Andy Dingley wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0700, "TrailRat"
wrote:
The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.
No it isn't (generally).
A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
No.
There are two things about copyright that are generally applicable
worldwide. Firstly it's automatic - you don't need to "register"
anything for copyright to be applied, although you can choose to relax
this copyright, or to permits its use by others.
Generally true -- and internationally you can (almost) bank on it. US
law look down on "unregistered copyright" -- even though they are treaty
signatories... But some countries -- like Taiwan -- insist that any IP
protection be done there first.
Secondly (and most relevantly here) there are several things you can't
copyright. Designs are one of them (titles of works are another). You
can copyright the _description_ of a design, but not the design itself.
That is really splitting hairs. I wanna think about that one. :-)
And after thinking -- since a bowl, a chair or sculpture _might_ be
viewed as a design - then be really careful on this one. In general I
would say that you are wrong. IMHO
So if you find the drawings of a design, photocopy them, then use them
to build your copy then you've breached copyright. But you did it to the
copyright of the _drawing_, not the item, and you did it when you did
the photocopying of the drawing not when you made the copy of the item.
There you also get into moral rights -- which are part and parcel of the
copyright act -- so IMO -- you are likely incorrect on the last two
points. IMO you breached copyrights and moral rights by copying the
item, the drawing or both. Since the author can claim that it somehow
affects his rights of display and sale -- quite easily.
What happens if you built it quickly from the original drawings, then
returned them ? Well you haven't breached the copyright. You may have
committed some other act to obtain them (perhaps breaking and entering),
but it wasn't a breach of copyright.
Pretty sure you are wrong here Andy -- better read my other post.
This leads us to the question of magazine designs and building them for
profit. In general, the magazine (or maybe an author) retains its
copyright on the design drawing and you as a purchaser of the magazine
are granted a _licence_ to use those drawings for some purpose.
Different issue. You are granted permission. Copyright does not
inherently have any licensing arrangement. Yess you could claim that the
permission is a "license" -- but really...?
This
might be for admiration only, it's probably to build one or more copies
for non-profit use and it _might_ be a full license to commercially
produce them - but that would be somewhat unusual. If you breach these
terms, then you're in breach of the _licence_ they granted, but you
still haven't broken the copyright itself (this may vary locally,
depending on how the law is phrased).
Don't think you should be giving copyright advice without thoroughly
reviewing the Berne Convention... :-)
It's also possible to renounce the copyright entirely and to place it
into the public domain. This has much the same effect as giving everyone
a licence to dop whatever they want with it, but it's legally distinct.
Do you mean license as in "permission" as a synonym?
You also can't "steal" a copyright.
See the criminal copyright violation permissions in the conventions and
the Canada Code for example...
Theft has a legal definition, and
copying something is outside it (you need to deprive the original owner
of it, not just reduce their benefit of it). In countries where the
legal system is controlled by large corporations, such as the USA, then
copyright infringement may of course be treated as any act up to and
including terrorism.
Sorry -- wrong again. Many other countries recognize criminal theft of
copyrighted material and designs. And yes the EU supports M$ in it's
holy wars. AN in North America the rights of European vendors are respected.
So how can you protect a design ? In general, this is possible,
difficult, expensive, time-limited and requires some explicit action to
register this design right (i.e. the opposite of automatic copyright).
These rights are not standard between countries (very much so), but
they're usually only for short periods and may or may not be renewable.
It's quite rare for designers other than Alessi, Starck and their ilk to
go as far as registering as design right.
Patent. Copyright Registered copyright. They all work in various
fashions. Copyright and secrecy are IMO best for software. Moral rights
act to protect "perversion" of an artists' copyright.
There's also the question of trademarks - these are somewhere in between
copyright and design rights. They require some action to register, but
they're relatively cheap and long-lasting. It's notable that Gustav
Stickley was vehement in defending his compass trademark and the
"Craftsman" name, but was very lax over the designs themselves and even
the name "Stickley".
Not really -- different issue. A Trademark is a symbol/word set that
defines a the origin of an item via a set of characteristics belonging
to an entity might be the simplest way to look at it. It is like a
defined "business shingle" that can be "hung out" in many media. Could
you copyright a trademark? Why not -- silly really -- but you can't
trademark a copyright or a patent. A trademark is used to define the
"origin" of goods -- not to define the goods. Perhaps you could say it
is to to tout quality, or the lack thereof -- but not necessarily the
exact goods. Copyrights and Patents define the "goods".
If you want clear information on some useful ways to apply copyright,
with country-specific boilerplate, then a look at the Creative Commons
project http://creativecommons.org will be useful.
Better still look at my post and read the darned acts via the links.
They are actually quite clear and are not an "interpretation" of what
someone thought the act might mean.
Andy -- I've written agreements that stood up in courts and that were
used internationally. I accept that I could be wrong or out of dates on
some points -- but you are definitely out of whack on enough issues that
you should be careful about giving advice without a proviso as to the
currency of the information you give out. I believe that I would have
accepted your info 20 years ago -- I think you may be out of date by
that much at least.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek