I seldom use plans, preferring to design and work out my own projects
(sometimes plans would be easier but not as rewarding). Anyway, of the few
plans that I used, all PROHIBIT the duplication and sale of the plans but
very few PROHIBIT the duplication and sale of the project itself. They
sometimes prohibit the duplication of projects beyond a stated number
without permission. So read the details. My feeling is that unless
stipulated to the contrary, sale of items built following the plans is
This having been said: If dimensions or materials are changed from those
stated in the plans, isn't the project now changed from what it was
originally? A box is a box is a box like a table is a table is a table.
Authoritative answer: "maybe".
Note: just 'changed', by itself, isn't necessarily sufficient to avoid
The _legal_ definition of a 'derived work' is quite broad. It pretty much
includes anything that is 'based on' the original protected work.
IF the story of 'Little Red Riding Hood' was an original work _today_,
and protected by copyright, changing 'red' to 'blue' throughout the
story, and making 'Little Blue Riding Hood' a boy, would not avoid
a claim of copyright infringement.
"Little Blue Riding Hood" _would_ be a 'derivative work'.
However, copyright protects *only* the 'unique creative effort' put into
the item by the copyright owner. which bears on the next point --
Yup. And to the extent the plans for the box or table are 'generic', they
are _not_ subject to copyright on those 'generic' features of the object.
Comment: copyright is *not* a simple subject! And 'derived works' are one
of the _messier_ aspects of the subject. <wry grin>
Just because you own the copyright of something, doesn't mean that people
are necessarily prohibited from copying what is _in_ that something, for
A copyrighted description of "how to" do something does not prevent any
one from _doing_ that thing, as described.
etc., etc. ad nauseum. And it can get _very_ 'sickening'.
"If you steal from one source, it's plagiarism.
If you steal from two or more sources, it's research."
This =is= a close statement of the facts with regards to copyright.
If you can point to the 'same thing' (or 'very close' to the same)
from two _unrelated_ sources, then it is clear that you are _not_
infringing on the 'unique creative effort' of _either_ 'author',
because it *isn't* "unique".
If there is nothing 'unique' about the plan, other than the totality
of the plan drawings, then there are no copyrighted elements in that
which the 'derived work' is derived _from_. Therefore, the copyright
owner has no claim on the derived work.
Or if the construct is built 'not exactly according to the plans', so
as to leave out (or substitute for) any 'unique' creative elements from
the plans that 'would have been' embodied in the derivative work -- again,
the copyright owner has no legal claim.
As for New Yankee Workshop, the underlying object from which the plans
are derived is -not- protected by copyright. The plans themselves are
a 'derivative work' of the original object. The NYW copyright extends
only to the creative effort they _added_ in creating the plans themselves,
and does _not_ include any of the characteristics of the underlying
object. Building an object from those plans involves -only- those
elements which were part of the original object. Since NYW has no
copyright on those elements, they have no grounds for complaint.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:22:03 GMT, Bill
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Ask the magazine!
Marriage. Where two people decide to get together so
that neither of them can do what they want to because
of the other one.
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.