A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR

"TrailRat" wrote in message
ups.com...
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR

And what do the lawyers say?
Why would anybody want to copy manufactured furniture? Just buy it and go
to the next hobby.
Jim

One of the guys I drink with is a solicitor. His only comment when
pressed was "must be nice for insperation". Apart from that he said
very little on the subject.

TR

TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR



Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have at it. Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of
CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit,
then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least.
Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.

TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.

It is.

Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

Correct.

Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
a, copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...

Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N






TR



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift), have
at it. Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of CD's,
records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit, then you
can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least. Copyright
owners frown on you making money off of their work.


Common misconception. While they do frown on you making money from their
work, they also frown on not making money from you. You may make a copy of
a record for use in a second player, but no, you are not allowed to give it
away. Just because millions of people have done that, it is still not legal.

Try copying a Mickey Mouse on a Tee shirt and wear it to Disneyworld. They
are one of the staunchest fighters for copyright protection and have gone
after grandma that put the Disney figures on kids clothing.
Ed

Some folks actually make a living, raise their kids, pay their mortgage by
selling copyrighted work. The next time you think about making a "freebie"
for your own use, think about someone getting a portion of your next pay
check.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:CpJne.6333$zb.3440@trndny06...

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have
at it. Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of CD's,
records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit, then you
can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least. Copyright
owners frown on you making money off of their work.


Common misconception. While they do frown on you making money from their
work, they also frown on not making money from you. You may make a copy
of
a record for use in a second player, but no, you are not allowed to give
it
away. Just because millions of people have done that, it is still not
legal.

Try copying a Mickey Mouse on a Tee shirt and wear it to Disneyworld.
They
are one of the staunchest fighters for copyright protection and have gone
after grandma that put the Disney figures on kids clothing.
Ed

Nice post Will!

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"WillR" wrote in message
. ..
TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.

snip

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...start=1 0&sa=
N

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .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).

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.

You also can't "steal" a copyright. 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.


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.

There's also the question of trademarks - these are somewhere inbetween
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".


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.

--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR


I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For the
actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library...protected.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

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

no(SPAM)vasys wrote:
TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR


I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For the
actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library...protected.html



If it is considered a work of art, an original piece, an artistic
expression -- then you are wrong for sure.

See my other two posts.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Isn't that what the government does??

Rumpty wrote:

Some folks actually make a living, raise their kids, pay their mortgage by
selling copyrighted work. The next time you think about making a "freebie"
for your own use, think about someone getting a portion of your next pay
check.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:CpJne.6333$zb.3440@trndny06...


"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message


Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),


have


at it. Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of CD's,
records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit, then you
can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least. Copyright
owners frown on you making money off of their work.


Common misconception. While they do frown on you making money from their
work, they also frown on not making money from you. You may make a copy


of


a record for use in a second player, but no, you are not allowed to give


it


away. Just because millions of people have done that, it is still not


legal.


Try copying a Mickey Mouse on a Tee shirt and wear it to Disneyworld.


They


are one of the staunchest fighters for copyright protection and have gone
after grandma that put the Disney figures on kids clothing.
Ed

TrailRat wrote:

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Might be more of a patent issue but...

If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that
photographic image as the "artist." If I take the same picture and sell
it have I violated your copyright?

Go have another pint or three while you argue that oneg

In article . com,
TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

the 'approach', itself, is definitely *NOT* illegal.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

FALSE TO FACT. Copyright law recognizes that "independant, parallel
development" can, and _does_ happen. Copyright protects the particular
"expression" of an idea, _not_ the underlying idea itself. If you
'indepentantly' create a duplicate of a copyrighted work -- where it
can be shown that you never had any access to the 'original', you are
*not* infringing on the copyright on that 'original'. You are free to
copy/sell, etc. _your_ "createive work" without let or permission from
the 'rights holder' in that _other_ work.

Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

Factually accurate, and *very* relevant

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.


The authoritative answer is: "It depends".

This holds for virtually *ALL* questions involving copyright issues, BTW. )

Yes, there *can* be copyright involved in a piece of furniture.

However, copyright applies *ONLY* to the elements that are "unique creative
effort" in that piece.

"Approaching the store", with the intent of copying is _not_ illegal

Actually _doing_ the copying, +may+ or *may*not*, infringe on a copyright,
if there is one. There is a '*DEEP* swamp' of copyright law, called
'fair use exemptions' -- under which you _can_ reproduce something protected
by copyright, *without* the copyright owner's permission, and *without*
infringing on their copyright.

*IF* there is a copyright involved on that piece of furniture, one then
gets into _why_ one is 'copying'/'reproducing' it --

for your own 'personal use', is _probably_ O.K.

for sale to someone else, is pretty-much guaranteed *not* O.K.


As a practical matter, with 'generic' mass-produced furniture, the issue
of copyright is not likely to arise. Pretty much 'by definition' there are
no 'unique' design features to point to.

Copying a "Sam Maloof" chair, on the other hand...... grin

Along the same lines -- if you 'study' (with your tape measure, that is
several 'representative' pieces, from several different manufacturers, extract
the 'common elements' from those, modify in a way to suit _your_ needs, then
there is -no- issue of copyright infringement in the piece that you end up
constructing.

"Stealing from one source is called plagiarism.
Stealing from two or more is called research."

"Research" your project well, and don't worry about it.

In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR



Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have at it.

BZZZTTT!!!!

*NOT* correct. NOT CORRECT *AT*ALL*.

You are very probably safe, if it is for 'personal use'.

If it goes 'out of your hands', to somebody else, an entirely *different*
set of considerations come into play.

Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of
CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit,
then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least.
Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.

Copyright owners frown on _any_ "unauthorized copying" of their work that
is not covered by the 'fair use' exemptions in copyright statute.

"personal use" is, actually, an "iffy" justification under U.S. statutes.
Copyright law in other jurisdictions is more specific in allowing it.

On 2 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0700, "TrailRat"
wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR
=============================
Have not read the other replies BUT I have done it more then a few
times.... BUT not with the intention of selling the "copy"....

In fact the furniture store (well the salespersons anyway) allowed me
to photograph the items and take measurements....

I also did this for a writing desk that I saw in a Colonial home in
Willaimsburg ...also asked permission ...and did not have a problem..

Only once was I ever turned down....( at a Plantation in Charleston
SC) ... but they still let me draw the table, and take
measurements...just would not let me take a picture...

If I went into production and made these items for resale
then "maybe" it would be ethically wrong... but making a "copy" for my
own use in my own home (or even for a gift) is not in my opinion
anything that would cause me to toss and turn all night...

Bob Griffiths

In article ,
WillR wrote:
TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.

WRONG. What law does "approaching the store" violate? There is _no_
violation of _copyright_ laws, until a "copying" is performed.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.

It is.

WRONG.

A 'copying' of a piece of furniture _may_ involve a breach of copyright
law, or it MAY NOT.

A 'blanket' statement *either*way* is demonstrably false.


Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

Correct.

WRONG. Copyright protects a specific "expression" of an idea.
If "someone else" comes up with that *exact*same* idea, entirely independently,
and "expresses" it in exactly the same manner, That expression is *NOT*
an infringement on the copyright on the other expression of that idea.
"Proving" that it is an "independently, parallel, development" and not
'derived from' nor 'based on' the prior copyrighted work can be difficult
and messy. However, there _are_ cases in the legal record where this *has*
been done.

There are some notable cases arising from the pop music industry -- where
two different artists have _independently_ developed nearly identical tunes,
without any knowledge of, or exposure to, the other's work. It took lawsuits,
going all the way through actual trial, to establish conclusively that the
works _were_ 'independent developments' and that neither one infringed on
the other.

Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.

Since I have had occasion to research it (U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Denmark,
Switzerland, and a few other countries), I can state with some authority
that you would be surprised at the size of the differences. The majority
of them come under the areas of: "fair use exemptions", ability to
'disclaim' copyright (i.e., to 'place in the public domain'), "moral
rights", "work done for hire", and "lending libraries".

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
a, copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...

The Berne Convention is applicable *ONLY* to the extent that any particular
country has incorporated it into statute.

The country-to-country differences *are* significant.

Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N






TR



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

In article ,
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.

An overly broad answer. Given the right set of specific circumstances it
_could_well_ involve a violation of copyright statutes.

Copyright law is _very_ 'fact specific' to particular situations.

Virtually *any* statement that says something always "is" or "is not"
a particular way is going to be in error, including _this_ statement.

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.

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.

WRONG. See: Title XVII, chapter 13, U.S. Code. (17 USC 1301 et. seq.)
available online at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

For U.S. statutes expressly providing for copyright protection of designs.

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.

The photocopying of the drawings is a copyright violation.
*BUILDING* the object from the drawings is a 'derivative work'.
Which may, or may not, be a violation in and of itself.
(Building from infringing plans *is* a violation. an 'aggravating' violation,
that increases the severity of penalties for the infringement of copying
the plans, in point of legal fact.)

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.

"Derivative work" still applies..

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 .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).

In the U.S. it *is* copyright infringement, in legal fact. You have
exceeded the permissions granted by the copyright owner.

They *do* sue for 'copyright infringement', not "breach of contract".

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.

*THAT* depends on jurisdiction. In a number of (even well-developed)
countries, "Public domain" is _not_ legally recognized. In those
countries you _cannot_ renounce copyright -- all you can do is aggressively
'fail to enforce' it.

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.

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.

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

In article ,
SPAM)vasys" "no(SPAM wrote:
TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR


I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For the
actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:

Consider it a work of 'sculpture'. or other 'artistic work'.

DEFINITELY copyrightable. for the "*unique* creative effort" involved
in the realization of that artifact.

In article ,
Unquestionably Confused wrote:
TrailRat wrote:

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Might be more of a patent issue but...

Patent is *not* applicable.

If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that
photographic image as the "artist."

"yahbut" applies. The owner of the items pictured may _also_ have rights
that have to be dealt with. "Smart" photographers get a 'models release'
for anything that they _might_ later want to use commercially.

If I take the same picture and sell
it have I violated your copyright?

Depends on which meaning of 'take' you mean. *GRIN*

If you steal one of his prints, and reproduce it for sale, then yes.

If you produce an "original" photo yourself, then the answer gets a
_lot_ more complicated.

If you 'got the idea' for taking your photo, _based_on_ his photo, and
have copied the creative elements (e.g., composition, etc.) in his photo
then *yes* it may well be infringing on the copyright on the original
photo -- see "derivative work".

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

TrailRat wrote:


A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR




Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have at it.


BZZZTTT!!!!

*NOT* correct. NOT CORRECT *AT*ALL*.

You are very probably safe, if it is for 'personal use'.

BZZT wrong answer.

See my other post. Read the damned copyright act.

I gave the links.


If it goes 'out of your hands', to somebody else, an entirely *different*
set of considerations come into play.

That would come under the criminal provisions -- assuming a profit motive.



Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of
CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit,
then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least.
Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.


Copyright owners frown on _any_ "unauthorized copying" of their work that
is not covered by the 'fair use' exemptions in copyright statute.

"personal use" is, actually, an "iffy" justification under U.S. statutes.
Copyright law in other jurisdictions is more specific in allowing it.




--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
WillR wrote:

TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.


Conspiracy, Intent - unless you _don't_ copy. Criminal provisions often
treble any settlement. The fact that you _knew_ you were duplicating
copyright or patented property can _treble_ the settlement.


This is one case where ignorance is safer. If you don't know that you
duplicated patented or copyrighted work at best people can get "normal"
damages. At least in the land of the free home of the brave - or whatever.



WRONG. What law does "approaching the store" violate? There is _no_
violation of _copyright_ laws, until a "copying" is performed.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.

It is.


WRONG.

A 'copying' of a piece of furniture _may_ involve a breach of copyright
law, or it MAY NOT.

I hope you don't consult in this area.


A 'blanket' statement *either*way* is demonstrably false.

Well prove it -- copy the piece of an irate artist. I did not make
blanket statements by the way. A specific question was asked.

Don't get so excited. :-)



Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

Correct.


WRONG. Copyright protects a specific "expression" of an idea.
If "someone else" comes up with that *exact*same* idea, entirely independently,
and "expresses" it in exactly the same manner, That expression is *NOT*
an infringement on the copyright on the other expression of that idea.
"Proving" that it is an "independently, parallel, development" and not
'derived from' nor 'based on' the prior copyrighted work can be difficult
and messy. However, there _are_ cases in the legal record where this *has*
been done.

You're sidetracking here. Not the issue under discussion. Intent to copy
was admitted.


There are some notable cases arising from the pop music industry -- where
two different artists have _independently_ developed nearly identical tunes,
without any knowledge of, or exposure to, the other's work. It took lawsuits,
going all the way through actual trial, to establish conclusively that the
works _were_ 'independent developments' and that neither one infringed on
the other.


Then there wasn't copying was there?



Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.


Since I have had occasion to research it (U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Denmark,
Switzerland, and a few other countries), I can state with some authority
that you would be surprised at the size of the differences. The majority
of them come under the areas of: "fair use exemptions", ability to
'disclaim' copyright (i.e., to 'place in the public domain'), "moral
rights", "work done for hire", and "lending libraries".


Correct on this much. Are you up to date? I get into this regularly,
write contracts and would not dare claim your level of expertise.

I always suggest that people read the acts and make up their own mine.

*PLUS! I always caution that Copyright violation is in the eye of the
original creator. *

Suggest you be more careful at claiming expertise unless your contracts
stand up in court. Mine do -- and I still won't make the claims you do.

Err on the part of caution.

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
a, copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...


The Berne Convention is applicable *ONLY* to the extent that any particular
country has incorporated it into statute.

The country-to-country differences *are* significant.


Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N






TR



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek





--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

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

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article . com,
TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.


the 'approach', itself, is definitely *NOT* illegal.


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.


FALSE TO FACT. Copyright law recognizes that "independant, parallel
development" can, and _does_ happen. Copyright protects the particular
"expression" of an idea, _not_ the underlying idea itself. If you
'indepentantly' create a duplicate of a copyrighted work -- where it
can be shown that you never had any access to the 'original', you are
*not* infringing on the copyright on that 'original'. You are free to
copy/sell, etc. _your_ "createive work" without let or permission from
the 'rights holder' in that _other_ work.


Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.


Factually accurate, and *very* relevant


So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.



The authoritative answer is: "It depends".

This holds for virtually *ALL* questions involving copyright issues, BTW. )

Yes, there *can* be copyright involved in a piece of furniture.

However, copyright applies *ONLY* to the elements that are "unique creative
effort" in that piece.

"Approaching the store", with the intent of copying is _not_ illegal

Actually _doing_ the copying, +may+ or *may*not*, infringe on a copyright,
if there is one. There is a '*DEEP* swamp' of copyright law, called
'fair use exemptions' -- under which you _can_ reproduce something protected
by copyright, *without* the copyright owner's permission, and *without*
infringing on their copyright.

*IF* there is a copyright involved on that piece of furniture, one then
gets into _why_ one is 'copying'/'reproducing' it --

for your own 'personal use', is _probably_ O.K.

for sale to someone else, is pretty-much guaranteed *not* O.K.


As a practical matter, with 'generic' mass-produced furniture, the issue
of copyright is not likely to arise. Pretty much 'by definition' there are
no 'unique' design features to point to.

Copying a "Sam Maloof" chair, on the other hand...... grin

Along the same lines -- if you 'study' (with your tape measure, that is
several 'representative' pieces, from several different manufacturers, extract
the 'common elements' from those, modify in a way to suit _your_ needs, then
there is -no- issue of copyright infringement in the piece that you end up
constructing.

"Stealing from one source is called plagiarism.
Stealing from two or more is called research."

"Research" your project well, and don't worry about it.

When dealing with IP -- research "proves" you know better and opens the
door to greater damages in the USofA. Better not to know sometimes.








--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Bob G. wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0700, "TrailRat"
wrote:


A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR

=============================
Have not read the other replies BUT I have done it more then a few
times.... BUT not with the intention of selling the "copy"....

In fact the furniture store (well the salespersons anyway) allowed me
to photograph the items and take measurements....

I also did this for a writing desk that I saw in a Colonial home in
Willaimsburg ...also asked permission ...and did not have a problem..

Only once was I ever turned down....( at a Plantation in Charleston
SC) ... but they still let me draw the table, and take
measurements...just would not let me take a picture...

If I went into production and made these items for resale
then "maybe" it would be ethically wrong... but making a "copy" for my
own use in my own home (or even for a gift) is not in my opinion
anything that would cause me to toss and turn all night...

Bob Griffiths

That wouldn't happen to be the multi section table in the dining room at
Boone Hall Plantation, would it? They acted like I was about to paint
cherry when I started to take out the camera, and the group I was with
was to impatient to wait while I laid under the table and made sketches.
Joe

In article ,
WillR wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

TrailRat wrote:


A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR




Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have at it.


BZZZTTT!!!!

*NOT* correct. NOT CORRECT *AT*ALL*.

You are very probably safe, if it is for 'personal use'.

BZZT wrong answer.

See my other post. Read the damned copyright act.

I *have* 'read the damned copyright act'. U.S., U.K., Netherelands, Denmark,
and Swiss versions.

"give away for free (or as a gift)" is *not* a protected use.


I gave the links.


If it goes 'out of your hands', to somebody else, an entirely *different*
set of considerations come into play.

That would come under the criminal provisions -- assuming a profit motive.

It is a violation of statute, even *without* a profit motive.

RIAA, MPAA, and others in the US have filed multiple lawsuits. and won.

Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of
CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit,
then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least.
Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.

Copyright owners frown on _any_ "unauthorized copying" of their work that
is not covered by the 'fair use' exemptions in copyright statute.

"personal use" is, actually, an "iffy" justification under U.S. statutes.
Copyright law in other jurisdictions is more specific in allowing it.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
WillR wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

TrailRat wrote:


A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR




Depends on what you are going to do with the reproduced piece? If it is
for personal use or you're going to give it away free (or as a gift),
have at it.


BZZZTTT!!!!

*NOT* correct. NOT CORRECT *AT*ALL*.

You are very probably safe, if it is for 'personal use'.

BZZT wrong answer.

See my other post. Read the damned copyright act.

I *have* 'read the damned copyright act'. U.S., U.K., Netherelands,
Denmark,
and Swiss versions.

"give away for free (or as a gift)" is *not* a protected use.


I gave the links.


If it goes 'out of your hands', to somebody else, an entirely
*different*
set of considerations come into play.

That would come under the criminal provisions -- assuming a profit motive.

It is a violation of statute, even *without* a profit motive.

RIAA, MPAA, and others in the US have filed multiple lawsuits. and won.

Copy all you want. Just like making personal copies of
CD's, records or tapes, etc. If you are reproducing to make profit,
then you can get into a lot of monetary trouble, at the very least.
Copyright owners frown on you making money off of their work.

Copyright owners frown on _any_ "unauthorized copying" of their work
that
is not covered by the 'fair use' exemptions in copyright statute.

"personal use" is, actually, an "iffy" justification under U.S.
statutes.
Copyright law in other jurisdictions is more specific in allowing it.

The best idea is to look at a few pieces, find what you like and don't like,
and make something similar with some novel features of your own, such as
different moldings, wood, joinery, size, etc. Direct copies of a current or
recent past item aren't such a great idea.

The other side of the issue is whether or not you get caught. There is no
prosecution possible if no one complains and no one else knows about it.
Copying a piece directly could get you into trouble if the right person
found it in a timely manner. That person would probably have a serious axe
to grind and a fantastic knowledge of furniture. Your chances of trouble
increase with volume and similarity. Moral of this is to avoid the
temptation to mail a picture of your creation to the guy who actually
designed the piece.

After you are actually caught, the manufacturer would have to decide if
prosecution was worthwhile. Launching a $50,000 case to recoup a couple
hundred dollars in lost profit doesn't sound like a good idea. If this is
some small piece which is the bread and butter of a little nearby shop, they
might very well take it as an offense, especially if you started
distributing it to their potential customers.

Then again, the thought of a custom made duplicate of an off the shelf item
sounds a bit strange to begin with. You don't often see a recipe that is
advertised to taste "Just like the canned stuff you get at the market."

Michael

WillR wrote:


Nova wrote:
I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For
the actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library...protected.html



If it is considered a work of art, an original piece, an artistic
expression -- then you are wrong for sure.

See my other two posts.

Furniture would be covered under a design patent. To be considered
"art" a creation generally has no other function to serve as "art".

There have been many court cases involving furniture manufacturers where
one claims the other copied their design. It gets rather tricky as to
what design or portion of a design is already in the public domain due
to prior public use under "35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) Conditions for
patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent" of the patent laws.
Federal court rulings indicate a piece of furniture would have to have
a very unusual or novel feature for a patent infringement claim to be
held up by the courts.

If I went to a furniture store and took a few measurements and perhaps
even a picture I could produce something similar but I don't think it
would be a copy.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

Robert Bonomi wrote:



I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For the
actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:


Consider it a work of 'sculpture'. or other 'artistic work'.

DEFINITELY copyrightable. for the "*unique* creative effort" involved
in the realization of that artifact.


The key word is "furniture" which would be covered under a design patent.

Much unique and creative effort goes into designing an automobile but
look how many you can't tell apart.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

In article ,
WillR wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
WillR wrote:

TrailRat wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

It is. More importantly is that it is a waste of time.

WRONG. What law does "approaching the store" violate? There is _no_
violation of _copyright_ laws, until a "copying" is performed.

Conspiracy, Intent - unless you _don't_ copy. Criminal provisions often
treble any settlement. The fact that you _knew_ you were duplicating
copyright or patented property can _treble_ the settlement.

Let me count the errors:

1) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* for one person to engage in "conspiracy",

2) There is no such crime as 'intent'. To take an extreme example,
approaching a store with "intent" to rob it is *not* -- in and of
itself -- illegal. If you do _commit_ the robbery, there was still
nothing illegal in 'approaching' the store.
"Intent" comes into play with regard to some types of torts and crimes,
where the _action_ must be done with particular _intent_ in mind.
"intent" without "action" is *not* a violation.

3) Unsuccessfully "attempting" a proscribed action may be regarded at law
as similar (or equivalent) to succeeding at it.

4) Copyright statute has provisions that specifically _allow_ copying for
various reasons. *IF* the 'approach' for one of _those_ reasons, there
is not even any 'potential' criminal act involved.

5) post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. arguing that that which happens
first is a crime _because_ of what happens afterwards.

Note also, that you did acknowledge that just 'approaching' the store is not
illegal in any way.

This is one case where ignorance is safer. If you don't know that you
duplicated patented or copyrighted work at best people can get "normal"
damages. At least in the land of the free home of the brave - or whatever.

Completely disregarding the existence of those situations where you *are*
legally permitted to duplicate patented or copyrighted work without the
permission, knowledge, or consent of the rights holder.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.

It is.

WRONG.

A 'copying' of a piece of furniture _may_ involve a breach of copyright
law, or it MAY NOT.

I hope you don't consult in this area.

The feeling is mutual.

Would you agree that simple 'generic' furniture -- be it a simple cutting board,
a milk-crate, stackable boxes, etc. -- _lacks_ the "original, creative"
element required for copyright protection?

Would you agree that if the furniture is *not* eligible for copyright
protection -- whether due to 'lack of originality' or any other reason -- that
copying it is not a breach of copyright laws?

Would you agree that _that_ conflicts with the statement that copying of _any_
piece of furniture *MUST* be a breach of copyright laws?

A 'blanket' statement *either*way* is demonstrably false.

Well prove it -- copy the piece of an irate artist.

And, what would _that_ prove?

Copying a work of an artist who does not object, does not prove that it
is never a breach to copy an artists work.

Copying a work of an artist who does object, does not prove that it is
always a breach to copy any artist's work.

BTW, I _have_ had occasion to "reproduce" the work of an irate artist.
Despite their impassioned objections. And there wasn't a d*mn thing they
could do about it. I knew it, and *they* knew it. Said reproduction was
clearly covered under one of the 'fair use' exemptions in statute.
end of story.

I did not make
blanket statements by the way. A specific question was asked.

You asserted the factual correctness of blanket claims made by others, e.g.,
that copying a piece of furniture *MUST* involve breach of copyright.

Don't get so excited. :-)

Don't spread misinformation. grin

Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law.

Correct.

WRONG. Copyright protects a specific "expression" of an idea.
If "someone else" comes up with that *exact*same* idea, entirely
independently,
and "expresses" it in exactly the same manner, That expression is *NOT*
an infringement on the copyright on the other expression of that idea.
"Proving" that it is an "independently, parallel, development" and not
'derived from' nor 'based on' the prior copyrighted work can be difficult
and messy. However, there _are_ cases in the legal record where this *has*
been done.

You're sidetracking here.

Review the original. I'm not sidetracking anything.

Yes, the beginning of the original article postulated intent to copy,
Then 'another answer' was referenced (by the OP) that made an assertation
that was tangential to the query. Which involved _unintentional_ copying.

You then asserted that that tangential response was correct.

Not the issue under discussion. Intent to copy
was admitted.

How is 'intent to copy' involved in the statement that:
".....if a carpenter copies a piece
*UNINTENTIONALLY*, then he'd break a copy right law. " (emphasis added.)
=================

Or were you simply not paying attention to what was written?
And which you then asserted _was_ "Correct"?

There are some notable cases arising from the pop music industry -- where
two different artists have _independently_ developed nearly identical tunes,
without any knowledge of, or exposure to, the other's work. It took lawsuits,
going all the way through actual trial, to establish conclusively that the
works _were_ 'independent developments' and that neither one infringed on
the other.

Then there wasn't copying was there?

*BINGO* Neither is there any copying, if a carpenter "unintentionally"
produces a work that is happens to be an exact duplicate of something he
has never seen.

Yet you "confirmed" that that _was_ illegal.

Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.


Since I have had occasion to research it (U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Denmark,
Switzerland, and a few other countries), I can state with some authority
that you would be surprised at the size of the differences. The majority
of them come under the areas of: "fair use exemptions", ability to
'disclaim' copyright (i.e., to 'place in the public domain'), "moral
rights", "work done for hire", and "lending libraries".


Correct on this much. Are you up to date? I get into this regularly,
write contracts and would not dare claim your level of expertise.

You're a lot more comfortable making 'absolute' statements about what
"must" be a breach, and what "is" illegal, than I am. I know where the
swamps, pitfalls, and uncertainties are. And they are many.

Review the record. I've been pointing out that 'things are not that simple'.
I have a d*mn good understanding of where the questions lie, that influence
the determinations. I would *not* try to predict the outcome on any but
the most clear-cut set of detailed facts.

I always suggest that people read the acts and make up their own mine.

_That_ is very *BAD*ADVICE*(TM)

The acts are only a very *minor* part of the legal corpus that must be
considered. Almost all the 'important stuff', regarding 'where' and 'how'
the lines on copyright are drawn is in the 'case law' on point.

The acts give utterly _no_ assistance as to what, for example, constitutes
'creative' effort sufficient for copyright protection. It took _Feist_
to begin to clarify that issue, in the U.S..

If there is a 'real' issue surrounding a particular question of application,
the only sensible thing to do is t consult a legal *professional* who works
in that area full-time.

*PLUS! I always caution that Copyright violation is in the eye of the
original creator. *

*THAT* is also totally wrong. Copyright violation is "in the eye of the
court." grin It is, unfortunately terribly difficult to get _any_
"feel" or guidance from the courts for 'general case' situations. They
go out of their way _not_ to be helpful on the matter -- usually stating,
in almost these words, that 'this decision is relevant only to the facts
of this case, and should not be relied on as precedent for any other set
of facts."

Suggest you be more careful at claiming expertise unless your contracts
stand up in court. Mine do -- and I still won't make the claims you do.

I suggest you review what I have _actually_ claimed. It can be summed up
as: 'No simple answers. Any actual determination depends on details of
_that_ situation."

In article ,
SPAM)vasys" "no(SPAM wrote:
WillR wrote:

Nova wrote:
I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For
the actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library...protected.html

If it is considered a work of art, an original piece, an artistic
expression -- then you are wrong for sure.

See my other two posts.

Furniture would be covered under a design patent. To be considered
"art" a creation generally has no other function to serve as "art".

False-to-fact, on both counts.

Furniture could be protected under a design patent, if there was some 'novel'
functionality involved.

Furniture _can_ be protected under a design *copyright*. My folks have some
chairs in their house that are, in fact, so protected.

There have been many court cases involving furniture manufacturers where
one claims the other copied their design. It gets rather tricky as to
what design or portion of a design is already in the public domain due
to prior public use under "35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) Conditions for
patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent" of the patent laws.

Copyright. and design copyrights are an *entirely* different subject
from 'patents'.

See 17 USC 1301 et. seq. for the appropriate section of U.S. law.

Federal court rulings indicate a piece of furniture would have to have
a very unusual or novel feature for a patent infringement claim to be
held up by the courts.

For _patent_, entirely correct. _Copyright_ is an entirely different
kettle of fish.

In article ,
SPAM)vasys" "no(SPAM wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:



I don't think you can get a copyright on a piece of furniture. For the
actual plans I'd say yes but not the piece itself. See:


Consider it a work of 'sculpture'. or other 'artistic work'.

DEFINITELY copyrightable. for the "*unique* creative effort" involved
in the realization of that artifact.


The key word is "furniture" which would be covered under a design patent.

17 USC 1301, regarding "design COPYRIGHTS"
(a) Designs Protected.--
(1) In general.-- The designer or other owner of an original design of
a useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in
appearance to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection
provided by this chapter upon complying with and subject to this
chapter.

Much unique and creative effort goes into designing an automobile but
look how many you can't tell apart.

on 6/3/2005 9:51 AM Robert Bonomi said the following:
In article ,
Unquestionably Confused wrote:

TrailRat wrote:


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Might be more of a patent issue but...


Patent is *not* applicable.

PROBABLY correct Robert but "whatif" the work included copied included a
specific, "revolutionary" and PATENTED fastening device which was
copied as well?g

If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that
photographic image as the "artist."


"yahbut" applies. The owner of the items pictured may _also_ have rights
that have to be dealt with. "Smart" photographers get a 'models release'
for anything that they _might_ later want to use commercially.

Does that apply to inanimate objects and non-humans? My decorative
mailbox sitting out on the public right of way? My dog "Spot?"

If I take the same picture and sell
it have I violated your copyright?


Depends on which meaning of 'take' you mean. *GRIN*

Yahbut now you're doing what I was doing, just throwing a little **** in
the game BIG grin That's why I suggested he take this back over to
another pint or two or threeg

Speaking of which, it's 5:15PM, I'm still in the office and I think I
hear a bottle of beer calling my name. Have a great weekend making
sawdust all!

Is the horse dead yet? Has it been beaten sufficiently?

"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
on 6/3/2005 9:51 AM Robert Bonomi said the following:
In article ,
Unquestionably Confused wrote:

TrailRat wrote:


A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

Might be more of a patent issue but...


Patent is *not* applicable.

PROBABLY correct Robert but "whatif" the work included copied included a
specific, "revolutionary" and PATENTED fastening device which was
copied as well?g

If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that
photographic image as the "artist."


"yahbut" applies. The owner of the items pictured may _also_ have
rights
that have to be dealt with. "Smart" photographers get a 'models
release'
for anything that they _might_ later want to use commercially.

Does that apply to inanimate objects and non-humans? My decorative
mailbox sitting out on the public right of way? My dog "Spot?"

If I take the same picture and sell
it have I violated your copyright?


Depends on which meaning of 'take' you mean. *GRIN*

Yahbut now you're doing what I was doing, just throwing a little **** in
the game BIG grin That's why I suggested he take this back over to
another pint or two or threeg

Speaking of which, it's 5:15PM, I'm still in the office and I think I
hear a bottle of beer calling my name. Have a great weekend making
sawdust all!

In article ,
Unquestionably Confused wrote:
on 6/3/2005 9:51 AM Robert Bonomi said the following:
In article ,

If you take a photograph of MY home and dog, YOU own the rights to that
photographic image as the "artist."


"yahbut" applies. The owner of the items pictured may _also_ have rights
that have to be dealt with. "Smart" photographers get a 'models release'
for anything that they _might_ later want to use commercially.

Does that apply to inanimate objects and non-humans? My decorative
mailbox sitting out on the public right of way? My dog "Spot?"

You think you're being facetious. You're not.

The answer to that question, frequently, is 'yes".

I kid you not when I say that professional photographers *do* get releases
from property (real or personal) owners, for shots they intend to use
commercially.

TrailRat wrote:
One of the guys I drink with is a solicitor. His only comment when
pressed was "must be nice for insperation". Apart from that he said
very little on the subject.

TR

In the U.S., you'd want to ask your question of an intellectual
property lawyer. Copyright and trade mark law is complex and
convoluted, as is most law, far beyond need. I cannot imagine wanting
to copy WalMart or KMart or Costco furniture in the shop, but there's
really no accounting for taste, so I guess it's possible. I'm not sure
you could get the cheesy look using real wood even if you tried, though.

TrailRat wrote:
A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR

And just what piece of furture have you seen in a store that wasn't a
copy of some earlier piece of furniture?

ray

Most of the furniture that I've made, if I didn't have a purchased
plan, came from going into high end furniture stores and getting basic
dimensions on a piece. What I made never exactly matched what was in
the store. sales people look at you funny when you measure pieces.

If it is against the law, I'm guilty.

On 2 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0700, "TrailRat"
wrote:

A little debate between friends has led me to spill it among the
newsgroup. The debate is over mass produced furniture and the
reproduction of it in a private workshop.

The question goes along these lines. Is approaching a flat-pack
supermarket or furniture store with the intention of copying a piece
illegal.

A few of the answers state that it must be a breach of copyright laws.
Another answer states that if a carpenter copies a piece
unintentionally, then he'd break a copy right law. Other answers state
that various pieces follow the same basic principles, i.e the design of
a wardrobe is the same on many levels but there are many variants.

So whats the opinion of the group. Maybe I'll share it with my friend
next time I'm down the pub. Yes, the debate started over pint.

TR