I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
them and they may have a few orders for me.

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Thanks for all replies,

are you serious?????
"Bill" wrote in message
...
I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
them and they may have a few orders for me.

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Thanks for all replies,

Just read around-about the article to see if there is a copyright infringement
concerning the "business production" of the object. even then if you're not
legaly in business with it like a few here and there, no big deal at all, go ahead!

Alex

"Bill" wrote in message

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Thanks for all replies,

I've purchased plans from independent sources that have restrictions.
Usually, the plans are for personal use only, nothing made from them can be
sold. Some offer licensing though for commercial use.

I've never seen a restriction on a magazine plan. The plan itself, of
course, is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced or sold. Given that no
restrictions are published, I'd say you are good to go. Just remember that
I'm not a lawyer, just using what I think is common sense.

Refreshing to see an ethics concern about copyright.

In article ,
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Thanks for all replies,
...

I've never seen a restriction on a magazine plan. The plan itself, of
course, is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced or sold. Given that no
restrictions are published, I'd say you are good to go. ...

Restrictions don't have to be emphasized - the copyright covers
"derived works".

DAGS - as there have been quite comprehensive discussions on this
topic before.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

This question has come up before. I believe that
one of the magazines, (Wood, I believe), had
covered this before. They often will publish
a design from an "outsider", that is someone
not on staff. Those designs are protected.
Others are not (other then normal copyright
for the plans themselves and the article
itself). So, no selling the items if they
are done by the "outsider".

Here's my two cents - most of this is probably under
the "radar" - that is if you're doing the local
craft show in 'somewhereville' USA, no one would
notice. So you could always feign ignorance if
caught. A national show - now there's where you
will have a problem.

To keep the "karma" god in check - I'd take
the time and write or email the magazine and
ask them their policy. I would guarantee that
they will respond quickly. You might be
surprised about the response.

You would do us all a favor if you would
publish that response, so we would
all can benefit.

Good luck,

MJ Wallace

In article ,
Bill wrote:
I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
them and they may have a few orders for me.

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Thanks for all replies,


OH, boy! You *do* like to ask complicated questions.

The _first_ thing to to is to check what the plans themselves say.
Many plans come with an express 'limited license', allowing you to
construct a limited number of the object -- might be one only, might
be five, might be as many as 25 -- for your own purposes. *IF* there
is such a statement, it _does_ govern what you can/cannot do.

If there is no such 'license' with the plans, then the 'statutory'
provisions apply.

This gets "messy".

The plans, themselves, _are_ copyrighted. Copying the plans for your own
'personal use' is allowed. Copying the plans for 'someone else' to use
is not.

Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
same party -- at _no_ cost.

HOWEVER, general copyright law protects the 'expression' of a given idea,
_not_ the underlying 'ideas' themselves. And, copyright protects _only_
the 'unique' creative elements introduced by the author of the particular
'expression'. There is a separate kind of copyright, called a 'design
copyright', that plays by different rules. However, unless you're talking
about a 'design' that is 'identifiable' as being from some well-known
artist -- e.g. a Sam Maloof rocking chair -- it is unlikely that this
category of copyright comes into play.

Separating the 'ideas' from the 'expression', is one of the *murkiest* areas
of copyright law, =particularly= where a 'derivative work' is involved.

Design elements that are 'common' to any similar object, are obviously
not unique to that particular 'expression' of the concept of whatever
kind of object is represented by the plans. The manner/style in which
those various elements are _combined_ to make up the whole, on the other
hand, _may_ well be a 'unique' creative effort, and thus be protected.

Trying to get an 'authoritative' answer as to what are the 'unique'
elements in any specific set of plans, is likely to be impossible.

A couple of examples, taken from some woodworking magazines within
the last year or so: 1) plans for a intarsia teddy bear. 2) plans
for decorative boxes.

The intarsia teddy bear is almost entirely 'unique' creative effort.
The only 'non-unique' component is the 'intarsia' concept itself.
The copyright on the teddy-bear object doesn't extend to a, say,
intarsia monkey object, nor even to a 'different appearing' teddy bear.

In the 2nd case, obviously copyright doesn't apply to boxes as a whole.
The only (potentially) 'unique' element in these plans was the 'mitered
spline' accent used in joining the box corners. Even then, if a similar
appearance was accomplished by a different methodology than espoused in
the accompanying article, copyright does not come into consideration.
Furthermore, with the 'unique' element being the -method- of constructing
the accent, as separate from the 'accent' itself, copyright is side-stepped,
because copyright does *not* apply to processes or methods (that is the
realm of 'patents').

How any/all of this swamp applies to 'whatever it is' that you have made
is a question _only_you_ can attempt to answer.

As a 'practical matter', it is *highly* unlikely that a copyright owner
would act against you for anything less than 'production line' quantities,
unless we're talking 'big ticket' item construction. plans for a decorative
weather-vane are one thing. Plans for a house, or a boat, or an airplane,
are something else again. grin

The 'ethics' of the situation are a completely different matter from the
'legalities'.

Ethically, it's clearly OK to make the thing for your own 'personal use'.
Or in _small_ numbers for gifts to others. What constitutes a 'small'
number does depend on what the 'thing' is.

The situation is different when you start talking about taking money
for the things. Obviously, setting up a production-line, and wholesaling
them, to say Toys-R-Us or K-Mart, is an entirely different issue than
"onesie-twosie" construction for individuals who ask you for one. _IF_
there is 'money to be made' in it, then the producer of the plans deserves
to share in those profits. Consider buying a set of plans for _each_
copy you make. You can then transfer the plans _and_ the 'derivative
work' to each buyer. Alternatively, contact the producer of the plan,
and see if there is a 'quantity discount' available.

Bill & Ed,

I've never seen a restriction on a magazine plan. The plan itself, of
course, is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced or sold. Given that no
restrictions are published, I'd say you are good to go. Just remember that
I'm not a lawyer, just using what I think is common sense.

I was curious so I emailed SWMBO (who is a lawyer):

Subject: Stupid Question - not important

Chrissy,

I was curious. If I make an item from a plan that I got out of a
magazine, like a rocking horse, is there any problem in selling them.
There was no clauses specifying whether or not you are allowed to sell
an item, just that the plan itself is copyrighted.

4

Her response

Are you going into business? Copyright would not preclude you from
selling.

http://www.starcase.com/rack_rail_un...line_store.asp





"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
vers.com...
: In article ,
: Bill wrote:
: I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
: little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
: mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
: couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
: them and they may have a few orders for me.
:
: Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
: Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
: I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
: without checking on the ethics.
:
: Thanks for all replies,
:
:
: OH, boy! You *do* like to ask complicated questions.
:
: The _first_ thing to to is to check what the plans themselves say.
: Many plans come with an express 'limited license', allowing you to
: construct a limited number of the object -- might be one only, might
: be five, might be as many as 25 -- for your own purposes. *IF* there
: is such a statement, it _does_ govern what you can/cannot do.
:
: If there is no such 'license' with the plans, then the 'statutory'
: provisions apply.
:
: This gets "messy".
:
: The plans, themselves, _are_ copyrighted. Copying the plans for your own
: 'personal use' is allowed. Copying the plans for 'someone else' to use
: is not.
:
: Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
: work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
: other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
: others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
: in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
: ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
: 'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
: same party -- at _no_ cost.
:
: HOWEVER, general copyright law protects the 'expression' of a given idea,
: _not_ the underlying 'ideas' themselves. And, copyright protects _only_
: the 'unique' creative elements introduced by the author of the particular
: 'expression'. There is a separate kind of copyright, called a 'design
: copyright', that plays by different rules. However, unless you're talking
: about a 'design' that is 'identifiable' as being from some well-known
: artist -- e.g. a Sam Maloof rocking chair -- it is unlikely that this
: category of copyright comes into play.
:
: Separating the 'ideas' from the 'expression', is one of the *murkiest* areas
: of copyright law, =particularly= where a 'derivative work' is involved.
:
: Design elements that are 'common' to any similar object, are obviously
: not unique to that particular 'expression' of the concept of whatever
: kind of object is represented by the plans. The manner/style in which
: those various elements are _combined_ to make up the whole, on the other
: hand, _may_ well be a 'unique' creative effort, and thus be protected.
:
: Trying to get an 'authoritative' answer as to what are the 'unique'
: elements in any specific set of plans, is likely to be impossible.
:
: A couple of examples, taken from some woodworking magazines within
: the last year or so: 1) plans for a intarsia teddy bear. 2) plans
: for decorative boxes.
:
: The intarsia teddy bear is almost entirely 'unique' creative effort.
: The only 'non-unique' component is the 'intarsia' concept itself.
: The copyright on the teddy-bear object doesn't extend to a, say,
: intarsia monkey object, nor even to a 'different appearing' teddy bear.
:
: In the 2nd case, obviously copyright doesn't apply to boxes as a whole.
: The only (potentially) 'unique' element in these plans was the 'mitered
: spline' accent used in joining the box corners. Even then, if a similar
: appearance was accomplished by a different methodology than espoused in
: the accompanying article, copyright does not come into consideration.
: Furthermore, with the 'unique' element being the -method- of constructing
: the accent, as separate from the 'accent' itself, copyright is side-stepped,
: because copyright does *not* apply to processes or methods (that is the
: realm of 'patents').
:
: How any/all of this swamp applies to 'whatever it is' that you have made
: is a question _only_you_ can attempt to answer.
:
: As a 'practical matter', it is *highly* unlikely that a copyright owner
: would act against you for anything less than 'production line' quantities,
: unless we're talking 'big ticket' item construction. plans for a decorative
: weather-vane are one thing. Plans for a house, or a boat, or an airplane,
: are something else again. grin
:
: The 'ethics' of the situation are a completely different matter from the
: 'legalities'.
:
: Ethically, it's clearly OK to make the thing for your own 'personal use'.
: Or in _small_ numbers for gifts to others. What constitutes a 'small'
: number does depend on what the 'thing' is.
:
: The situation is different when you start talking about taking money
: for the things. Obviously, setting up a production-line, and wholesaling
: them, to say Toys-R-Us or K-Mart, is an entirely different issue than
: "onesie-twosie" construction for individuals who ask you for one. _IF_
: there is 'money to be made' in it, then the producer of the plans deserves
: to share in those profits. Consider buying a set of plans for _each_
: copy you make. You can then transfer the plans _and_ the 'derivative
: work' to each buyer. Alternatively, contact the producer of the plan,
: and see if there is a 'quantity discount' available.
:
:
:
:
:
:

Reply to wrong message, sorry...

"Bob Gramza" wrote in message
. com...
: http://www.starcase.com/rack_rail_un...line_store.asp
:
:
:
:
:
: "Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
: vers.com...
: : In article ,
: : Bill wrote:
: : I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
: : little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
: : mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
: : couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
: : them and they may have a few orders for me.
: :
: : Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
: : Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
: : I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
: : without checking on the ethics.
: :
: : Thanks for all replies,
: :
: :
: : OH, boy! You *do* like to ask complicated questions.
: :
: : The _first_ thing to to is to check what the plans themselves say.
: : Many plans come with an express 'limited license', allowing you to
: : construct a limited number of the object -- might be one only, might
: : be five, might be as many as 25 -- for your own purposes. *IF* there
: : is such a statement, it _does_ govern what you can/cannot do.
: :
: : If there is no such 'license' with the plans, then the 'statutory'
: : provisions apply.
: :
: : This gets "messy".
: :
: : The plans, themselves, _are_ copyrighted. Copying the plans for your own
: : 'personal use' is allowed. Copying the plans for 'someone else' to use
: : is not.
: :
: : Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
: : work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
: : other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
: : others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
: : in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
: : ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
: : 'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
: : same party -- at _no_ cost.
: :
: : HOWEVER, general copyright law protects the 'expression' of a given idea,
: : _not_ the underlying 'ideas' themselves. And, copyright protects _only_
: : the 'unique' creative elements introduced by the author of the particular
: : 'expression'. There is a separate kind of copyright, called a 'design
: : copyright', that plays by different rules. However, unless you're talking
: : about a 'design' that is 'identifiable' as being from some well-known
: : artist -- e.g. a Sam Maloof rocking chair -- it is unlikely that this
: : category of copyright comes into play.
: :
: : Separating the 'ideas' from the 'expression', is one of the *murkiest* areas
: : of copyright law, =particularly= where a 'derivative work' is involved.
: :
: : Design elements that are 'common' to any similar object, are obviously
: : not unique to that particular 'expression' of the concept of whatever
: : kind of object is represented by the plans. The manner/style in which
: : those various elements are _combined_ to make up the whole, on the other
: : hand, _may_ well be a 'unique' creative effort, and thus be protected.
: :
: : Trying to get an 'authoritative' answer as to what are the 'unique'
: : elements in any specific set of plans, is likely to be impossible.
: :
: : A couple of examples, taken from some woodworking magazines within
: : the last year or so: 1) plans for a intarsia teddy bear. 2) plans
: : for decorative boxes.
: :
: : The intarsia teddy bear is almost entirely 'unique' creative effort.
: : The only 'non-unique' component is the 'intarsia' concept itself.
: : The copyright on the teddy-bear object doesn't extend to a, say,
: : intarsia monkey object, nor even to a 'different appearing' teddy bear.
: :
: : In the 2nd case, obviously copyright doesn't apply to boxes as a whole.
: : The only (potentially) 'unique' element in these plans was the 'mitered
: : spline' accent used in joining the box corners. Even then, if a similar
: : appearance was accomplished by a different methodology than espoused in
: : the accompanying article, copyright does not come into consideration.
: : Furthermore, with the 'unique' element being the -method- of constructing
: : the accent, as separate from the 'accent' itself, copyright is side-stepped,
: : because copyright does *not* apply to processes or methods (that is the
: : realm of 'patents').
: :
: : How any/all of this swamp applies to 'whatever it is' that you have made
: : is a question _only_you_ can attempt to answer.
: :
: : As a 'practical matter', it is *highly* unlikely that a copyright owner
: : would act against you for anything less than 'production line' quantities,
: : unless we're talking 'big ticket' item construction. plans for a decorative
: : weather-vane are one thing. Plans for a house, or a boat, or an airplane,
: : are something else again. grin
: :
: : The 'ethics' of the situation are a completely different matter from the
: : 'legalities'.
: :
: : Ethically, it's clearly OK to make the thing for your own 'personal use'.
: : Or in _small_ numbers for gifts to others. What constitutes a 'small'
: : number does depend on what the 'thing' is.
: :
: : The situation is different when you start talking about taking money
: : for the things. Obviously, setting up a production-line, and wholesaling
: : them, to say Toys-R-Us or K-Mart, is an entirely different issue than
: : "onesie-twosie" construction for individuals who ask you for one. _IF_
: : there is 'money to be made' in it, then the producer of the plans deserves
: : to share in those profits. Consider buying a set of plans for _each_
: : copy you make. You can then transfer the plans _and_ the 'derivative
: : work' to each buyer. Alternatively, contact the producer of the plan,
: : and see if there is a 'quantity discount' available.
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
:
:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:22:03 GMT, Bill
wrote:

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?

They may do.

You have no automatic right to use any of the design information or
copyright plans from that magazine. Any rights you might happen to
have are granted to you by the magazine, as a reader of that magazine.
They get to set these rights - it's not a question of standard
copyright law. Look at the terms of the specific licence they've
granted you (it won't be too hard to find - magazines care deeply
about this stuff).

Typically there will be a statement that you may use the plans for
non-commercial use (it's hard to justify the magazine otherwise), and
you may or may not use them commercially. But this varies, and no
lawyer (armchair or otherwise) can make any comment without seeing the
specifics.
--
Smert' spamionam

Robert Bonomi writes:

Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
same party -- at _no_ cost.


I have loved this one for some time. What does that say about all the articles,
and books, with projects meant as gifts?

Somewhere, I've also seen plans touted as showing the "ideal sales item for
craft fairs".

It is fun, playing with copyright legalities. But as someone else suggested,
it's best if he just emails the magazine and asks if it's OK.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:07:47 +0000 (UTC), (Henry E
Schaffer) wrote:

Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
without checking on the ethics.

Sorry, I missed the OP, and my ISP is the pits.

You bought the mag, you bought the plans. They are yours, just as if
you bought a specific set of packaged plans from a store. Do with
them what you will. Don't sell the plans as if they were yours, but
the product you make is from your own labour ...no problem.

Bill.

Andy Dingley writes:

You have no automatic right to use any of the design information or
copyright plans from that magazine. Any rights you might happen to
have are granted to you by the magazine, as a reader of that magazine.
They get to set these rights - it's not a question of standard
copyright law. Look at the terms of the specific licence they've
granted you (it won't be too hard to find - magazines care deeply
about this stuff).

Maybe in Blighty they care, but I just went through 2 of the top woodworking
magazines, from different viewpoints but both replete with projects, and could
find no such notification. I figured at first it would be on or near the
masthead, so I checked that. Then the back of the book. Then the advertising
personnel list. Then the individual articles (I didn't reread them, but I
checked in call out boxes, at the end, etc.). Wood and Woodwork.

Nary a sign of a terms of license or a list of do or don't needs for
reproducing the plans included.

Typically there will be a statement that you may use the plans for
non-commercial use (it's hard to justify the magazine otherwise), and
you may or may not use them commercially. But this varies, and no
lawyer (armchair or otherwise) can make any comment without seeing the
specifics.

Couldn't even find that statement. It may be assumed by now, but it does strike
me that some of the licensing should be specific...I know that some time ago,
Popular Woodworking would allow copying of their articles for certain reasons,
but did not allow copying of articles written for them by freelancers without
going to the freelancer and asking. I don't know if this follows the same
procedure, but, as before, the best bet is to simply email the editor concerned
and ask. Beats the hell out of getting sued, even if the chance of such a suit
is tiny.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:22:03 GMT, Bill
wrote:

|I've got an interesting question that I have been thinking about for a
|little while. I have built a piece from plans I got from a woodworking
|mag for myself. I also made the same thing as a wedding gift. The
|couple liked it so much that they said they would tell a few people about
|them and they may have a few orders for me.
|
|Now the question. Is it permissible to make money of a plan from a mag?
|Do they retain some sort of copyright on anything made from those plans?
|I think I have the potential to make a few bucks here but I don't want to
|without checking on the ethics.
|
|Thanks for all replies,

Thanks for thinking about the ethics of the situation. I've been
ripped off more than once, but in the other direction. In one case, I
wrote a paper that was published in an amateur radio magazine and the
next thing I knew the publisher had started a kit company with my
design offered as his first kit.

I think you've received some legal answers, but as a practical matter
you probably can get away with it. I would look at it this way: will
my building and selling these items injury the party that published
the plans?

In my case above, I was nearly injured, because after publication, I
received several hundred letters from people who wanted to duplicate
my design and wanted to buy circuit boards for it. As a (what turned
out to be non-profit) service to these folks I contracted to have a
couple of hundred boards fabricated and my ability to recover my costs
was jeopardized by this "alternate source." Fortunately I did just
barely recover my outlay.

In your case, if the people selling plans don't lose business because
you make a few widgits for sale, I don't think they would have a
gripe.

As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.

Wes

Wes Stewart writes:


As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.

Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces, that
I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with the
show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Mon, Aug 16, 2004, 8:47am (EDT-3) (WoodChuck34)
snip Her response
Are you going into business? Copyright would not preclude you from
selling.

No, and stealing something wouldn't preclude you from selling it
either; but, it wouldn't be right.

So, if the guy gets caught selling stuff he made, but has no legal
right to do so, he can cite her as his authority to do so?



JOAT
You have to kill pessimists, but optimists do it themselves.

MUPPET SHOW THEME http://www.muppetsonline.com/midi/muppets.mid

On 16 Aug 2004 18:49:09 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes Stewart writes:
|
|
|As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
|Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
|someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
|Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.
|
|Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces, that
|I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with the
|show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Correct. "Exactly* was a poor choice of words. But the concept is
certainly similar.

So I wonder how New Yankee would feel about someone buying and
building from their "not quite an original idea" plans and selling the
results?


|
|Charlie Self
|"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
|Devil's Dictionary

We'll let you get away with this quote since the copyright has
expired. [g]

But I wonder if it ever occurred to Ambrose Bierce, that in a given
conversation, *he* might be the iconoclastic bore?

In article ,
Charlie Self wrote:
Robert Bonomi writes:

Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
same party -- at _no_ cost.


I have loved this one for some time. What does that say about all the articles,
and books, with projects meant as gifts?

I would claim that there is an "implied license" for making these
gifts.

Somewhere, I've also seen plans touted as showing the "ideal sales item for
craft fairs".

If the advertisement said this, then this would also seem to give an
implied license even if there wasn't an explicit one printed on/with the
plans. (If the plans said "no commercial use" - then that would be a
case of false advertising. :-)
...
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

Wes Stewart responds:

|Wes Stewart writes:
|
|
|As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
|Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
|someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
|Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.
|
|Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces, that
|I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with the
|show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Correct. "Exactly* was a poor choice of words. But the concept is
certainly similar.

So I wonder how New Yankee would feel about someone buying and
building from their "not quite an original idea" plans and selling the
results?


They own the plans and the copyright. I don't know, but I'd guess failing some
statement showing not that they'd go after anyone caught like the hounds of
hell. Of course, catching them is the challenge.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

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
permissible.

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.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On 16 Aug 2004 18:49:09 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes Stewart writes:
|
|
|As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
|Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
|someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
|Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.
|
|Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces,
that
|I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with
the
|show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Correct. "Exactly* was a poor choice of words. But the concept is
certainly similar.

So I wonder how New Yankee would feel about someone buying and
building from their "not quite an original idea" plans and selling the
results?


|
|Charlie Self
|"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
|Devil's Dictionary

We'll let you get away with this quote since the copyright has
expired. [g]

But I wonder if it ever occurred to Ambrose Bierce, that in a given
conversation, *he* might be the iconoclastic bore?

In article ,
Jack Casuso wrote:
...
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? ...

Well, "derived work" doesn't mean exact copy. When have enough
changes been made to make the project no longer be a "derived work"?
That depends on what the judge thinks.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:22:03 GMT, Bill
vaguely proposed a theory
.......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.

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article .com,
says...
Consider buying a set of plans for _each_
copy you make. You can then transfer the plans _and_ the 'derivative
work' to each buyer.

Now that's a method I'd never thought of. Anyone think it wouldn't
work?

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

In article ,
Charlie Self wrote:
Robert Bonomi writes:

Building the thing represented by the plans is considered a 'derivative
work'. Which does fall under the purview of copyright law. Absent any
other considerations, O.K. for personal use, *not* O.K. to give/sell to
others. Immediately after construction, _or_ 'later'. Needs to remain
in your possession, or be destroyed. The single exception, if you transfer
ownership of the 'original' of the plans from which it was built, the
'derivative work' objects must be destroyed, *OR* be transferred to the
same party -- at _no_ cost.


I have loved this one for some time. What does that say about all the articles,
and books, with projects meant as gifts?

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

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'.

Somewhere, I've also seen plans touted as showing the "ideal sales item for
craft fairs".

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.

It is fun, playing with copyright legalities. But as someone else suggested,
it's best if he just emails the magazine and asks if it's OK.

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

_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.

In article ,
Wes Stewart wrote:
On 16 Aug 2004 18:49:09 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes Stewart writes:
|
|
|As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
|Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
|someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
|Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.
|
|Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces, that
|I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with the
|show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Correct. "Exactly* was a poor choice of words. But the concept is
certainly similar.

So I wonder how New Yankee would feel about someone buying and
building from their "not quite an original idea" plans and selling the
results?

"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.

In article ,
Jack Casuso wrote:
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
permissible.

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?

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 --

A box is a box is a box like a table is a table is a table.

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
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'.



"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Aug 2004 18:49:09 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes Stewart writes:
|
|
|As a parting thought, consider that once a week on public television,
|Nahm, does exactly what you're thinking about. He makes a copy of
|someone else's work and "sells" it for money to our friends at
|Delta/Porter Cable, Minwax, etc.
|
|Uh, not exactly. I don't watch much TV, but the items Norm reproduces,
that
|I've seen, would all be well out of copyright. And he, or someone with
the
|show, usually has to develop his own plans from the old furniture.

Correct. "Exactly* was a poor choice of words. But the concept is
certainly similar.

So I wonder how New Yankee would feel about someone buying and
building from their "not quite an original idea" plans and selling the
results?


|
|Charlie Self
|"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
|Devil's Dictionary

We'll let you get away with this quote since the copyright has
expired. [g]

But I wonder if it ever occurred to Ambrose Bierce, that in a given
conversation, *he* might be the iconoclastic bore?