Replies

1. 
   Brewgonia | Aug 16, 2002 04:03pm | #1

   If you made a copy of the plans and gave it to your woodworking buddy, then that would be illegal - simple copyright law. If you build furniture from a purchased design and sell the piece - you're legal. Why? There is absolutely no provision implied or otherwise that triggers a "royalty" to the plans creator. The act of working wood involves such an extent of customization (reading the wood, choosing joints, etc.) that your piece becomes so far removed from the plan that it would be nearly  impossible for the plan creator to prove any ownership. Until proven otherwise under law and with an administrative body like ASCAP (for musicians), it shouldn't be a problem.

2. 
   GardenFriend | Aug 16, 2002 05:42pm | #2

   The copyright is held for the PLANS, not for any item made according to the plans. Many plans even note in their marketing materials that the item makes a good craft show piece. Paying for the plan entitles you to make & sell things based on the plans.

   If you sold the plans themselves, you would be in the wrong.

   Patent is different from copyright. If a craftsperson patents an innovative product or technique, s/he would be entitled to royalties from anyone using the patented invention.

1. 
   riverr1 | Aug 17, 2002 12:01am | #3

   Actually, if you buy the plans, you can re-sell them. You can't make copies and sell or give away the copies. You can make copies for yourself.

1. 
   DennisS | Aug 17, 2002 01:20am | #4

   > ....You can make copies for yourself

   If you do, you can't (or shouldn't) sell the original since that's tatamount to copyright infringement, everything else being equal.

   Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]

1. 
   riverr1 | Aug 17, 2002 01:50am | #5

   Oh I agree 100%. I was thinking more along the lines of like when you buy a new software program. It's always prudent to make a copy and put it away for safe keeping just in case cause it won't get replaced for free! Also if you are using the plans for templates, copies should be made to be cut up so the originals stay intact. Thought I said copies couldn't be made for resale.

1. 
   DennisS | Aug 17, 2002 01:58am | #6

   > .....Thought I said copies couldn't be made for resale.

   Yeah, you did, Don. I like several others I've seen post here, am in the computer business (using them and rather high priced software I consider a business asset out of my pocket). So whenever I hear or see "copy" my adrenaline starts flowing and my brain slows down I guess. Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]

2. 
   riverr1 | Aug 17, 2002 02:16am | #7

   Hey, I understand and in no way do I condone the sidestepping of the ethical issues involved here.

   My stiuation went like this. I paid for some training and OJT(not wordworking) and after the training was done, the trainerteacher tried to come at me because he didn't like the where I was using his training. While had I known this before hand I would have saved the $3500 and not taken the training. Turns out he didn't have a leg to stand on. Only in limited and controled circumstances can educationtraining be controled in where and how it can be used. This was stupid also because it involed personal issues that I was an unknowing 3rd party to. Bottom line was when you buy something that contain no explicit or implyed disclaimers, disclaimers can't be post facto applied. Implyed disclaimers have to do with things like if a teaches b how to use a firearm, drive a car or mountain climb, it is implyed that a is not responsible for what b does with the knowledge. If you teach how to use or sell someone mountain climbing equipment and that person turns around and uses the knowledge or equipment to commit a crime you are not responsible for how the knowledge or equipment is used.

   The whole thing was just amazing and weird but what was interesting is when you have no responsibility you also have no rights.

   Edited 8/16/2002 7:19:02 PM ET by Don C.

3. 
   DennisS | Aug 17, 2002 08:44am | #8

   > ....after the training was done, the trainerteacher tried to come at me because he didn't like the where I was using his training.

   That is too totally bizzare! Why the he.. did he offer the training if he didn't think you were going to use it at your discretion and option? (rhetorical question - no reply needed).

   I've had guys (no gal would ever exhibit this kind of ineptitude) come up to me and offer to trade some dink software for a copy of my Photoshop or AutoCAD or ... Sheesh. I mean, the cost/utility/benifit-to-me regardless, I'm gonna give a carbon copy of a tool I use to make my living to someone (who probably ripped off the program he's trying to trade anyway).

   Anyways, to the point regarding the sale of a piece built from purchased plans.

   I think you're probably right with respect to the right to do so without any "license" language to the contrary accompanying the drawings. When I first started reading this thread I compared it to architectural design and working drawings. In that case, the architect has, in the past, retained copyright and ownership of not only the design concept but the drawings as well. The concept being a one-of-a-kind design solution to the client's needs/wants and the construction documents being an instrument of that concept. The client is, by right, provided a copy of "as-built" documentation in order to maintain his/her facility. But that does not give the client the right to reproduce that design concept in whole or in part from the construction documents so provided.

   All of which you probably knew in the first place - so I'm goin' to bed (grin)

   Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]

4. 
   riverr1 | Aug 17, 2002 12:25pm | #9

   You know Dennis, I never did understand that "trading software" mentality. If your out to trash the copyrights and royalties, who would care about getting something in return?

   Here's another odd one for you. I often work with artists. Most of them when they sell their works, sell possession, not ownership. So if someone didn't like the weird work of Maplethorpe, they couldn't buy it to destroy it. They can put it away so no one would ever see it, but that's it. Crazy huh???

   About the plans thing, another aspect of this as I understand it is if the originator of the plans does maintain any controls through some disclaimer, by maintaining rights he also assumes liabiltiy. If the plans are for a chair and it breaks and someone gets hurt, the originator could be gone after. If the originator does not maintain any rights, then they are free and clear of any responsibilities and or liability. I imagine there are a lot of caveats to this one, but basically that's how I understood it.

5. 
   jase | Aug 17, 2002 11:38pm | #10

   I believe it falls into the same category as books, art, music and such. Make all the copies you want as long as you don't distribute them without paying a royalty to the creator. I'm sure Sgian feels the same way about his creations as all the complaining musicians do about their music being traded online at locations such as Napster. Ethically a royalty is appropriate. But who would enforce it? I haven't heard a lot about copied art or written material being plagiarized but everyone I know makes copies of music and shares them. Does this classify woodworking an art (Bearing in mind the recent discussion on art I am NOT suggesting further comment on that subject)? If it is your creation-design to finish- than wouldn't it be your intellectual property, therefore right to copy must be extended from the creator?

   But there are no laws yet to govern the copying a piece, only ethics or conscience.

   One of my relatives downloads movies off the net. Most of the movies are still in theatres when he gets them. He doesn't pay for them but he does share them with his friends and some of his family. What's the difference? He getting something for nothing when the copyright owners should be compensated.

   Jase--Is there a better way?

   Edited 8/17/2002 8:24:20 PM ET by jase

6. 
   Jimma | Aug 21, 2002 12:59am | #11

   I know you all aren't going to like this, but have you ever actually read the copyright notice on a copyrighted magazine, film, book? When it says you don't get to copy whatever it is, that's what it means. It is literal and legal. Even one Xerox copy of even one page or one scene. Now, in the real world, "innocent" copies are rarely prosecuted, but it may be incumbent upon the the copyright holder to serve notice to prove intent to protect the copyright. If a case can be made that copying whatever it is in order to sell it to cover costs or to make a profit, then it becomes more interesting and it may deserve prosecution. So, if a Christmas carol is copyrighted and you copy it umpteen times for your church or whatever, it's a violation and you're liable. The copyright holder may choose not to prosecute in this instance, but it's a violation nevertheless. I am not a lawyer, but I am a book publisher and I guarantee it gets my attention when even a page or paragraph is copied (perhaps by a competitor) for some use other than that stated on one of my title's verso (copyright) pages. So, please honor the system. Now, furniture designs appearing in print are probably a whole different thing with respect to whether or not the design or subject of the printed matter can be duplicated in the workshop. Certainly, as I think Kim and Sgian mentioned in the other thread, there's an ethical or collegial implication. If the design is patented, certainly that's a whole different matter, but if it is, I doubt the patent holder would risk publishing it. There is also the further possibility of an author/designer (or possibly the publisher) including in the publication a notice of limitation, restriction or other intent to control copying for profit, but I would think this would be very hard to prosecute in court. Maybe not, but expensive. So, where does this leave us? I would follow Sgian's and Kim's lead on this; contact the designer and work it out like adults and give up trying to make the law cover every nit in the culture.

   Jim

7. 
   Bill5507 | Aug 21, 2002 06:16pm | #12

   ALL,

   I would like to add that in as much receiving permission from the author/designer would be the right thing to do, I think that is much easier said than done.  More often than not people who have their works published do not provide an easy avenue to be contacted.  Also, if you make the effort and receive no response, should that be taken as a "NO"response?

   Bill

   Edited 8/21/2002 11:18:41 AM ET by BillC

   Edited 8/21/2002 11:29:21 AM ET by BillC

8. 
   Jimma | Aug 21, 2002 08:08pm | #13

   Bill,

   I'd say that would be a judgement call, especially if you've acted in good faith, but it's probably not a legal matter. Just a courtesy to the designer. I'm not a lawyer, but there very few woodworking projects that are completely original and, therefore, aren't subject to limited rights as is the case with copyrighted material. This is getting pretty theoretical. Each case is apt to be unique.

   Jim

3. 
   RickL750 | Aug 22, 2002 03:36pm | #14

   What I've done in the past is simply buy a set of plans for every piece I've built and added the price to the total cost of the piece. Basically the customer owns the plans since they paid for them, I do the work and the designer still gets their fee. For personal use doesn’t mean you can’t have someone else do the work for you.

   Just my two cents.

   Sarge

    

1. 
   RSRose | Aug 23, 2002 03:14am | #15

   Sarge,

   Please don't take offense, but what you describe comes close to outright violation of copywrite law and could result in serious charges.

   If a set of plans specifically states that an item built from them may not be sold, then it means just that. If you sell said plans to the receiver of the built product, from which you also profited,  it is not the same as if he or she had purchased the plans and had the work done for them by you. That might be successfully argued once, but after the second time, it becomes your pattern, and it's clear that you are doing business using copywrite-protected material.

   In fact, if you advertise yourself as someone who helps people who buy plans, but can't actually build things, you could be in trouble. If you charge for such services, you are in violation of the copywrite on protected plans, even if you had nothing to do with the purchase of the plans.

   If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter how you try to redefine it.

   You say that "the designer still gets their fee." Well, they really don't. They've gotten a fee from the sale of plans, but they have not gotten their rightful price for their design, which they're entitled to protect from others who wish to profit from it.

   I, too have been involved in publishing and, believe me, the copywrite issue is very real and very necessary. It can be prosecuted very vigorously as the result of very hard fought legislation over the last 10-15 years.

   Rich

1. 
   Luka | Aug 23, 2002 03:25pm | #16

   If the plans that Sarge bought and built from, do NOT have any such statement... implicit, or implied... then Sarge has done absolutely nothing wrong.

   Quittin' Time

2. 
   RickL750 | Aug 24, 2002 12:14am | #17

   Hi rich,

   No offense taken. To clarify my previous post I do not use plans that indicate or imply that pieces made from them cannot be sold, the only statement on them is that the plans are not to be duplicated for re-sale. I also don’t resell the plans to the customer they either walk-in with them or ask me to pick them up and they then reimburse me, and no I don’t advertise anything but my own work.

   As for your comment:

    “You say that "the designer still gets their fee." Well, they really don't. They've gotten a fee from the sale of plans, but they have not gotten their rightful price for their design, which they're entitled to protect from others who wish to profit from it.”

   The designer did get their fee since all they were selling was the plans and the purpose for selling plans is to allow other people to build your designs, otherwise you wouldn’t make plans available and only sell the finished product. If the designer wanted to get a fee other than the cost of the plans, than they would have patented the piece. Example:  Douglas Green. Portland, Maine http://www.greendesigns.com/

   I started in woodworking thru boat building and in that industry for most part if you purchase the plans you have the wrights to build the boat as long as you indicate who the designer/architect is. (They deserve the recognition and additional exposure)

   Well that’s my two cents. I didn’t mean to get anybody hot under the collar I was simply stating my point. Bottom line, you can do just about anything and right or wrong the person that comes out on top is the one with the most expensive lawyer. That’s the American way.

   God bless America!! 

   P.S. Neither one of us is wrong or right we simply disagree.

   Sarge