Strongback, Forms, Strips, Gunnels, Seat for sale.

[Bryan Hansel]

Dick,

Copyrights and patents do not protect personal use, they only protect commercial use of the patent or copyright. If I have purchased one set, I have purchased the rights to use it as often as a wish. This is like saying if you buy a book, you can only read it once!

Not true, copyright and patents are protected under any uses, and with canoe/kayak plans sold to home builders for their personally use, building more than the allowed boats under licence could lead to awarded damages. Mainly this has to do with how the designer derives income from the plans. If income is derived from licensing the right to build a boat and sold to builder for personal use then that is shown to be a source of income. (Because the plans are sold directly and licensed directly to a non-commercial builder doesn't mean that that non-commercial builder can build as many boats as s/he wants, unless that is in the licensing agreement.) Essential if you build more than one from the plan, you are depriving the designer of money that they would have made from a sale of the plan, and that can and will be shown as harm under any copyright violation case.

I'm not sure that I'm being clear enough, so an example: I'm a photographer, and it would be like you having me to shoot your portrait, buying a print from me and then scanning it and printing as many as you like. Without having purchased those rights from me, you are violating my copyright, depriving me from income, and then you are liable for damages in the amount of lost income you deprived from me by printing your own copies. Also, this is like thinking that if you visit my website and print something from it for personal use, it doesn't violate copyright. Since I make money from selling prints, it takes away from my income and then causes damages that I could recover, because now you have produced something that I normally get paid for without paying me for it. I get it all the time at Christmas when people print from my website and I never see a dime for those prints. This last Christmas, I had over 200 people print from my website, normally it is in the teens during a month. That's $8000 in damages, BTW.

It doesn't mater if you claim use of a copyrighted plan/item for personal use at all, if it can be shown that that type of use is typically paid for, and if the designer can prove that then you'll be liable for damages.

With your book analogy, it's expected that a book will be used that way, so it isn't a violation of copyright when you reread it.

Edit: It would only have to be shown that it is common in the industry that one boat per plan or one boat per paid fee is a typical business practice.

Bryan

[BuffaloDick]

Hello everyone,
Well, it seems as though we have opinions from several different perspectives. Although I don't intend to sell my set of plans or build a second copy of my canoe, it would be nice to actually hear an opinion from a legal expert on this subject, short of having to pay for one.
But all this stuff aside, I think the right thing to do, is to give to the designer, his rightful due. He has earned his keep by producing a good, workable design, and as such needs to be compensated for his efforts. Anything less is stealing!
Dick

[Tom in MN]

For good reading on copyrights, trademarks and patents, go to the following website.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html

Copyright just restricts a persons ability to copy the work. You cannot copyright intellectual ideas (such as the shape of a canoe), you can only copyright the printed plans. One cannot reproduce the copyrighted plans without the owners permission. Copyright protection does not restrict me from using them over and over.

Bryan, if people are taking photos from your website that you have for sale, and they are not paying for them, that is theft, a criminal act. Copyright infringement is a civil matter between the two parties. There is a difference between theft and copyright infringement.

What I am talking about is "what is proper use of plans that one has purchased". The only way that a designer of a canoe plan can restrict it's use within the personal realm of the purchaser is with a licensing agreement. This is a contract (different type of law) and very defined between the parties. Breach the contract (build more than one boat when you agree to only build one) and you are subject to damages under a breach of contract. If you sell canoe plans with no limitations, buyer can use them as many times as they want for personal use and there is nothing the designer can do except either charge more, or establish terms of the sale (licensing agreement).

For those designers out there that think their intellectual designs are protected by copyright, I would suggest you do some research and you will come to the conclusion that a patent is the only way to protect them. Copyright only protects against someone copying your plans without permission. Not the intellectual shape of the canoe. If I loft the lines off an existing canoe and build it myself there is little a designer can do legally to restrict this. Not that I would do this, but for the sake of discussion I could!

[hoz]

"You can teach ethics, but you can't make people live them."
Anon.

[Dan.]

http://www.bearmountainboats.com/phpbb2 ... =copyright

For boats built from Canoecraft or Kayakcraft offsets, the same applies, you are welcome to build one, for the second of the same design there is a royalty due.

Cheers and thanks,
Steve Killing

Is that one boat per book, or one boat per design per book?

So could you build 1 prospector, 1 ranger, 1 freedom, etc.?

[hoz]

looks like one boat per design.

[Tom in MN]

Hoz,

To some ethics is based on what is legal. To others, it is some religous principle. Al referred to someone being a "crook" so I thought I would set it straight on what is legal or illegal about copyright issues when it comes to canoe plans. If I buy a book, I will use it as many times as I wish for my own use as I have gained that right with the purchase price set by the seller. I do not see anything unethical about that. If I sign an agreement when I buy the plans or book, ethically (and legally) I have to live by that agreement.

If I buy a woodworking book off the shelf, and there was nothing negotiated at the time of the sale about how I could use the book (other than what copyright laws protect) I can build as many items out of the book that I want. What is being proposed is that if there were a chair design in the book, I would have to buy six copies of the book just so my family could all sit at the kichen table. This is crazy. A canoe design is no different than a chair design. If the author doesn't like that, then charge more for the damn book!

I personally think is it unethical for a designer to scream "copyright protected" when copyrights do not protect intellectual property, they just prevent copying of the printed material. Spend the money and get a patent on the design and it will be protected!!!!!!! However, if you sell me the plans, you give up those rights as part of the sale. Sell me the plans for an agreed price (set by the designer), with no other terms negotiated, they are my plans and I will use them as often as a wish. That is not unethical in my world. The key to me is what is disclosed and agreed to as part of the sale.

[hoz]

Tom, You must be an attorney. You have stated your case. I find it unethical, maybe LEGAL in your view but unethical none the less. Various designers have posted here, on other sites and even on their drawings, the plans allow a builder to build ONE BOAT. What is ambiguous about that? If you choose to go ahead and build additional boats from one set of plans "for your own personal use" that's your choice.

You do what you want, I'll do as my conscience dictates which is to pay a licence fee or royalty to teh designer for any additional boats I build AND to quietly point out to others it is the ETHICAL thing to do.

[Bryan Hansel]

You cannot copyright intellectual ideas (such as the shape of a canoe), you can only copyright the printed plans.

Not that I'm a legal expert, but I thought that congress addressed this specific concern, and as it now stands that a registered plan/boat shape is protected under the copyright law. It was in the late 90s if I remember correctly. You should check out http://www.copyright.gov.

Regardless, if the designer requests a licensing fee for each boat built from a plan, and someone chooses to ignore that request based on some legal mumbojumbo and ethic claims, that person is cheating the designer. I didn't see anything on Al's site stating a licensing agreement nor on his plans or in his builders manual, but when I purchased plans from Carrying Place Canoe & Boat Works this statement was included. I believe it is on their website:

All of our plans are pending copyright. the plans are the intellectual property of Joe Ziemba and are protected under international law. With the purchase of this plan, you are authorized to build one canoe for your own use. For each additional canoe built from these plans, you are required to send $25.00 to Carrying Place Canoe Works. Commercial use of these plans or reporduction is strictly prohibited without prior permission from Carrying Place Canoe Works. The purchaser of these plans agrees that the success of building of this canoe is their sole responsibility.

Certainly, this constitutes enough of a legal agreement for anyone questioning this.

On another note, the theft of my photos is not only theft, but is theft because of a copyright violation, because they failed to obtain a license of rights to print photos off of my website. Essentially, legally, a print is the physical manifestation of my intellectual property represented by my photograph. And the buyer is licensing the rights to display the print for personal use. By failing to obtain this license those web users who printed off photos violated copyright laws and are subject to fines up to $300,000 per incident. This is an assumed license and the buyer need not sign an agreement to make it valid. The reality of the web situation is that some people are going to steal the images and there isn't much any photographer can do about it. So it goes.

Anyway, IMHO, anyone that goes against what a designer requests in licensing fees or just plain fees per boat should not do business with that designer. If that someone feels the designer has no legal basis to make those request, my guess is that the designer would rather not do business with that customer anyway. I know I wouldn't.

Bryan

Edit: To fix spelling mistake and url.

[Erik, Belgium]

Seems I triggered a long discussion here about license fees and ethics in general.

Just out of respect for 'soulmates' in the canoeing community, I will remain paying an additional icense fee when building a second boat from the same set of purchased plans.

Well, since I started it, I feel that I should stop the discussion right here.

happy building,
Erik, Belgium.

[BuffaloDick]

Hello,
I found something very difinitive on the US Government Patent Office official website regarding copyrights that explains in detail what Tom has been saying.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... tml#patent

"What Is a Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress."

The example given in the last sentence of the last paragraph says it all. Copyrights do not give the designer any protection from those that want to make and use the product.

As designers, we have been asking for free will offerings from our customers. Well, the law does not require that, as can be seen above. We don't live in a handshake world anymore and we can't rely on ethical behavior to put food on the table. Shame on us. We need to find a better way.

Those of us who are designers and want to get paid for the use of our designs on a repetitive basis need to find to find a more suitable method of protecting our rights as copyright does not seem to be the solution. And then there is the reality of trying to enforce this issue when an individual does build more than one copy from a plan. It does not seem to make good financial business sense to hire legal counsel to pursue a perceived violator seeking to recover $25.00. It has been my experience that in the real world, legal fees are just not recovered, even when an award is won.

Dick

[Bryan Hansel]

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

The above link is directly to US Copyright Office info on copyrighting hull shapes. There is also a 23 page pdf about copyright and boat design that I didn't read through, but if you're interested it's there. I think for boat designs and plans a specific licensing agreement like the one I posted from Carrying Place should be used to help make ends meet.

Anyway I'm with Erik and I will pay an additional fee for any addition boats I build from a set of plans. When it comes down to it, it's only an additional 3.5% expense and if I was building the same hull twice, I'd have to assume that I liked the hull, and it would be worth the added expense.

Bryan

[Allan in Coarsegold]

After purchasing my plans from Bear Mountain Boats, I also had questions about how many Freedom 17's I could build from my set of plans. My email responce from them states "The plans are sold with the understanding that any boats that are built for sale to others require a royalty payment of $40. That only applies for canoes that are produced for sale." They stated this also applies to plans in their book.
I purchased these plans with the intention of learning the craft on one hull, giving it to my son and then make a second canoe for myself. I would happily pay their royalty fee voluntarily if it was due because I have respect for them, their work, and their knowledge they have shared with me on their web site, publications and emails.

[barbiedoll]

It seems as if Buffalo Dick touched quite a few nerves with his original post - mainly ethics. Ethics are something extremely personal and can run the gamut from far left to far right. You cannot force your ethics on someone else because they are not laws and are not right or wrong. Several posts had their authors up on their soapbox telling the world how moral they are because they ALWAYS do what is right. Good for you. Other posts had their authors waxing as if they were seasoned lawyers and absolutely infallible! From my perspective there are a lot of ways to look at ethics; so let's continue to own our own and not lord it over others.

By the way, Buffalo Dick, I do not believe you need to go to confession for thinking about selling the items you mentioned!

barbiedoll

[Tom in MN]

Bryan,

Thanks for the link to the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. What a great read! At the great risk of sounding like a seasoned attorney and infallible (facts are just facts Barbie Doll, however, I fully agree with your point that ethics is so undefined that it really does not have a place in a technical building discussion forum. What next, we debate whether we should be using trees or petrochemicals to build canoes!). Here is what I learned that pertains to this discussion.

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act only provides protection to those that file the proper forms, pay the proper fees and register a hull design. It is a separate and distinct process from Copyright Protection.

1. Any design that was made public (which includes offered for sale) before 1998 are not eligible for protection.

2. If a hull design is registered, the plans that are sold must contain the proper registration seal demonstrating they are protected.

3. Hull design protection is only good for 10 years from the data of registration.

4. A protected hull design limits the use by others copy the design, similar to a patent.

There is nothing in the act that would restrict, prohibit, or direct what a user, who has rightfully purchased registered plans, can do with those plans. I suspect any desinger who registers a hull design would protect himself with a license agreement to anyone that purchases the plans.

There are many designers that participate in this board. Can any of you provide legal support for why your designs are protected against a single user building multiple versions if your plans are sold without such agreed conditions? Or even selling forms that were cut out based on the design of a set of plans that they purchased that had no limitations?