Selling items made from mag plans

[Robert Bonomi]

That approach _has_ been before the courts, and passed muster.

[Robert Bonomi]

I repeat: "Absent any other considerations...".

If the copyright owner 'permits' certain kinds of use _that_he_has_the_right_ _to_restrict_, that *is* the copyright owner's prerogative to so do.

If the copyright owner is silent on the subject, then 'copying' for a "gift"

*is* a technical infringement of the copyright owner's rights.

There are things which you can do, *without* the permission of the copyright owner, and even 'over the express objections' of that party.

There are other things which one can do, 'if and only if' one has the consent and/or permission of the copyright holder. Such permission may be granted 'upon request', or there may be a blanket authorization in existence. When the copyright owner _suggests_ a use, and especially when they propose that use as a reason for the purchase of the item, courts _have_ held that that constitutes an 'implied license' to use the item in the manner suggested. That the seller _cannot_ then object that said use is an 'unauthorized use'.

Well, it's one thing if the copyright owner says it, in promotional materials for the book.

However, it's a totally different thing if it was a _reviewer_ saying it.

In the first case, it could be argued -- but I wouldn't want to guarantee that the argument would be _successful_ -- that that marketing constituted an 'implicit license' to use the materials in the manner suggested.

In the second case, the remark has _no_ 'legal' bearing on the status of infringement of the copyright of the plans and/or derivative works made therefrom.

You know, I even mentioned that, too, at the very end of the post.

_After_ discussing a bunch of reasons why, depending on the circumstances, there might be 'nothing of a copyright-able nature' in the parts of the original work (the plans) that the constructed object is a 'derivative work' of.

And, *IF* that is the case, then there really =isn't= any need, nor any benefit to be derived from, asking the magazine.

[Robert Bonomi]

"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.

[Robert Bonomi]

Authoritative answer: "maybe".

Note: just 'changed', by itself, isn't necessarily sufficient to avoid copyright problems.

The _legal_ definition of a 'derived work' is quite broad. It pretty much includes anything that is 'based on' the original protected work.

facetious example: 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.

Just because you own the copyright of something, doesn't mean that people are necessarily prohibited from copying what is _in_ that something, for example.

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'.