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?