In the past, I have purchased several NYW plans.
Have found them to be well documented and for less than $10, well
worth the cost; however, have never felt the need to buy the video
that is an option.
I don't buy plans anymore. I can look at something or perhaps get a little
advice and then draw my own plans if needed and then build it. But, since
you appear to have an excess of money and don't mind throwing you money
around without consideration, then feel free to buy some plans for the OP.
I'm sure he will appreciate it.
And it's not a matter of being a serious cost component. The choice being
available, I prefer to spend my money on important stuff like the alcohol I
buy every week which is considerably costlier then some simple plans.
Think that is known as being a mooch in my prt of the world.
Trying to use design plans the the designer clearly offers for sale to
build a single unit without paying for them is very simply the theft
of intellectual property.
You state you are a tech writer.
What is your position if someone were to plagurize your work, then
sell it without compensating you?
Interesting observation; however will consider it for what it is IBS
(Intellectual BULL SHIT).
Then you're completely full of shit Lew. There isn't a person alive who does
woodwork that hasn't taken someone's else's idea and modified a version for
his own use. You build a chair, a table whatever, it's design is based
exactly or loosely on some other person's design that you've seen. The only
difference between me and you is that I don't lie about it while you're
completely full of crap.
I guess you've never done a history assignment in school. That's where you
read what someone else has written and then say it again in your own words.
With your warped thinking, I'd guess you'd classify that as plagiarism.
Would that be correct Lew?
Quite obviously, you don't have a clue about the legalities of being a
technical writer. A technical writer usually takes legally obtained
information given to him or researched by him and rewrites it at the
comprehension and interest level for a particular audience. Since the
information is owned from beginning to end by the client, he's free to do
with what's been written as he pleases including copying, rewriting and
distributing it ~ even if it's information created entirely by me. I know
for certain fact that information I've previously written has been
rewritten, updated and changed a number of times by successive technical
writers. And you know what Lew? I'm perfectly fine with that because it's
the nature of the business.
Possibly, however your response is just BULL SHIT without any intelligence
to back it up.
The alcohol comment was intended to be funny. Obviously, you wouldn't find
it so because you appear to have your humour up your ass where you
apparently have also placed your head.
Nothing wrong with "mooching" ideas to use in your own designs,
despite recent efforts to the contrary in the software industry.
OK, so when in your opinion is it legitimate to draw your own plans
for a duplicate of a piece of furniture you have seen? Is Norm
stealing when he does this? How do you draw the line between theft
Who said anything about "selling"? Google "fair use doctrine". In
any case it's queationable whether examining a picture of a piece of
furniture and then drawing a similar design is copyright
violation--Plycraft made imitation Eames chairs for decades that
incorporated all the distinctive features of the Eames except a
different shaped armrest and Herman Miller was never successful in
shutting down this activity.
Certainly if someone is selling unauthorized copies of Norm's plans
that's bad, but that's not what was being proposed.
I expect that copyright has expired for most of the pieces that
Norm duplicates. Plus, he usually makes some dimensional
and stylistic changes, see below.
Fair Use Doctrine would not be applicable.
What is applicable is that what he makes from a picture is
not going to be an exact copy of the original. For some
intellectual property, infringement does not require exact
duplication. "Terminator" violated Harlan Ellison's copyrights
on one or more stories with very different details. For furniture,
IIRC, infringement does require exact or nearly exact duplication.
Otherwise copyright would have long ago expired on every
basic piece of furniture as ,many chairs, tables, dressers,
desks, etc are much like others.
And please, _information_ per se is not protected by copyright.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.