Wood Project Plans & Copyright Laws

[Robert Bonomi]

By strict interpretation of U.S. copyright statutes (Title 17, United States Code), that is precisely correct. Section 106 grants the copyright owner the 'exclusive right' to control the copying and reproduction of those works, "including the right to make derivative works". The object built from the plans *is* a 'derivative work'.

*HOWEVER*, only the things that are 'unique' to that particular creative effort are covered by the copyright.

e.g., a plan for the construction of a "Morris-style" chair is covered by copyright. You can't photo-copy that plan and give/sell it to others. This does NOT mean that you cannot draw up a _different_ set of plans for a Morris-style chair, which is, in broad, similar to the other chair. And you _are_ free to sell/give _your_ plans to others. The 'common elements' to "Morris-style" are not protected under any copyright on a specific set of plans. Nor, except in _very_limited_ situations, are general construction techniques -- joint types, etc. What counts is the way they're put together, and the overall effect thereof.

If somebody looks at your work and says: "That's a dead ringer for a Sam Maloof design", and you _had_ copied from something Sam Maloof designed, you've got a problem. OTOH, if your work is based on your own modifications to something you saw Norm build on NYW, and you've never even _heard_ of Sam Maloof, copyright does _not_ come into play.

As I said in another post, copyright law is a *deep* legal morass. You've just touched on one of the 'stickier' issues in that morass.

The existent body of case law on copyright *does* allow for "parallel, _independent_ development" of 'similar' (or even *identical*) works.

There are cases on record where nearly identical things _have_ been found to be the result of independent development. Extant case law appears to indicate, however, that if you have _ever_ had access to, or been exposed to, the other party's 'original work', that it is essentially

*impossible* to then claim that your work _was_ 'independent development'; that, _even_if_you_weren't_consciously_aware_of_it_, that you were influenced by the other party's work, and, thus, your work is, at least to some degree, a "derivative work" of their effort',

That said, what copyright protects is the "unique, creative effort" that goes into the production of an "original work". If an object has components that are -not- unique to that object/design, then those components themselves are not protected by the copyright on the object as a whole. The "great difficulty" arises in determining what parts are, and are not, actually so protected. The only *AUTHORITATIVE* determination is what the judge says, in court.

If you find the same design elements, the same proportions, the same 'styling', etc. in multiple plans, _from_multiple_sources_, it is, almost certainly, safe to copy those "common features". It's like the old term-paper joke: "if you steal from a single source, it's plagiarism, stealing from just two sources indicates laziness, but if you steal from three or more, it's research."

[Kelby]

Making an item from a plan

I think it would depend on the design. If I come up with a completely novel design for a chest of drawers, radically different from an artistic standpoint than anything that has ever come before, and if I then publish an article containing plans for that chest of drawers, then I probably have intellectual property rights to both the design and the article/plans. The article/plans would be a copyright, and if someone makes a chest from the plans, that may also be protected under the copyright laws as a derivative work.

If, however, I go to a museum and take measurements of a Shaker chest of drawers from the mid-1800s, and then write an article on how to make an authentic Shaker chest, I expect my rights would be different. I would probably still have a copyright in my article, but I cannot imagine I would have any intellectual property rights in all authentic Shaker chests hereafter built by anyone based upon those plans, whether as a "derivative work" or otherwise. I can't recall the precise rule, but I seem to remember there's some requirement that if you want to say something is protected under copyright law (whether the plans/article or the derivative work), it must be an "original work" or something like that. If I am remembering the rule right, the article could be an original work even if the chest was not, in which case the article would be protected but people could make the chests all they want.

As I look through the articles/plans in most modern woodworking magazines/books, I don't see much that looks terribly original. While any given set of plans may not look exactly like something that is already out there, I think most of the publishers/authors of these plans would have a really tough time explaining why their piece of furniture is so different than anything that has ever been crafted before that it constitutes intellectual property and no one else should be able to build it.

[Everett M. Greene]

Which may then be cited as precedent, but is authoritative only if it's been reviewed by an appellate court? After review and confirmation, it becomes a part of case/common law?

[Wilson]

I say.. do what you want. Is the copyright police going to knock at your door and haul you away to jail? I know if I ever had a plan, I would want to share it. I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.

[Charlie Self]

You might very well be surprised.

Well, I'm in it for both, and letting people steal from me takes away from both.

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

[Swingman]

Bingo! That's as pithy a sentiment as any in your signature lines.

As a still performing musician, and being married to one, I fully appreciate, and have felt, the loss of revenue from "copying".

[Andy Dingley]

If you're lucky they will do. If you're unlucky (and this is happening _a_lot_ right now), then they'll bankrupt you instead.

"The Copyright Police" are already stalking America's streets, togged up in black assault vests with "RIAA" lettered across the back.

I know if I ever had a plan, I would want to share it. I'm not in it for the money, just the fun.

Excellent news.

Then might I suggest you take a look at the Creative Commons project for a more flexible look at copyright.

[Robert Bonomi]

One could so argue, but, based on the 'letter of the law', in the U.S., one would _probably_ lose. Copyright law expressly states that the copyright owner has the "exclusive right" to control the "reproduction of his work, including the making of derivative works". The object faithfully built from the plans is a derivative work.

There are two ways a restriction on building objects from a set of plans could come into play. One is via copyright rights. The other is as a matter of "contractual terms" concerning the purchase thereof. An attempt to impose 'contractual terms' to a purchase, that are *not* known to the buyer _before_ the purchase -- e.g. 'terms and conditions' _inside_ a sealed package, of which there is no other mention -- is what is called a "contract of adhesion', and is invalid and un-enforceable in every Jurisdiction in the United states.

As a point of law (Since the U.S. adopted the "Berne Convention" rules, in the late 1970s), a copyright owner _does_not_ give up any rights by failing to state them. He doesn't even need to state that the item _is_ copyrighted; full rights/protection accrue _regardless_. All rights remain with the copyright owner, unless specifically waived or granted to others.

*IF* the express 'license' to build one object from the plans is derived from copyright, and not from 'contract law', then the absence of that grant of license means that there is _no_ license to build -any- derivative works.

OTOH, if the restriction, in the cited cases, is a contractual agreement known to both sides _before_ the contract was entered into, then the absence of such 'agreement' means that "whatever the law *allows*" is what one can do. Because you, the purchaser, have _not_ voluntarily agreed to "more restrictive" terms.

When plans are 'custom work', as in the case of hiring an architect to design a house for you, *absent*CONTRACTUAL*agreement*to*the*contrary*, that falls under the "work done for hire" rule, and the copyright on it actually belongs to the party who _hired_ the work done. Commonly, such contracts do specify that the architect retains copyright ownership and grants the buyer only 'limited' reproduction rights.

Existent case-law regarding the issue of derivative works does suggest that building an object from plans, that DOES incorporate 'unique' elements from those plans, does fall under the 'exclusive control' of the copyright owner, subject -only- to the 'exceptions' that are enumerated in the copyright statutes. The Sony v BetaMax case held that single copies of an object, for "personal use", was -not- copyright infringement. *Presumably* this extends to a single 'derivative work' -- I'm *not* sure if there is actual case-law addressing that specific point.

Even "to/for others" -- as in the case of gifts -- and it is really messy, *without* money changing hands.

[Robert Bonomi]

"Working copies" of a work _in_your_possession_ are specifically allowed by law. Depending on circumstances, there is a limit of one to three such copies allowed in existence at any given time.

'Limited' copying for such purposes _is_ specifically allowed by statute.

Case-law (Sony v BetaMax) expressly okays making a single copy for personal use. If _that_ copy is damaged/destroyed, making another _from_the_original_ is allowed. (but, making a copy from another copy -- e.g. getting a friend to dup _their_ copy of an off-air recording to replace your damaged off-air recording -- is _not_ legal.)

In the U.S. making similar limited copies from a 'borrowed' work is OK _as_ _long_as_the_work_is_in_your_possession_. When the work is returned to the party it was borrowed from, the copies should be "returned" as well, or destroyed.

[Robert Bonomi]

Quite correct.

In this case, the plans _themselves_ are a 'derivative work' of the museum's property. Any copyright that may have existed on _it_ has long since expired. The _only_ copyright you hold is on the 'derivative' part. Making a copy of the plans _themselves_ is potentially infringing on your derivative copyright. Building the object thus described is using

-only- the elements that belong to the 'original work'. To which copyright no longer applies.

You're close. Copyright is to protect "original works of creative endeavor".

Yup. The article _is_ an "original work of creative effort", the plans are a derivative work, and you have rights *only* to _your_ 'original creative effort' in those plans -- essentially the manner/style/etc, in which the 'ink' was laid down on the paper.

Yup. "Common elements" are not protected by copyright. The precise manner in which they are combined into a whole, _can_ constitute the 'creative effort' required for copyright protection. Whether or not it "does" is something that only a court can decide. This is, in fact, one of the "first line" defenses to a copyright infringement suit -- that the work copied did _not_ have sufficient original creative effort to qualify for copyright protection. Absent sufficient 'originality', one -cannot- have actionable infringement. :)

[Ron Magen]

FWIW I'd like to but an oar in here.

Similar 'discussion threads' have cropped up on the 'boatbuilding' Groups; i.e. selling 'used' plans. Also, this is not the first time the subject has appeared on this forum.

a} If *you* BUY a specific 'PLAN' from a designer/author/composer/etc. that was produced at YOUR behest, and paid for, it is YOURS to do with as you like. Including putting it into 'Public Domain'. {Unless there were some specific CONTRACTUAL obligations between Purchaser & Seller}

b} A 'stock plan' usually has, at least, a note on it to the fact ONE boat per PLAN can be built . . . nothing about how many 'working copies' of the plan can be made. It is understood that the *one* boat is 'yours', not 'one boat per purchaser of copy', after copy, etc. There has been some 'splitting of hairs' on this issue - "If I DON'T BUILD the boat, is it 'fair' to sell the plans, and does THAT purchaser have the right, etc."

Some plans come with documentation the size of a small 'pamphlet', equivalent to a contract, and really spelling out what is allowed for the REGISTERED plan . . . including a serial number !!

c} Typical stock 'arts & craft' plans have a disclaimer allowing a specified quantity of items that can be build - 25 'pieces' from the ones I've seen. They anticipate them being built for 'flea market' sales, church & club offerings, etc. Not 'commercial production', obviously.

d} When a designer creates something 'under contract' the rights belong to the entity that contracted the work. That's how many designs by Jackson came into the 'public domain' by being published in the old Popular Mechanics Magazine. The same for designs by Monk in 'Rudder'.

It is the same for certain designers who publish their works in books . . . in fact, several of them state that the boats can be built from the BOOK PLANS. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to ignore LIBRARIES, yet there is NO admonition about 'only a Purchaser of the book, etc.'

Nor is there any such statements on the plans in the popular woodworking magazines that publish plans on a monthly basis.

d} It gets sticky when the buyer only uses the plan as a 'starting point'. A 'chair' is a Chair, as a 'boat' is a Boat, and a 'function' can't be 'copyrighted', etc. Changing the color of a item, or shape of a decorative cut-out can't be claimed as a 'new' item, different from the purchased plan. But if the shape, multiple design elements, or other obvious factors are changed . . . it would probably be defensible.

SNIP

'Case Law', etc. also SNIPPED> >

[Robert Bonomi]

"Not necessarily", I'm afraid.

In cases of copyright law, the court _frequently_ states that "the judgement in this case is entirely dependent on the specific facts to this case, and is _not_ to be relied on as precedent in any other proceeding." Often in almost

*exactly* those words.

Well, you're free to _cite_ it, but the current court will probably *not* find it persuasive, in and of itself. You have to independently establish everything, anyway.

Taking things in more-or-less reverse order ---

'Case law' is simply the body of records of _anything_ that the courts have actually ruled on. "Out of court" settlements, after a suit is filed, are _not_ part of the body of case law.

"Case law" does -not- provide any guarantee of how a particular court will rule in any specific case. They can find that the 'facts' at issue are somehow different, and act accordingly. It remains, however, the "best available indicator" of how any court is "likely" to rule on in a case that has yet to come before it.

"Common law" covers the things that are "common law" (things that 'everybody knows'), but are _not_ set out in/by statute. Things like: a) "common-law marriage" -- where a pair of consenting adults represent themselves to the world as 'man and wife', _without_ the formal paperwork. Depending on jurisdiction, after some period (from as short as 'overnight' to a span of several _years_), it is held to be _the_same_ as if the formal paperwork had been done.

b) The legal description of a plot of land describes one boundary of the plot as the "{mumble} river". But, the river has silted-up, and it cut itself a new channel, in a _different_ location. Is the property line the _old_ riverbed, or the _new_ one?

When a river moves a few feet, the issue usually isn't a significant one. When a river move _several_miles_, it's a whole nuther story.

"_What_ do I own, when I own this piece of property" is not found in statute, but in 'common law'. It predates the founding of the United States. Principles involved trace back to the Magna Charta, and even earlier.

A 'local' court ruling is _not_ binding on any other court, i.e. they don't "have to follow it". However, it -can- be cited, as 'persuasive evidence', in any other court. Which is free to agree or disagree with the cited findings.

A judgement that has been appealed to the 'appellate court', and affirmed by that court *is* binding on all the lower courts under the scope of _that_ appellate court. A ruling by the "5th appellate court" is -not- binding on a lower court that is under the '3rd appellate court'. However, a lower court _can_ disregard a 'binding' ruling by a higher court, *IF* (and only if) they can find an aspect of the issue that the prior higher court ruling did _not_ address. They can thus take the attitude that _this_ case is 'different', and the prior ruling doesn't apply. This almost guarantees an appeal to that self-same higher court, to get a ruling as to whether this case really _is_ different, or not.

[Robert Bonomi]

That is *PROBABLY* true. There _are_ nuances that can trip you up. The technical point is "work done for hire". If the piece _does_ qualify under the 'work done for hire' rules, then copyright rests with the party that paid to have it done.

The rules are -not- as clear-cut as one might think. If the party doing the work is a 'contractor', as distinct from an 'employee', then copyright probably does _not_ rest with the 'buyer'. UNLESS the the terms of the contract specify that it does.

Absent specific permission from the copyright owner, the purchaser is limited to what _statute_ says he *can* do. And the copyright owner *cannot*, by fiat, deny the purchaser something that _is_ allowed by statute.

BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, the buyer can agree to refrain from some action(s) that the law does allow. And the copyright owner _can_ refuse to sell 'directly' to that party unless they _do_ so agree.

The latter question is a 'no-brainer' -- The right to build 'runs with the plans', *unless* it has been 'used'. Once "somebody" has built from that set of plans, they cannot "honestly" sell those plans "including the right to build one instance from them". They _can_ sell, "without the right to build from these plans", however.

If that 'what is allowed' is more restrictive than simple copyright limitations, and is -not- disclosed *in*advance* of the purchase, it is an *un-enforceable* 'contract of adhesion'.

"Not Necessarily." The world on this changed _significantly_ when the U.S. signed on to the Berne Convention.

"Work done for hire" became much more _narrowly_ defined. Work done by an *employee* in the normal course of their business _is_ 'work done for hire', and copyright resides with the employer.

For 'contractors', in the 'modern' (post Berne Convention) world, *UNLESS* the contract provides otherwise, copyright remains _with_the_developer_, and the buyer has only acquired a "right to use" license.

Utter cr*p. publication in a magazine does _not_ convert something to being 'public domain'.

The strict constructionist legal view is that "While the borrowed book is in their possession, they can do anything that the owner of the book could do. HOWEVER, those rights to do those things revert to the party the book was borrowed from, when the book is returned. Derivative works must be 'returned' to that party at the same time, or destroyed."

The absence of any statement does _not_ convey permission to do anything.

Mostly true. As long as you don't copy 'unique' elements of that specific design, you're probably safe from even the 'threat' of legal action.

[Jeff Gorman]

"YJJim" wrote

: 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.

As a matter of interest, is there any know instance of a legal action been taken in this context?

Jeff G

-- Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK Email address is username@ISP username is amgron ISP is clara.co.uk Website

[Grandpa]

Yaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn.............

[Phisherman]

I read an article about Thomas Moser who published a book for Shaker-design furniture. A woodworker followed the plans in Moser's book to make and sell pieces, and Moser sued the woodworker. Yet, Moser took Shaker plans to create his book and there is nothing unusual about Moser's designs. I wonder if the Shakers would approve?

[John McCoy]

[e-mail] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:67ec1$4012f121$44a75e7a$ [e-mail]:

This would seem to contradict your first statement, quoted above. I would take it from that, that you don't beleive the "license to build one object" would be derived from copyright law, which does sound reasonable.

And, it would seem that "whatever the law allows" in that case is not clearly defined.

John

[Robert Bonomi]

I stated "can be argued"... not that there is necessarily any probability of success with that argument. :)

Copyright law, _itself_, does not provide *any* exemptions with regard to derivative works, per se. Only the general exemptions to copyright infringement. And the right to create derivative works *IS*, according to the law, under the 'exclusive control' of the copyright owner.

Now, depending on the nature and purpose of the publication, and, effectively, the 'intent' of the author and/or copyright owner, the existence of an 'implied license' may be argued. e.g., a book of plans, titled "101 Projects You Can Build". It would seem clear that the copyright owner *intended* for you to construct "some" derivative works, from the book. One copy, for personal use, from any given plan would seem reasonable. Possibly two.

I dunno whether "Sony v Betamax" applies to 'derivative works', or not.

The law is fairly clear insofar as "you can't do it without the permission of the copyright owner, _unless_ one of the following conditions is satisfied.."

There has been as *lot* of 'legal squabbling' over 'exactly *what*' does, or does not, satisfy those conditions.

[John Emmons]

Was his lawsuit successful?

John Emmons

[John McCoy]

[e-mail] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:17e64$4015a16e$44a75e7a$ [e-mail]:

I was pondering this, earlier today. What, exactly, is a "derivative work"? (you may have defined that elsewhere in the thread, and I missed it; if so I apologize for asking the question again). I could see where "derivative work" could be construed to mean only a work which included, in total or in part, the text (or images, etc) which were copyrighted. By that reasoning, something which is made from a description which is copyrighted, is not a derivative work.

Where my thoughts where going with that was, that if rights to an object which is made from a copyrighted description is held by the copyright owner, then patents would seem to be unnecessary - all one would have to do is publish a plan to one's invention to have control of it indefinately, rather than the 17 years that a patent grants.

John