I wonder if any of our Lumberjocks are also lawyers. I believe you can copyright the plans itself, but it would be hard to say you can not build it to sell. If you made some changes, then is this the same thing or not? Good questions.

 

Paul,

You are getting into murky territory here. I owned a marketing firm for 25 years and we dealt with infringement concerning intelectual property quite a bit as pertains to photography, copywriting, illustrations and the such, all the time. The bottom line is always - how MUCH did you change it from the original? And sadly, that is always in the eyes of the beholder - in extreme cases generally a judge.

Also, I don't think there is an issue for woodworkers here unless you take a plan and ramp up your shop to start producing a couple hundred of the items a week (you aren't going in that direction are you? - laughs). Like in the music and stock photography business, many large companies have whole law firms out there checking for infringement on a full time basis. They are looking for the copiers trying to make a full time living out of infringement. I just don't think even the Sam Maloofs in the world care or have the financial interest/assets if you make 5 of his rockers and sell them. Just don't go into business making and selling his rockers full time.

One last point. As you mentioned, changing the original plan as you go along is an integral part of the woodworking process.

I would like to hear from others on this though.

 

This is an excellent question. Most people that come to me for work bring pictures from a magazine and say "build that". Where is the line? How many people out there produce furniture in the Frank Lloyd Wright style for resale - lots?

I love wood working but unfortunately I lack a lot of artistic ability so I do rely on others for design inspiration. Is this a bad thing?? I always give credit to the original designer where I can.

 

I'm no lawyer but I don't know how they can officially hold you to the agreement unless they had a patent on the design process which is very unlikely. Copyrights protect "intellectual" property which would protect the plan itself from duplication and the reselling of the plan, not the item you produced from the plan. If that could be upheld, then you could never measure any piece of woodwork and duplicate it which I'm confident is legally o.k.

If it was illegal, I would think all of the major cabinet makers would be suing each other right and left because their work is so similar.

It's my long time theory that the verbiage is there as a deterrence to lessen the amount of competition by instilling fear in the reader. My wife makes crafts from plans and sometimes they'll have similar wording stating that she may only make five or so replicas. How would they enforce this?

 

After reading it over a couple of hours after writing it, I don't think I was clear in my first post. I am in no way shape or form condoning making even 5 exact replicas of a Sam Maloof chair and selling them off as your own.

My points were made in the context of how subtle or drastic the changes are that you make to the original piece before calling it your own and selling it for profit.

I also just assumed that an "influenced by" reference would always go along with the new piece.

 

Now you are getting into my territory. As a designer, my designs are my livelyhood. I make a living drawing up those plans for people. If those people don't pay for them, I don't eat. It's not like music file sharing where the artist will still be rich even if people share some of his songs on Kazaa. Designers don't circulate anywhere near the volume to do that. If I draw up some house plans for an contractor, I have the right to be paid every time he builds one of those houses. I would also retain the right to sell those plans to anyone else who wants to buy them. If I didn't I would have to continually come up with new plans and the price of the plans would go up enormously. Now in the case of furniture plans, no one would ever say you have to buy two sets of plans to make matching end tables. It's not going to be the same as houses. But if you take my ideas and then make money off of them, you should pay for the ideas just like if I leased a patent to you. Either that, or come up with your own ideas.

 

Rob,

I guess my question would be let's say I take your plans and I move the garage over to the other side of the house off of the familyroom instead of the way you had it off of the kitchen. And let's say I make the kitchen 2 feet longer and maybe raise the ceiling a foot. Not a whole lot of changes from your original layout but at what point do you feel it isn't your home design anymore?

Bill Gates and MicroSoft are masters at this with software. They change the program "just enough" to say it's their own. And guess what, they still spend billions on an army of suits every year to fend off the original creator's lawsuit.

This is a very interesting discussion but I kind of think I have gotten it away from Paul's original question of making lots of furniture, for sale, from plans we buy from companies and other people. Sorry Paul.

 

This came up in a forum or elsewhere at one point. I do recall an editorial comment in Wood magazine, that did allow readers to build up to 20 copies of a project from their magazine (for sale) provided it was designed/built by a staffer. If the plans came from a reader, then you had to contact them.

There is a big (although, often fine line) difference between something that is inspired by, (but still recognizable as it's own thing) and a very close copy. Merely changing a few details doesn't make something yours. Think back to grade school and copying an entry out of an encyclopedia, and changing all the adjectives is still plagarism.

 

This also is something to consider… Whoever the staffer is, or the reader… they have to find the pieces for sale, find the craftsman, find the buyer… for crying out loud… they're gonna be awful busy.

 

Just don't open up a website, or franchise a store exclusively selling one (questionable) item. That will eventually get attention.

 

I'm still not convinced that using a design to build a woodworking project is infringing on a copyright. Again, copyrights deal with intellectual property. More importantly, published works.

Rob, you mentioned architectural design is copyrighted. That is true only if it's an original because according to the copyright.gov site, it states that a building's design is copyrighted or intellectual property. However, they specifically define a building as a habitable space. Thus, creating a table or chair would not be a habitable space but a gazebo would. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything regarding inhabitable designs.

I find it hard to believe that any claim against someone who uses a design from a magazine could stand. Mainly for the reason that the magazine's design usually isn't all that original. If you think about it, a magazine may publish a design on Shaker chairs. Where did they get their design from? The Shakers of course. Mission tables, the same thing. What about European Workbenches? What about Americana chest of drawers?

 

Okay to address what I can;

Chip, You are getting into a grey area that only you can define. You have to go with your comfort level. Do you feel in your heart of hearts that the design has changed enough that you can reasonably claim it as your own? What kind of agreement did you acknowledge when you purchased the design. And most importantly do you feel you can reasonably defend your choice in court. BassBully has a point in that a shaker design or a mission design would more than likely be seen as a common enough design that it would not be seen as intellectual property. There is a limited lifespan on copyrights. After 50 years (I think) a copyright has to be renewed or it passes into the common knowledge realm. On the flip side of that, if a designer could prove you actually used his drawings, even once, to build a mass produced article, he stands a good chance of winning a lawsuit.

BassBully, the copyrights that protect a drawing are not ones that cover designs, like in architecture, but the physical written (or drawn) page. The same way an artist owns the copyright to his paintings, a designer owns the copyrights to his drawings. If you go to http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html and click on the EXAMPLES link, you will see the second to last example is "Technical drawings, architectural drawings or plans, blueprints, diagrams, mechanical drawings." In order to win a lawsuit concerning the infringement of a visual art copyright, you have to prove there is some part or parcel of the interlopers produced part, house, machine, furniture, whatever, that would not exist if you hadn't produced the copyrighted material.

Am I making sense? Now like I said, no designer in the world would fault you for making matching end tables for yourself, or even making some as presents for your whole family. Designers are more conscerned when you make money from their work.

 

Forgive me. I guessed that I was probably opening a can of worms when I posted my query. I thought that while there were perhaps some strong opinions, there probably wasn't a definitive answer because there are several angles from which to view it.

For example:

1. Are we talking strictly about law?
2. Are we talking about what can realistically be enforced?
3. Are we talking about a copyright on the plans or what's built from those plans?
4. Someone once said, "That might be correct, but it ain't right!" Does that apply here?
5. There may be no reprecussions, but is it right?
6. Is there such a thing as "public domain" with historic furniture styles? (Public domain applies to many old songs where no one owns a copyright)
7. etc. etc. etc.

Most people know that a singer cannot record a copyrighted song without paying a fee to the copyright owner. Recording someone's copyrighted song to sell without permission and a fee would be similar to building a chair to sell from someone's copyrighted plans wouldn't it?

We can let this go if you want. See my profile. Sometimes I think about these kind of things.

 

Good point, and that's where it could get a little murky. B

ut I suppose for any one person wondering if they should sell a particular project, there are a score making and trying to sell them anyway, without regard to such issues. Karma will come back to bite them, or at least give little meaning to the life of the counterfeiter.

For me, I'll do the best I can, with what I've got with a clear conscience. But, I am an artist. I'll get inspired by something, and will create a new interpretation of it, or find a new way to apply it. I don't find as much satisfaction in reproducing something, as creating something. There are so many great ideas out there, and so many more to discover and/or remember.

Will I make projects from a magazine? Sure. Will I sell them? Maybe. Will I set up a shop to mindlessly churn out such things, without finding a way to make them my own? Of course not.

We're finding new ways to liberate information, the web is doing what moveable type did in the 15th century…. Sure we could argue that the internet is killing spelling and good grammar, but we're sharing ideas and evolving faster than ever. In some countries there isn't an understanding of copyright, information is freely shared, if not hoarded.

There is a copy-left movement (free and fair use, but please credit the source), not to mention open-source - take it, improve it, share it.

If we all help each other, we all win. And I think we, as lumberjocks, really understand that!

 

Thi has been a GREAT discussioin. It is important for people to think about this whenever they use someone's ideas/plans etc.

This topic became a heated debate at my previous place of employment, as they tried (and actually are still) using the name (and process) of an anger management program that my friend had created - on his own time.

I also know that one of our local figure skating clubs was fined for having a Disney theme for their year-end carnival.

And underneath it all: someone's brilliance created this idea and is a source of income for them so that they can create more brilliant ideas. I, for one, want to support them on their journey so that I can benefit from whatever they create in the future as well as what I am trying to copy in the present. Hopefully I will get good enough to make my own designs soon.

 

I agree with obi,the have better things to dr if your still not sure make it a little taller or shorter and make saw dust.Thinking that much makes my head hurt!!!!

 

It all comes down to integrity. Which sadly is in short commodity these days. An interesting discussion though.

I agree with Paul… I agree with Scott… and I REALLY agree with Phil. Have a great day!

 

Oh, and I agree with Rob too!

 

I doubt there is a clear definition of where is the cut off point. I guess one alternative is to write to the designer and ask permission to build them as production. They might consent without any further requirements. Maybe you could offer some compensation, such as $1 from the sale of each item.

It does bring up an interesting point for those plans in a magazine. If the magazine says you can make 20 copies from a plan, what happens if I buy the magazine twice? Does that allow me 40 copies since I bought two magazines, or am I still limited to the original 20? I did provide compensation in the form of another magazine purchase, so does that give me the use of another set of copies?

Alas, this is why there is so much congestion in our courts today. Everything has to be decided by them.

 

So what's to stop the Green & Green next of kin from suing Popular Woodworking and Lumberjocks for promoting a Thorsen House Table and all of the Lumberjocks involved in copyright infringements?

This:
It's a table, they didn't create it, they altered it.

Same thing with a house. Rob didn't invent the house, his plans show how he altered it.

I altered it.

 

Let's hope that is not in the future. I bet PW has already discussed the topic among the parties.

I wonder if there is an open source for project plans? Maybe someone has done more research online and found something. I could see creating plans and contributing if I had some interesting item, but probably not a money maker (least not at first).

 

This is one reason I always try to design my own work.

But when I make a table, am I not just making another table, which might have a virtual twin somewhere?

I believe if you alter details, then you are not infringing copyright. But then that is in the UK..
So design thine own I say!

Hope this helps.

John (UK)

 

Altering the design is in no way infringing on a copyright, I don't think anyone here believes that. The infringement comes when a person makes money off of my ideas, ones that are truly unique to me, and I don't see a dime of that profit.

 

I had this discussion with someone recently (about making copies of stuff) and I related it to music: you love a band and you want to hear more of them. If everyone scammed their CD's they wouldn't have a profit from them and would probably not produce them .. then you wouldn't be able to listen to them. If you enjoy the band, thank them by buying their CD.
If you love a woodworking plan, thank them by buying the plan. And if you can't afford to do that - make your own plan.

 

I would like to design my own stuff, but right now I need to see plans to learn more of how it is done. What joints are best to use on a table, how to make aprons for the table, how to assemble a box that allows for wood movement, etc. One day I hope to be designing my own items. Right now I am working on an artist stand that a customer wanted. They found a picture of what they wanted it to look like. I have had to build it from the ground up. It does look like their stand, but I had nothing but a picture to work from. It may not be my design, but it is my work.

I do not mind buying plans for something. But if I were to make and sell the items, do I have to buy a set of plans for each one I make to compensate the designer? A small royalty may be in order for something unique.