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.