Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
WillR wrote:

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...


U.S. policy changed utterly with the re-write of Title 17 US code to bring
it into compliance with Berne Convention policies.

Yes -- it is closer... However I have done digging in the past and
recent research shows that any suits in the US might be looked on more
favourably if you register. Don't think any claim I made was stronger
than that.


The _only_ thing that copyright registration 'buys you' these days, is the
ability to sue for "statutory damages" instead of only "actual" ones.

*ALL*OTHER* protections accrue *regardless* of whether the copyright is
registered or not. Copyright registration filings have fallen precipitously
since the "Berne Convention" changes were introduced.

The USA looks after corporate America, I am not sure that US courts
would resolve International disputes in an even handed fashion. So
registration could be safer for foreigners -- even if not required.

As I have said repeatedly -- depends on the depth of the pockets of the
parties -- right?


And registration is allowed at any time up to 6 months _after_ initial
'publication'.


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


17 USC 1301 et. seq. also says he's wrong. grin




US law vs Berne. Is US law universal? Were you talking about the USA
only or generally? :-)

I admitted I could be wrong on some issues.

Again -- I suggest that you not give advice. You're not cautious enough.

Seeing as I read the treaty before replying... then I would be more
careful. Readers of the various treaties and the analyses of them are
cautioned that the terms can be interpreted very broadly.

That is why I am so cautious about copying work. And in this case the
guys were talking about a _specific_ design -- and expression -- and
they were aware that it was being produced commercially.

As I said before -- they can do what they want. Waste of time -- easier
to do a "similar" design -- with their own techniques -- problem solved.
Unless they have deep pockets for the litigation-happy USofA.




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek