Are there any potential problems in selling a piece that was made from ideas that you read about or saw in a magazine article or book? Or possibly making a copy of a piece that a customer saw in another cabinetmakers catalogue and wants you to make a copy as a custom piece? Could you be taken to court?
Thanks for any input.
Bill
Replies
Read this page, it has the pertinent information:
http://www.kastenmarine.com/copyright.htm
Note the following: "A copyright need not be formally applied for, nor formally granted: It is automatic."
Here is a link to a US gov site re: copyright basics:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 8/15/2002 3:35:16 PM ET by forest_girl
Thanks Forest_girl I've book marked those sites. There definately worth keeping handy.
Bill
Yes and No. If its an exact or near exact copy you need to buy or get permission. If you took ideas then no. If you have to buy the plans make the customer pay for them. If youre getting profit from someone elses plans or creations, be an adult and take the right steps. If youre making a copy for your own use then its hard really to do much.
But the idea is simple, you profit from an item you should pay the piper. Put yourself in the shoes of the person youre getting the plans from; would you like it?
I understand your point... but if the author is being compensated for writing an article, say for FW, that provides detailed design and construction plans is there any reasonable expectation on the part of the author that they retain the copyrights or does FW now own the material in the article and by my purchasing the magazine shouldn't I be allowed to use it.
I have checked several periodicals and books and haven't seen any reference or disclaimer restricting the use of the ideas, only the reprinting and redistribution of the articles themselves.
I think there is an ethical answer and a legal one. You seem to be looking for the legal one. I suggest that you see an attorney. I also suggest that is simply isn't worth it. There are nicer ways to make a buck and they'll let you sleep at night.
While i see your point, in this day of EULAs(end user license agreements, as in software and online services) The plans and articles are owned by the author and or the publisher/magazine.
Im sure there is some forfeiture when publishing the plans, however judges and lawyers get much more interested when someone profitteers from copyrighted material.
Just like the FBI warnings in front of your DVDs and Videos that prohibit persons from using that video to sell tickets. Bars, Pubs and clubs have to pay special fees to show those pay per views since its not for personal use because they are profitting from them. Its copyrighted material, just like a magazine article, or book. And i dont think buying the book allows for reporduction of plans for non personal use.
But youre wanting specific legal advise pertaining to your business, consult with your lawyer.
"But youre wanting specific legal advise pertaining to your business, consult with your lawyer"
That wasn't the point of asking this question. The point was to see if anyone had any pariticular experiences with this or could relate the experiences of others. This isn't a practice of mine, but I know that sooner or later a customer will walk in and say "I have this photograph" or "I saw this piece on the cover of FW, can you build this for me".
I'll pose the question to the forum, what some of you do if this customer walked into your shop with that question.
Do you try to steer them towards other pieces that you have built or do you use the piece they want as the basis to designing a "new" custom piece.
No, I will not copy a piece unless my client could provide written permission from the copyright holder. If the client can provide that, then I will be happy to build the piece.
""sooner or later a customer will walk in and say "I have this photograph" or "I saw this piece on the cover of FW, can you build this for me"."
I tell them to contact the maker of that piece. The maker may have more than one, or an example in a gallery for sale, or more than willing to make it again-- I will certainly remake old designs for profit. I've advised 'my' potential customers to contact the originator of the item more than once, and the makers were able to fulfil the order. If it should happen that I find out that someone's ripped off one of my designs for commercial gain, that person can rest assured I'll be after their nuts in my best impression of a starving ferret up their waist tight, ankle tied, trouser legs. I've had some success with snotty letters and such in the past. I'm not the slightest bit interested in someone copying a piece of mine for their own learning experience, enjoyment, or as gift to friends or family Slainte, RJ.
RJFurniture
PS. Edit mode. What I said is not quite true. If someone contacts me stating that they are copying one of my pieces for the learning experience, gift to friend, etc., and I believe them, I take a great deal of interest in what they are doing, and encourage them as much as possible, and offer suggestions and hints, which include suggestions for slight changes.
Edited 8/15/2002 9:10:28 PM ET by Sgian Dubh
I'll play the Devil's Advocate on this one... Briefly... And I will use a piece from your website gallery as an example...
In 1999, you produced a cherry dining table with cabriole legs (as well as a matching ladder back chair). Now, just looking at the picture (and assuming someone wanted me to make them one like it) I would not be able to determine how you attached the stretchers to the legs. I would probably assume that you used a mortise and tenon joint, but then again, maybe you used a dowel joint or a sliding dovetail joint or a metal corner brace and hanger bolt or whatever. All this to say that I would guess it would be ok for me to reproduce this table for a client, for a profit, from this picture as long as there was something different albeit very small from the original design.
I say this because I would bet very seriously that there were people before you that have built a cherry table with cabriole legs and that you have seen pictures of them as well. Therefore, since you have seen these pictures in the past and are now building, generally the same thing for a profit, have you not committed that act to which you so vehemently object? Don't you "owe" those people something since they "created" this piece before you? Your argument would probably be that while you did see a cherry table with cabriole legs before, this is not exactly like those you saw. Ok, I agree. Then it goes back to me just changing one small thing to be ok?
Just a thought.
By the way, the cherry table and chair are beautiful!
RR
Generally speaking, if you buy the plans you have bought the use of the plans. Unless they come with a disclaimer you have bought unlimited use of the plans.
Published magazine plans become public domain again unless there is a disclaimer claiming otherwise.
Been through a similar situation.
Rookie, incorporating a general 'look' is one thing, such as 'shaker' or 'Arts & Crafts' but ripping off all my 'artistic' input and methodology is another. I don't claim that that particular cabriole leg is entirely mine. For all I know someone else came up with something similar completely independently, but I do feel that I 'invented' it independently, without knowingly borrowing it from someone, and that it does somehow feel a bit personal. As to the joinery, well that's a centuries old knowledge passed on from one generation of craftsman-- said on purpose-- to the next. Women have really only played a significant part in furniture making over the last 100 years or so.
I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do feel that that that piece is mine. I guess someone could try to replicate it for profit, and I can't do much about it. Tough titty on me, but shame on the copyist for being so slavishly unimaginative, but perhaps their marketing effort is better than mine too, and that's rather my problem. If the piece inspires and leads a maker to create something that moves on from that then I applaud it. Inspiration comes from all sorts of sources. I'm not sure I'm making any sense. My thoughts on the issue a re a bit confused too. Slainte, RJ. RJFurniture
Sgian,
I too do not know where one is to draw the line. And I can certainly sympathize with your not wanting to have your artistic input and methodology ripped off. However, I sometimes wonder what the Shakers of old would think about the way in which so many of their designs have been commercialized and reproduced throughout the years. Did they ever build pieces concerned that someone else would begin making them, using the identical designs and methodology, and make money off of them? Will we one day produce Sgainian pieces, much as we do Shaker and Arts and Crafts pieces?
Who knows?
I do believe that there is an eternal conflict going on with respect to the initial question. And I struggle with it. As an artist, I certainly would like to be paid for my creativity and work and would not like people capitalizing on it, at my expense. However, if others are producing work and attributing it to me (ie - Sgainian Designed or Inspired), is not imitation the most sincere form of flattery and am I not in this way better leaving a legacy of my work?
Points to ponder for the ages I guess.
All I know right now is that it is too early in the morning for me to try to be this "deep" into an e-conversation! I hope some of this makes sense (actually, I hope that when I read this again, later in the day, it makes sense to me!)
Thanks!
RR
Richard -- If an article is submitted to a periodical as a "how-to" article, wouldn't you agree there is an intent for the subject of that article to rendered by the reader? I realize this is a bit theoretical, but surely the author doesn't intend to restrict the application of his design -- does he -- if he offers it for publication? One permutation of this might be to include a notice of "limitation" or "limited rights" in the article so the author's intent is clear, which is not presently addressed in any periodical I'm familiar with.
Jim
Jim, it seems hard to say. Most magazines have a bit of script somewhere that says something like, "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the (insert named publisher.)" Presumably they intend to deter people photocopying sections and reselling the copies for profit; but if you reproduce a piece of furniture described in an issue of the magazine for your profit, I wonder if their copyright is infringed, let alone the authors?
Personally, as I've stated earlier in this thread, I really don't mind if someone wants to make a single copy of one my sticks for personal pleasure, gift, etc., but I'd probably feel a bit miffed if I walked into a department or furniture store and saw a whole range of furniture that was somehow uncannily similar to items that I have made, especially if they are very cheap and poorly constructed. I suspect there wouldn't be much I could do about it, but I would be miffed.
I genuinely don't really expect anyone that's read one of my articles to think to themselves, "Oh, I think I'll exactly reproduce a bunch of this authors work, and I'll make a financial killing." I suspect they'd find it just as hard to sell those little $6,000 cabinets as I do, ha, ha. None of this addresses your note about limitations and limited rights-- I simply don't know the answer to that one as my understanding of the laws concerned, and their enforcability are rudimentary at best. Slainte, RJ.
RJFurniture
Edited 8/18/2002 4:54:38 PM ET by Sgian Dubh
Sgian -- You pose a poignant point, for sure, about someone knocking off an original design for profit. I understand and agree with you. But the essence of the issue, as I've wondered and you've stated, hasn't been satisfactorily explained by an "expert" so far as I know and I'm kind-of holding out for that definitive position. Maybe I'll ask around in publishing circles and see what happens. If I get anywhere with the question I'll post it. I have a couple of designs myself that I'd be a bit miffed to find in production somewhere. (I once created gratis a design for Hospice that I've since seen elsewhere, but in this case I'm pleased to see it copied.) It may be one of those thorny issues that has escaped broad attention because nobody wants to pay the cost of litigation. Jim
Sadly, I don't think there is a "definitive" answer out there. Otherwise, all of the attorneys would be out of business -- the issue would no longer be an issue and there would be no argument. We'll all just have to learn to live with shades of gray.
Personally, I use the Supreme Court (now that's the second time I've mentioned the Supreme Court today -- what gives?) definition of pornography: I know it when I see it. That is, I know a copy when I've made one, I know an "inspired" piece when I've made one, I know an "influenced" piece when I've made one, and I know a completely new piece when... well, I don't think I've made a purely unique thing yet, but someday.
For my part, when I know it, I point it out. If a friend admires a piece I've made that's sitting in my living room, I usually tell them the source: "Oh, I saw it in such-and-such magazine," or "Yeah, I made that in so-and-so's class." On the other hand, I've also said "It's in the Arts and Crafts style, but I needed to meet the specific needs of [insert name here], so I modified this and that and the other thing. And he/she really likes [blank], so I put a bit of [something] here to lighten/strengthen/highlight that spot."
In the end, maybe I'm just too honest, naive and foolish, but I just don't see any gain to be had by failing to make proper attributions, or to take proper credit. If someone can point out where I CAN do better (financially) by stealing plans, I'll start twirling my moustache, rubbing my hands and plotting away. (Sorry, all you moustache-wearers.)
DavidHmmm... the garden or the workshop today?
As far as Fine Woodworking magazine is concerned, the projects we publish are for any and all to use in the workshop to make reproductions for fun or profit. But if someone starts reproducing the actual plans we published and giving them away or selling them, that's a copyright violation.
Anatole BurkinExecutive editorFine Woodworking magazine
Anatole, Do you ever get instances where authors ask for a notice to be attached to an article that details a specific design that expressly forbids anyone reproducing the design for commercial gain, but permits one-off reproduction for personal use? If they requested such a notice, would you accomodate them? I've never asked any of my publishers to include such a notice. The thought hadn't crossed my mind-- the possibility of attempting to block any possible copyright infringement via such notices hadn't occured to me-- not being a lawyer, publisher, etc.. Slainte, RJ.RJFurniture
I've nosed around among book publishers (not lawyers) and found the general attitude is that copyright protection applies only to the published material and not to any of the designs that may appear therein. The author/designer, for one thing, takes a certain risk in agreeing to have his material published. However, the copyright laws are very clear as to the reproduction of the published material as Anatole Burkin has stated on behalf of FWW above, but designs are a different matter. I've posted a more complete opinion on this in the #2 thread in the business section should you want to cogitate on this somewhat theoretical issue. I'm rather firm, however, on the ethical and professional issues of contacting the designer if you intend to "copy" a design for profit. Why not? Afraid it's going to cost you? Call the guy and work it out. No big deal.
I recall only one article in FWW (for a Moravian foot stool) that specifically stated you could only make one for personal use and were not permitted to sell them.
Sgian,
While we may have had those in the past, (as Ben noted), I don't believe we've run into that in the recent past. (Anatole's out of the office which is why I'm responding). If that is an issue for you, then you should indeed ask the publisher for that notice.
When he comes back (Monday), I'll ask him to post. Anatole and a couple of the other editors are down at IWF in Atlanta.
Tim
____________Tim SamsAssociate Editor, Fine WoodworkingKnots Moderator
Tim, as such, it isn't an issue that has caused me to lose any sleep, and I can't imagine it's likely to. But I did find the idea of slipping in a limiting clause of some sort as, well, interesting. Slainte, RJ. RJFurniture
Sgian:
No authors have ever asked us to print such a clause. But some authors are unwilling to do certain projects because they wish to guard their designs.
--Anatole
Having been closely involved in copywrite law evolution over the past 15 years, I'd like to explain some basic principles of the current state of the law.
The mere existence of a product of one's efforts endows that thing with copywrite protection. It is not necessary to register the thing with the copywrite office in order to enjoy that protection. However, if one intends to seek montetary compensation for infringement of the copywrite, it is better to register it. Without registration, the creator of an object can obtain legal force to stop the reproduction of his or her work. Monetary compensayion MAY be hard to get without registration.
The fact that an artist allows publication of the complete fabrication plans of his or her work, does not give anyone else the legal right to reproduce that work for compensation. The original artist does not need to publish a warning with the plans to forbid reproduction. Again, the existence of the original, alone, is sufficient to establish copywrite protection. (There is no prohibition against reproduction for one's own use.) The original artist MAY give up rights or allow limited or unlimited reproduction by specifically so stating along with the plans.
Publication of such plans is a normal and necessary activity of industry and crafts to further education in those fields. Plans allow others to learn working techniques, methods of work, technical solutions, etc. But the publication of plans in no way dilutes the copywrite. Some works need no plans to be published, The thing is so obvious that anyone could figure out how to reproduce it by looking at it. Published plans simply allow artists to reveal their methods, when such methods are not so obvious.
It might be difficult for an artist to invoke copywrite in some cases. For instance, If I produce, as my original design, a rocking chair of such character that it is indistinguisable from thousands of other, mass produced, "plain vanilla" chairs, I could have a hard time convincing a court that Joe Everyman infringed on my copywrite when he built and started selling similar chairs out of his factory.
On the other hand, if my rocking chair were of such uniqueness that anyone looking at it would recognize it as my work and if it were significantly different from all other rocking chairs before it, a court could recognize infringement by someone else profiting from my design. All you Sam Maloof wannabes out there should be happy that Sam has never had any desire to protect the "Maloof" design. Actually, he can't now. His opportunity has passed with his generosity.
Many people confuse copywrite with patent protection. Copywrite protects THINGS. Patents protect IDEAS. While I might not be able to copywrite an ordinary-looking trestle table with a Cocobolo top and Ebony breadboard ends and legs, because its design looks like every other breadboard trestle table on the planet, if I can prove that I was the first woodworker, ever, to apply acetone to oily tropical hardwood joints to improve adhesion of glue and to have used epoxy to glue oily tropical hardwoods, I could obtain a patent for such methods. Then I could enforce my patent and demand compensation from everyone who uses such methods and gains compensation from them. (Back to the original date of my claim for such an idea.)
Rich
Rich --
Great, clear explanation of the applicable copyright law, etc. As a freelance writer who specializes in the law and legal issues, almost two-thirds of my clients are attorneys and/or law firms who need help translating legalese into language that can be clearly understood by non-attorneys.
You, apparently, will NOT be needing my assistance. <grin>
DavidHmmm... the garden or the workshop today?
David,
Thanks. You and I have apparently traveled with the same companions. I am always fascinated by legal terms of art and concepts. But I would never want to be an attorney!
Rich
Rich,
This is somewhat contrary to some legal woes I had. They were a bit different, but the jist of it was, if you buypay for knowledge or information and don't agree to some disclaimer or limited use of that information before hand, then it is yours to do with as you will. I went through this over some training I went through. I also write about decorative plastering for Walls and Ceilings Magazines, and every writer I know relinqueshes (sp) copyright priviledges if excepting payment, and every publisher I know of will not print what they do not maintain copywrite privledges over. It's kind of the nature of the game. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but I've never come across any.
Don
Don,
"if you buypay for knowledge or information and don't agree to some disclaimer or limited use of that information before hand, then it is yours to do with as you will."
That is just not true. There is a mountain of case law that holds exactly the opposite. But specific legal cases are frequently much more complex than a black or white understanding of law. If we started debating this, it would take a law library to support either side, and it would be utterly boring. But accepted copywrite law at this time is as I described it.
"every writer I know relinqueshes (sp) copyright priviledges if excepting payment, and every publisher I know of will not print what they do not maintain copywrite privledges over. It's kind of the nature of the game. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but I've never come across any."
Sadly such is often the case. In the Graphics Arts industry there are published Ethical Guidlines which decry such practices and established artists encourage newcomers who feel that their only way of breaking into money making jobs is to sign away their rights to resist such prostitution. Most of the time it's a business decision and a company will give away or ignore its rights of ownership of a design for a particular customer in the hopes of future business from that customer. Funny thing? It's the artist who stands his or her ground who is most respected and gets the repeat business.
There are complex relationships between employers and employers, difficult to understand rules about what constitutes an employer/employee relationship vs an independent contractual relationship, "work for hire" laws, etc. For most of this century companies have owned the legal rights (patents and copyright) of their employees. But there are striking exceptions.
Contract law, patent law, copyright law and the relationships between workers and employers and between vendors and customers are about as complex, perverse and mind numbing as law gets. Sometimes it is impossible within the English Language to write an unambiguous definition or to avoid the "law of unexpected consequences" when trying to forulate the nature of these relationships. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
Rich
Edited 9/11/2002 1:57:20 AM ET by Rich Rose
Rich,
I copied this off the web from a quilting society that also makes and sells plans, but they recognize these legalities to be general to "crafters." There was just to much to put it all here.
Purchasers of commercial patterns expect to recreate designs according t to copyrighted instructions. This constitutes "Fair Use." You can make a p project from a pattern to keep yourself and give the project gifts. How- ever, if you try to profit from the design, mass produce it for sale in s shops or fairs, you would surely hear from the pattern company. They have have the right to seek an injunction to stop further production and force y you to turn over profits legally theirs.
The optimum words here are copyrighted instructions.
Another interesting thought from this site is dirivitive copies. If someone has a unique design, changing a few things does not constitute your own design, but also, taking a familar, standard design such as a wall shelf or t able and adding a few decorative flourishes does not make it a unique d design. It is also a dirivitive of a common, standard design.
Don
http://sylvias-studio.com/copyright_facts_for_crafters.htm Sorry about t the problems here, the pasting just screwed everything up.
Edited 9/11/2002 9:51:31 AM ET by Don C.
Lots of information.
Isn't this fun?
Rich
Rich,
It sure wasn't fun when I went through this crap! It wasn't cheap either.
It is amazing and fun though how the law has mandated the precise use of words to cya in lieu of common sense(common law). One aspect of this that is interesting is the fairly recent development of the Sonny Bono Law that extended copyright length and how now everything is deemed copyrighted at completion (an idea is not copyrighted). It's still best to formally apply for the copyright, but there are rights now from the get go.
Don
BTW, my earlier statement concerning not agreeing to a limited use was meant to imply that none was stated prior to paying for the information. It's not meant to mean that one has the right to disregard rulesstipulationsagreements, but someone can't take your money and then after getting what you paid for, then tell you that you can't use this informationknowledge here, here and here and you don't get your money back if you don't like or agree to these rulesstipulations.
Edited 9/11/2002 11:57:48 AM ET by Don C.
Sgian --
Since I don't want to create a separate post (at risk of generating undue attention, beyond what is to follow), and I think my comment relates somewhat to putting your ideas in the public domain, I'll post my thoughts here:
I just read your article in the current issue of "Woodwork," on creating/building the two beds, and thought I'd tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have admired, from afar, your take on the above-mentioned cabriole leg and the way you've modified and incorporated it into various pieces. While I don't plan to make the bed (I barely straighten my blankets each day, for goodness' sake!), I have been tossing around thoughts of trying the walnut/cherry dresser you wrote about last year in the same magazine -- for personal use only!!! My two favorite woods and, as you mention, a piece that would be a great learning experience.
Oh, and speaking of advice, thanks also for your help earlier this year as I was planning to build a demilune table and needed some assistance with the curved apron and bridle joints for the legs. After a bit of a delay getting started (other projects became more urgent), I'm in the middle of it now and things are going very well.
DavidHmmm... the garden or the workshop today?
davamore, use my drivel in magazines for your personal inspiration and 'development' any way you like. My verbal diaerheoa in magazines is something of a substitute for teaching the subject face to face. Opportunities to teach furniture making subjects in Houston seem to be virtually nonexistent. If you like the 'style' of my work and somehow want to incorporate that style-- perhaps in a modified form-- into yours, that seems fine by me. I think you, and one or two others, were driving towards the idea that detailed drawings used in my articles to illustrate a piece aren't meant to serve as hard and fast unalterable 'blueprints'. From my point of view, those articles, and all they contain are not meant to be an invitation to reproduce the style wholesale. It's a fine line I know, but I don't sell detailed design drawings to the public for them to build from, and I still own the copyright to my intellectual property, whatever a magazine chooses to use of my original manuscript; I write about furniture making (hopefully) for the benefit, learning experience, and developmental possibilities of those coming after me-- and er,-- for money, because I'm a mercenary b*gger too.
Once in a while, I get the impression that I sometimes dish out useful advice too, in amongst all my horse manure, so your feedback is encouraging. Slainte, RJ.RJFurniture
Thanks Kim,
Your input is appreciated and especially valued in light of the fact that you would be the one who's design work a client would like to have reproduced. Its good to get insight from a true furniture designer.
Bill
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled