should be purchased. If the guy that did the plan wanted to give it away he would.
Not that it directly applies to print, but the iTunes (Apple) download format (AAC) is protected and allows 5 copies to be made of a song.
The AIA position and standard contract guidelines are completely one-sided, meant to shield the architect from liability and maximize the architect's ability to collect fee. And probably rightly so, since it is probably one of the most underpaid professions. But it's not law and doesn't apply to off-the-shelf published plans.
You can't always rely on subsequent sales as the test either. Disney went after preschools a few years ago to collect the same fee schedule as commercial users even though the preschools weren't directly charging to watch the videos.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
I suppose my best guess at 'best practices' here ...
When adding a plan to the library you should contact the owner of the material and see if it fits into one of three categories:
1. Free access. The copyright owner says they don't mind the copy in the library or copies of the design being produced. Be sure to keep the name of the copyright owner with them since they're doing your guild a favor and other things they've designed might be of interest to the members.
2. Copy in the library for viewing only. The author is interested in letting folks look at the design to see if they're really interested, but to make something from them is restricted. Keep a reference with the material where members can buy their own copy if they'd like to make something from the plans.
3. No copy of the plans for 'public' viewing, please. You might be able to put some information on what the plan covers and what the resulting item looks like along side of a reference for where it can be purchased for folks in the guild.
I think those three categories would let the original author get what they want, compensation at one of three levels. And the members of the guild get what they want, ideas and sources and contact information within a common interest area. It does mean a bit of work for those who maintain the collection though.
I am not a lawyer, but after 20 years in the software business and being an author, I believe I understand copyright and IP law pretty well, after having drafted umpteen contracts dealing with these issues.
Copyrights are the property of the author and remain so (in many countries, the copyright itself cannot be transfered, merely the license to the copyright--the author always retains the copyright).
Purchasing a copy of a work gives you the right to use that copy and (usually) no more. You are buying a limited right to use license (you do not buy the copyright, that remains the authors). A specific exception is for many software copyright licenses, permission is given to make an archival copy--for archival use only. Note--you can sell your license to use that copy, but then you give up your right to use the copy. If I buy Microsoft Office and use it for a year, I can still sell that copy to someone else, but then I can no longer use Microsoft Office (but the files I created using Office were and remain my property). There is also a "fair use" statute that allows for extracting or copying parts of the original into another work, but you can't copy the entire work. This is why you can legally photocopy parts of books from a library--but if you copy extensively from the book, you most likely ARE violating the copyright license.
Copyright licenses may restrict library use. I subscribed to Biochemistry journal for many years, and on the cover of each and every one of my personal issues was "Library use prohibited before [5 years in the future]." Some copyright owners or publishers will issue licenses to libraries at a multiple of the cost of a single use license. Do not assume if you buy a copy of a plan that you can put it in a library. Get specific, written permission from the license issuer.
Some of my plans I'm more than happy to put into the public domain. Others I won't license. Still others I may decide someday to sell, but I would not want the buyer to go and make copies or put it in a library, unless they pay me for more than one copy.
Summary: you don't buy the copyright, that is virtually always the property of the author. You buy a license to use a (usually single) copy of the work when you buy a plan. You can make partial copies of a work under the "fair use" statutes, but making a complete copy, or a copy of a large part of the original is not "fair use" and there is plenty of legal precedent in this area. Making unauthorized copies is theft. Period. Go ask the napster guys if they got away with it....
Hope this helps and I hope it makes anyone who is making unauthorized copies to think twice about what they really are doing. Just because it is easy to make a copy doesn't mean it is legal.
boisfranc, If I sold you a set of my working drawings for you to make a copy of one of my pieces then I'm more than happy for you to make a reproduction of that item for your own use or as a gift.
Make a second copy of the item and try to sell it and I find out I will most definitely not be happy.
Sell or lend additional copies of those working drawings I sold to you to somebody else for them to make and/or sell copies of my work and I'll get mighty pissed off if I find out. What recourse I have is likely to be limited as I don't have unlimited resources, but you would certainly receive at least a snotty letter from me asking you to stop it.
I chased a college that was advertising one of their woodworking courses by using a copyrighted image of my work until they stopped using it-- it didn't take much really-- a snotty letter plus demands for money for every use of the image did the trick in that case.
I'm not averse to getting pretty mean and aggressive about protecting my design work if I have the ability to do so, but as I said earlier I'm just a wee guy with little or no money to hound copyright infringers. Slainte.
Am I missing something here? I don't read in the original post that he plans to make ANY copies of the copyrighted plans. It appears to me that he plans to purchase one legal copy and then place it in a lending library for the members to use. They would one at a time borrow the original plan, make the object, and then return the plan to the library for the next person to borrow and use. The only "copy" he referred to is the fact that the plans will be used multiple times to make multiple "copies" of the design object, not photocopies of the plan. To me this is like buying a book and loaning it to a friend to read after you complete it, and then the friend returning it to you later. No one photocopied any portion of the book (or plan) or violated any copyrights that I am aware of.
Am I being simplistic and naive again?
Is this really a problem.
Say you go and buy the complete Woodsmith Collection. You have it in the shop and a buddy borrows a copy, makes a photocopy(who doesn't) for the shop and builds the project and keeps his copy and gives mine back. Are we napster?
I paid real money for the plans, and made a legal copy to use. I didn't resell it, or use the woodsmith name in conjunction with it.
Maybe the editors can come over to my house and take their furniture back too...
Isn't that why plans are sold. I can't imagine any REAL woodworking authors getting bent out of shape about a guild having a library and letting members use the plans. I would suggest that they use magazines and books over prepackaged plans, but getting what you need the most important. The books, plans, etc are for our use. They are not simply reference materials. Do you think Taunton Press expects us to not build adaptations of what we see in print???
Well put, this whole thing is a tempest-in-a-teapot and an academic argument at best.
The copyright notice -- if there is one -- will spell out the terms of use. Generally it will limit use to the person who paid for it, but it doesn't really become a sticking point until something is sold or reproduced, then it's not ordinarily an issue unless it is a "significant" violation of the copyright. BUT -- if the copyright holder wants to make it an issue, regardless of quantities, he may, as many software companies do. At this point it hinges on the practical trade-off between the cost to remedy the "injury" and any possible recovery. Disney protects all of their stuff -- even portions of images -- but then they have a lot of lawyers working all the time on such.Once I was involved in preparing an employee Christmas party for a large corporation (not Disney). There were many thousands of employees who were going to gather with their families to sing carols, and little booklets were printed containing the most popular carols. Turns out most of the carols were copyrighted! After some emergency meetings with the attorneys for the corporation it was decided to proceed without obtaining any permissions. The rationale was that the defacto infringement was not going to cause injury to the holders of the copyrights and that -- if it came to a suit -- the company would cover it one way or another.But, as cautioned above by others, "it depends". That's why there' so much being posted here; it isn't easy to generalize and each case may have special limits or intent. I have had occasion to consult a large legal firm which only handles intellectual property cases. They wouldn't be there if there were simple situations to copyright situations.To Paul: Just to round out the discussion of ownership of intellectual property, there is another class of copyright ownership and that is when there is a "work for hire". But that's also a whole other issue.
It's funny/sad how a thread entitled "ethical" turned legalistic and what that says about our society. With all due respect to any lawyers that aren't actual slimeballs, right or wrong, most people would put lawyers pretty low on the ethics scale. So why do we look to the law for answers to ethical questions when we should be looking to our conscience? John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Well, John, you make a strong point. Just last night my wife and I had a discussion about this very point with some guests. It boiled down to observing a seeming lack -- maybe an increasing lack -- of trust, integrity and common courtesy. Granted there can be misunderstandings and many legitimate needs for legal specialists, but one of our guests was a well-known architect who used to do business with a handshake as did I and today that isn't acceptable to almost everybody in the loop -- client, bank, suppliers, etc.The last book I did was for an author who was comfortable with the handshake approach and it was very satisfactory for both of us. So far my woodworking commissions have been that way, too. I'm willing to work that way, but I'm probably part of an increasing minority.And you?
Trust is hard to come by. I used to do my commissions on a deposit for materials up-front and handshake for the rest. I've only been burned once. It was overflow work for a friend who supplied the QSWO. 14 Stickley style dining chairs finished and ready for the upholster to do the slip seats. My friend was doing other furniture for and lots of custom architectural WW on the end customers multimillion dollar house. I busted my hump to get done early & turned the chairs over to make the A&C show at the Disney Grand California Hotel. I was to be paid when he got his next progress payment. End customer was at the show and just gushed over his new chairs w/ the table that sat all 14. 2 weeks later the end customer goes psycho and stiffs all the subs, including my friend who can't afford to sue or pay me. 2 years later I'm still out $5600. This is a side business for me and he's feeding a family. Got burned a 2nd time on the same deal at tax time - you can't write off bad debt when doing business on a cash basis. Ever since I get at least half up front and it doesn't leave my shop until I have cash in hand or the check has cleared.
PS: I almost spent most of the $5600 before I had it on a Performax, good thing I waited.
John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Edited 12/10/2004 7:39 pm ET by ELCOHOLIC
Interesting story, John, and I would have to say it it doesn't seem to compromise the notion of your or your immediate client's trust. But you were depending upon the chain of a "sub" to a sub and someone else's judgement which I would hardly hardly consider a trust issue on your part ultimately. Too bad, nevertheless, as I'm sure you put a lot more than just time into the project. I hate that kind of story as I'm sure you entered into it with the full expectation of a win-win relationship.The question persists, however -- would a pile of contract documents have prevented or rectified the outcome?At the same time, I don't feel that asking for an advance for materials is a lack of trust. It's just plain practical and doesn't impune anyone's integrity, while limiting your exposure to a client's going "psycho" before the project is delivered. Plus, you don't need a lawyer to do it.
"The question persists, however -- would a pile of contract documents have prevented or rectified the outcome?"
Prevented? No. Rectified? Not in and of itself. Contract documents are just a jumping off point for legal action.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
I think you're right about that pile of contracts. However, I do think others are somewhat less likely to screw you if there exists a clear and unequivocable contract on the deal.
Similar question came up at Baen Books' website (http://www.baen.com , click on Baen's Bar) regarding folks that had scanned a few novels and put them up on the web, where they could be read, printed or downloaded.Jim Baen (the guy that runs the place) said he looked on it as free advertising, and that anyone who printed out one of his books, incurring more costs in paper and printer ink or toner than he sold the book for, was welcome to.Jim's take is that he'll sell more books to those that read them, he's allergic to lawyers and enforcing it will cost more than it's worth, literally.YMMV.Leon Jester, Roanoke VA
The conventional wisdom on this issue plays out in all of the responses you have received so far, but the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear MGM Studios v. Grokster. This case specifically deals with the issue of music file sharing on the internet, but the ramifications are significant because the legal issue that will be decided is whether or not a service can be held liable for the sharing of protected material among it's members, and like all Court decisions, this will be applied across a broad spectrum of cases in addition to simply music file sharing.
In your case, you are probably on thin ice if the club purchases the plans and shares them among the members (although it's worth noting that public and private libraries do this all the time. However, if the individual members agree to make their private plans available to other members, then that's a different matter altogether and it's at the heart of the internet file sharing debate.
So while the other responders on this thread think it's cut-and-dry, my response is that it's not and we'll see how it gets decided in the spring when the Court hears the Grokster case. But having said that, be clear that the copyright protections that are in the law today are not at issue in this case, only the liability of a 3rd party intermediary who neither solicits sharing or takes possession of the material in question.
At any rate, it's less of an ethical issue, more of a legal one, IMO.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-480.htm
Edited 12/12/2004 12:57 am ET by Jeff
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled