Wood Project Plans & Copyright Laws

I would like to see a discussion of project plans and copyright laws. I understand that this is a broad subject, so I will start with a few specific questions.

1.) If I buy a book that contains a woodworking project plan what are my rights? Can I make the item and sell it for profit if not otherwise disallowed, or can I only make the item for my own personal use?

2.) Can I make copies of the plans to give to a friend who then creates the item and sells it for profit if not otherwise disallowed?

3.) Can I lend the book to my friend allowing him to use the plans to create and then sell the item for profit if not otherwise disallowed?

4.) Can I copy plans out of books and periodicals from my local library,or the internet, creating and then selling the items for profit if not otherwise disallowed?

Woodworkers, what are your thoughts ??

Reply to
Dusty Workshop
Loading thread data ...

Dusty Workshop asks:

You usually can make it for sale.

No.

Simply put, the person who develops the plans usually holds the copyright. Copyrights prevent copying of the plans, and some claimed rights may reduce the number of copies permitted. I'm not sure of the legality of such limits.

You generally cannot make copies of any copyrighted plans to pass out, whether or not you charge for those copies. You can lend the book or plans to anyone your choose, and they're free to make as many of the projects as they wish, or as the limits allow, but they are not free to copy the plans.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

formatting link

Reply to
Charlie Self

Unless the book specifically authorizes you to make items for profit, you may make items for your personal use *only*.

No. Both the plans, and the designs they embody, are copyrighted. You may not copy the plans for a friend, and your friend may not sell the item(s) created from them.

You may lend the book to him. He may not sell items created from those plans.

No. See my response to #2 above. The situation is essentially the same.

Thoughts are really beside the point here. It's *facts* that matter. And it's a fact that nearly everything you're asking about is prohibited by law.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Reply to
Doug Miller

I agree with Doug. :) Being an Editor myself, I think he has just about got it right, although each book situation may be different.

-- Regards,

Dean Bielanowski Editor, Online Tool Reviews

formatting link
5 Reviews:

- Veritas Shelf Drilling Jig

- Ryobi CID1802V 18v Cordless Drill

- Workshop Essentials Under $30

- Festool PS 300 Jigsaws

- Delta Universal Tenoning Jig

------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
SawEyes

A design cannot be copyrighted.

There may be "design rights", but these are distinct from copyright. Copyright is automatic (it's copyrighted even if it isn't labelled or registered as such), but design rights have to be specifically claimed and filed. They're also usually only available for quite short periods, in comparison to a copyright or even the lifetime of a library book.

The _expression_ of a design may be copyrighted (ie a drawing or plan of it). You can be in breach of copyright on this even if you never saw it, and if you never copied it - copying the design of the item is sufficient, provided there's also a pre-existing drawing.

Why not ? If there's no specific restriction forbidding this, why should one reader be distinct from any other ? I agree that this is a _possible_ situation, if the license to construct the item was only granted to the _owner_, but that's pretty contrived.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

This entire subject is a *deep* legal morass. The *ONLY* way to know _for_ _sure_ whether what you intend is, or is *not*, copyright infringement is to: (a) try doing it, (b) get sued, *AND* (c) have the judge make a ruling on your case. The U.S. court system has been "singularly UNHELPFUL" in regard to clarifying the uncertainties in the law. Virtually *every* court ruling on infringement is careful to state that "... this ruling is specific to the facts of the case at hand, and should _not_ be considered as precedent for any similar case in the future." Usually, in almost those _exact_ words.

It is best to err on the side of caution, since even a _successful_ defense of an infringement suit will run well into the middle six figures. And probably take a minimum of three to five years. And the likelihood of the plaintiff getting a 'temporary restraining order' prohibiting you from continuing to do 'what you had been doing that led to the suit', until such time as judgement is rendered.

This is questionable. The constructed object is, technically, a 'derivative work' of the copyrighted "original" (the plans).

The making of derivative works, for ones own *personal*use* is generally _not_ considered infringement of the copyright on the original. Life gets =much= more murky when commercial sale of the derivative work is involved. E.g., in the 'believe it or not' category (and I happen to think it was a *really*bad* ruling), the courts _did_ rule -- in a case involving a party who bought postcard photographs, trimmed them to match the face of random-shaped wooden plaques, and laminated the picture to the face of the plaque -- that _even_though_ the plaque-builder bought an 'original' fore each derivative he made, that he _was_ infringing on the rights of the owner of the copyright on the photograph. Once he owned each copy, he _was_ free to "do with it as he would"; But he was not allowed to _sell_ that "modified" (a.k.a. a "derivative work") object, _without_ the permission of the copyright owner.

The swamp gets, potentially, even deeper if "somebody" brings in a set of plans -- or even just a picture -- and requests that you "build me one just like _that_ one". Depending on how faithful your 'copy' is, of course,

Correct. *REGARDLESS* of what use (if _any_) he makes of the plans. making the copy _itself_ is the forbidden act.

Nit-pick -- _You_ don't get into any trouble for loaning him the book,

*even*if* the use to which he puts the content is proscribed. *HIS* liability is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Note that there is _no_ legal difference between the situations in scenarios 3 and 4. Borrowing a book from 'the library' is, _legally_, no different than borrowing it from 'a friend'. In either situation, the _lender_ does not incur liability for actions performed by the borrower. Well, unless the lender "suggests"/"promotes" that action to the borrower, as a reason for borrowing/using the book. Then one

*does* have potential liability, on the basis of 'enticement'.

REGARDLESS of the 'enticement' issue, the borrower *is* liable for his own actions.

Checking a book out of the library, and copying *some* of the plans out of it, for your _personal_use_ is "probably" not copyright infringement. Again, for an 'authoritative' answer, ask the Court. *grin*

When 'commercial gain' becomes part of the mix, *OR* when you copy a "significant amount" of any particular work, things get a whole lot more UNCLEAR. And *really* messy.

"Who created the plans", and how well-known/respected/"recognizable" he, and his work is, is also a contributing factor. Copying a Sam Maloof design is much more likely to be found to _be_ infringement than is copying some 'generic' design used as a teaching model in a drafting class.

"Plans are made to be used." In many cases, it can be argued that a 'limited license' to construct a derivative work is part and parcel of the publication of the plan itself. Possible exceptions being something like a 'theory of design' book, where the 'intent' is clearly discussion and/or research, and -not- the immediate creation of derivative works.

The further you push that implied license, beyond the construction, for one's own "personal use" of "one object" -- or "one set" of objects intended for use in multiples -- the less persuasive the argument gets.

The safe path is: "If in doubt, *ask* the copyright owner. Unless you get an affirmative response, _don't_do_it_."

ABSOLUTELY legal. Copyright law expressly gives the copyright holder the "exclusive right" to control the reproduction of the protected work. _Including_ control of the creation of 'derivative works'. There are a handful of specific exceptions to that "exclusive right", that are enumerated in the statutes. Deciding "whether or not" a specific instance/action is covered by one of those exceptions is where *all* the legal wrangling takes place. (Either you have the permission of the copyright owner, and the issue is thus moot, or you _don't_ have permission, whereupon the only way it is _not_ infringement is if one of the exceptions applies. Legal note: this means that it is up to the defense to prove that an exception _does_ apply; the plaintiff does _not_ have to make a showing that none of the exceptions possibly apply. Of course, once the defendant asserts that a particular exception "does apply", plaintiff must show why that assertation is invalid, to keep the defendant from prevailing. )

When a 'borrowed' book is in your possession, you can do "whatever the law allows" you to do if you owned the book, subject _only_ to any additional restrictions placed by the owner physical artifact that is _the_book_itself_, as 'terms and conditions' of loaning it to you.

Note: "Just because" the owner of the physical artifact says you "can" do something, that does -not- mean that it is safe for you to do so. If the owner "doesn't have the authority' to grant permission for that act. you can _still_ be prosecuted for acting on that (false) assurance. Whether or not you _knew_ it was false at the time.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

This is an international forum. Copyright laws are local, although they usually follow international guidelines.

None (by law). If you have any rights, they're granted to you by the owners of the book's copyright. These will usually be to make anything you like from the plans, but they're perfectly at liberty to limit you to only making one of them for personal use, or any similar restriction.

Again, you have no implicit right to do this, and only if you're granted a specific right. This would be unusual (although it does sometimes happen)

You may not be permitted to lend the book at all ! This is commonly forbidden, although "personal lending" is generally ignored. If you're a serious lending library (certainly in the UK) then there's a centralised scheme where you pay some additional fees for the books you have available. For the UK authors of non-bestseller romantic fiction, these library fees are often a significant part of their income.

Once your friend has obtained the book, then they're as restricted as you would have been.

As for any books, then you may be restricted in how you can copy them. The restrictions on how you can then use them are as previously described.

-- Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Reply to
Andy Dingley

OK. As someone who has some practical experience in writing books, here's my feeling on the whole deal, with the proviso that:some of this is not clearly set out in the laws (U.S.), but is my take on the subject (even single copies of plans may be forbidden, which I think is silly):

  1. Make as many items as you wish of MY books' project plans. Do with those objects as you wish. I've never understood the reason many authors differentiate between woodworkers who make 18 dowhillickies for gifts and those who make a dozen for sale.
  2. Make ONE copy of the plans for your own use in the shop. No sense in spilling shellac on the entire book! ANything else is verboten. This may be a gray area to some, but it has been through the courts (mostly because of over-copying of textbooks in libraries. The libraries were held as liable as the professors, IIRC).
  3. Lend the book to anyone you want. You are not responsible for someone else's actions, but it's possibly a good idea to remind him about copying. One copy for shop use.
  4. Absolutely not. You cannot copy and sell someone else's creations. Redesign and redraw and make sure you don't copy significant details that determine the individuality of another person's plan. Anything else is out and out theft.

On a practical basis, the odds are fairly good you'll never get caught, if you are just giving plans away to pals. On the same practical basis, if you sell copies of plans to enough people to make doing so worthwhile, sooner or later, you will get caught.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

formatting link

Reply to
Charlie Self

mmmmm, copyright law, one of my favorite topics. :) Ok, so I'm an IP attorney, mostly do patents, but have a good amount of experience with copyright. Standard disclaimer: nothing contained in this message is intended to be legal advice and is provided for discussion only. If you want actual legal advice on the subject, I recommend speaking with an attorney. (you can even talk to me in another context if desired :) ) Also, copyright law in Europe is different from in the U.S. My comments are limited to U.S. laws.

You don't really have "rights", but the copyright owner has limited rights that may or may not affect you. I would say that if the copyright owner sells a book of plans and doesn't say that you can't make items from the plans and sell them for profit, you can do whatever you want with what you make. I haven't researched this topic specifically, so I could be mistaken here. Making an item from a plan would likely be considered a derivative work, but I would argue that an implied license is granted when the plan is sold. If the plan seller wants to set a limit on what you can do, that is a different question.

No, you can't make copies of the plans. That said, I would argue that you could make a single copy of the plan to use in your shop so as not to mess up the book or original. This is a debatable point and some would disagree. There have been cases going both ways on such copying, but generally in the shop context, I think you would be fine making one copy to save your book from harm.

In the U.S., yes. In the U.S., the book is yours and you can do with it what you wish. You can lend it out or sell it all you want. In Europe, I believe the answer is no. They have laws about lending that I do not fully understand so I can't really speak on those. Here, we have the "first sale doctrine" that says that the copyright owner is entitled to the first sale of the book, but not to further sales. Thus, you can resell or lend out your book without paying royalties to the author.

No. Aruguably, you could check out the book and make a copy of the page for use in you shop so as not to destroy the library book, but that is questionable. Printing off the internet is an interesting question. If it is on the net as a free plan, I would think you could print it out. Once you have it printed, the implied license would seem to allow you to make whatever you want from it.

There is a distinction between personal use and for profit use in copyright law. That said, the plan producer only makes money selling plans. They are not selling product (generally). Thus, by selling items from their plans you are not interfering with their market the way you would be if you sold copies of the plans. If the seller establishes a royalty scheme for selling items using their plans, then that would change the equation. Like I said above, I have never researched this exact issue so I could be off a little, but plan sellers know people are going to use their plans to make things, so if they want to control how the made items are used (i.e., if they are sold), they should be up front about it.

Repeat of disclaimer: This is just my opinion based on my copyright experience and I would not advise anyone to adhere to my comments without first consulting with an attorney.

YJJim

Reply to
YJJim

So you're saying that if I bought a book on woodcrafts and make projects out of that book, I can't sell them at the craft market?

Reply to
Wilson

Wilson responds:

PLANS. Please read the answer. You cannot copy the frigging PLANS and sell them.

Some authors also refuse you the permission to sell projects made from their plans. It has to be so stated, I think, and if you'll check out some magazines, you'll see that writers not on the editorial staff often put that kind of limit on their contributions.

As I sad in my first answer, if you'd read the whole thing, I don't understand that line of thought, but then this world has a lot of things I don't understand, not just nuclear physics.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

formatting link

Reply to
Charlie Self

I think this is all part of the Master Scheme you learn about @ Law School: "Obfuscation keeps everyone working!"

This is what is *so* frustrating. Even if you "win" - you lose!

How's that go again? "First thing we do?..."

Reply to
mttt

Great! Now I have a _good_ excuse for SWMBO when I'm asked why I'm sitting on my butt, surfing the net, BSing on the rec or _reading_ the latest woodworking mag instead of being out in the shop building something from one of the articles in those mags. "Sorry honey, it's the copyright laws!" (yeah, she'll buy THAT.....like hxll she will)

So I'm headed the an undisclosed major office supply firm to use one of their devices to make a "pattern" for a project which shall be used only for the personal enjoyment of the recipient of the resulting "gift". (hope they don't get caught selling it at a tag sale after I am dead and gone)

When you folks start to see my mug shot above the copier down at OfficeMax, you'll know why!

DexAZ

Reply to
DexAZ

Just to add murkiness to the discussion, what about plans for artistic objects such as stained glass? If "artistic license" is used when making something from plans including representations of natural objects (trees, birds, cacti, etc.), are the natural objects copyrighted? How far does inspiration from a copyrighted work carry for a similar work to be considered derivative?

Reply to
Everett M. Greene

mojave smirks:

Birds, cacti? Something close to nonsense, not murkiness.

That's where the courts come in, along with the murkiness.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

formatting link

Reply to
Charlie Self

snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:bc673$4010b706$44a75e7a$ snipped-for-privacy@msgid.meganewsservers.com:

It's common, when one purchases the plans for some things (boats, houses) for the plans to explicitly state you have purchased the right to build one copy.

One could probably argue that a plan which doesn't explicitly state a limit, is implicitly allowing the building of multiple copies.

As you suggest, tho, once one moves from the "personal use" realm to the commercial, it gets much more complicated.

John

Reply to
John McCoy

snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m18.aol.com:

May I make a second copy after I spill shellac on the first? Please? Pretty please?

Actually, it's a normal part of my shop practice to make a copy of whatever plans I'm working from. Altho I don't intend to spill shellac on them, I do expect to make pencil notations as I go (particularly since a lot of plans manage to miss out some dimensions, and even those that don't I might change the printed dimensions to fit my needs).

John

Reply to
John McCoy

You may, but shellac will ruin your copier.

Reply to
codepath

A similar issue arises in music where printed music is bound in a book so as to make it unwieldy while playing the music -- won't stay open on the stand, must turn pages at awkward times. While the copyright owner can legitimately point out that a performance assistant can alleviate this burden, it is generally accepted that copying legally purchased music for the purpose of putting it into a more convenient form -- i.e., making one long strip of paper -- is Fair Use.

Of course the standard criteria for Fair Use come into play: copying to facilitate commercial enterprise, evasion of purchase, relationship of the copied part to the whole, impact upon the market, etc. And that's why we have lawyers and courts. If I, an amateur woodworker, photocopy one page out of a 100-page book called "Easy Woodworking Projects You Can Build" for the purpose of using the plan in my shop while preserving the book from damage, and destroy that photocopy when the project is finished, I would be very surprised and disappointed to be sued for doing it.

Similarly, if I were writing such a book I would clarify that particular point somewhere in the book's text: that copying which does not dilute the book's market is allowed.

--Jay

Reply to
Jay Windley

Jay Windley notes:

If you've got one of my books, current or future, go for it. I will remember to clarify it in future books.

Photocopy everything you expect to use in the shop, not just one page. Now, don't go doing this to everyone else's books, too, unless you get permission.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

formatting link

Reply to
Charlie Self

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.