West Wight Potter plans
Juha Ohtonen
where to get plans and drawings for a plywood self-builder. It is a
beautiful small sailor!
Juha
Steve
I not sure there are DIY plans for the West Wight Potter since it is a
production boat. The're built in the Los Angles, Ca. area.
I don't know too much about them other than there is a very strong
'following' of this class.
Steve
s/v Good Intentions
Greg
manufacturer for 2 sizes of sail boats, and that they did not sell boat
plans.
Thankyou,
Greg Luckett
"Juha Ohtonen" <juha.o...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:at5e40$gg5$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Hagan
know if plans were ever available, but the question comes up every now
and then. I suspect its from folks who see one and realize that a
hard-chined plywood boat might be easy enough to build yourself.
- - -
http://www.messing-about.com
Resources for the Boat Builder, Renovator and Small Boat Skipper
SteveJ
Apparently the designers/manufacturer of these boats, located in California if
I remember, does not sell plans for their boats.
Certainly an attractive design for plywood construction and very realistic for
an amateur builder because of the small size.
I'm assuming that one could copy this boat for oneself by using an original
boat
as a model. As long as you didn't try to sell it as a Potter.
Of course this brings up the question of copyright and ethics, one which I
have never been able to get clear answers on.
Several years ago the Federal Govt started allowing boat designers to register
their hull designs with the copyright office. Last time I looked, the WWpotter
was not on the list. http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/
This also brings up the question "how does one know if a design is is the
public domain"? How could a designer market and retain copyright for a hull
design
for, say, a Maine peapod? I have a copy of Chapelle's Boat-Building. In it are
dozens of designs for "traditional" boats that are apparently in the public
domain.
If they are not in the public domain, did Chapelle violate copyright laws by
measuring these boats, drawing them and then publishing a book about it?
It seems that it has been only recently that designers, and perhaps rightly
so, have pressed the issue of copyright for boat designs.
There is very little nautical design that is totally original. Although new
boats come out every year, the conditions and physics involved do not change.
Water is water.
In my opinion, if someone were to copy a West Wight Potter by measuring the
hull and then building one boat for himself, there would be no grounds for
copyright infringement. If one were to copy the boat and sell it as a West
Wight Potter, there might be a problem. But what if one were to lenghten the
hull just a bit, make it a bit wider, and change the bow profile slightly and
draw plans for it and call it a East Wrong Putter? what then?
Does the Oldtown Canoe Co.(excellent canoes BTW) owe the Penobscot Indians
some money for using their canoe design? Does Ian Oughtred (great desinger
BTW) owe the Norse Vikings anything by designing a Faering?
If this subject has been covered at length previously in this forum, please
excuse my rantings.
SteveJ
Steve
association and may even be a web page.
Although, I'm sure they would not let a 'knock-off' sail in their class, I
would imagine there are many who have built knock-offs for recreation use.
Do a Google search and start asking owner about a plan package.
--
My opinion and experience. FWIW
Steve
S/V Good Intentions
Stephen Baker
>In my opinion, if someone were to copy a West Wight Potter by measuring the
>hull and then building one boat for himself, there would be no grounds for
>copyright infringement.
Wrong, from an ethical standpoint if not a legal one. If you take one of my
designs, measure it and build a copy, I'll sue for sure ;-) You would have
just wilfully copied my design.
If you were to look at a West Wight Potter and then say "Hmmm, I like that, why
don't I do something similar" and then go away and do as you suggested
(lengthen, widen, change bow profile, etc.) _without recourse to any
measurements_, then you would be fine-ish. West Wight may not agree with me
here, by the way.......
Certainly making it look similar and then calling it "East Wrong Potter" would
piss them off ;-))
Bottom line here is that if you like the WW Potter, then the best option is to
write and ask if they would have any problems with you building a look-alike.
There is nothing stopping you from building "something similar" if you want.
What would be wrong would be to take a design that some company either paid an
employee to draw or paid a designer to draw, and ripping it off. That is
theft, pure and simple.
If you really love the Potter, then buy one. If you love the Potter and
desperatly want to build one, and the company says you can't, then you are just
plain out of luck. Put it down on the list of things you can't do (like picnic
on the White House lawn without an invitation) and move on.
I'm sorry to be so blunt here, but I make a living (or try to) from designing
boats, and the theft of intellectual property is an area close to my heart, as
you can tell.
Steve
Stephen C. Baker - Yacht Designer
http://members.aol.com/SailDesign/private/scbweb/home.htm
Steve
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/westindia/515/newsletters/Assoc_News.htm
This group seems to be a on the 'purest' side of things so I doubt you will
find any plans publicly available. You might make some discret inquiries
from individuals in their association.
Steve
s/v Good Intentions
SteveJ
I agree with you. I think designers should definitely be able to protect their
intellectual property, both from a legal and an ethical standpoint. But wouldn't
there have to be some sort of monetary damage done to bring the case to court?
Since someone who
built a copy of a design would not necessarily profit from it, there might be no
money
involved. Wouldn't this be like whistling a tune you heard on the radio, just for
enjoyment, without having bought the CD?
I guess I was trying to bring up the question of the ethicacy of adapting
traditional designs and turning them into commercial products. There seems to be
some fuzzy areas here. I cannot think of any traditional designs that are like a
potter so mabey this doesn't apply to that particular boat.
Certainly the problem of unethical copying of someones design work is a real one.
No doubt the Federal copyright hull registry is a reaction to this problem and an
approach that is a reasonable move in the right direction.
I know if I ever design a boat and try to market the design, either as plans or an
actual boat, I will definitely register the hull in this registery. But if someone
else wants to market a "similar" type of hull....I don't think there is much I can
do about it.
I've never heard of any rules for what constitutes a copy of something such as a
boat. I suppose that is what lawyers are for. There are hundreds..mabey thousands
of designs for canoes and kayaks..some of them are extremely close to aboriginal
designs drew by Edwin Tappan Adney over a hundred years ago. Are these
copyright(able). What makes them so?
SteveJ
Greg
http://www.westwightpotter.com/home.htm
Greg Luckett
"Steve" <est...@hctc.com> wrote in message
news:uveif55...@corp.supernews.com...
Stephen Baker
>But wouldn't
>there have to be some sort of monetary damage done to bring the case to
>court?
If you build (essentially) to my design, without paying the royalty that the
builder would pay, then there is a monetary loss to me.
>Wouldn't this be like whistling a tune you heard on the radio, just for
>enjoyment, without having bought the CD?
;-)
More like building a copy of a Corvette, comlete with Chevy badge, and
wondering why the dealer won't take it as a trade-in.
>There seems to be
>some fuzzy areas here.
No sh*t! Some are so old that they have fuzz on the fuzz, so to speak.
>But if someone
>else wants to market a "similar" type of hull....I don't think there is much
>I can
>do about it.
Probably not, unless it is really obvious.
>I suppose that is what lawyers are for.
There is NO reason for lawyers.... Sorry - I don't know where that came
from. <blush>
>Are these
>copyright(able).
Probably not, since there is a historical precedent, and tons of prior use
cases where the differences between boats are sooooo small.
It is a very hazy field, and probably not really enforcable. However, if you
want to copy something,:
a) don't make it an obvious copy - change the sheerline, house shape, etc. Or
change the hullform if what you liked is the appearence. That way you can
demonstrate that it is not an identical copy.
b) This is important - DON'T POST IT ON A NEWSGROUP..... ;-))
Have fun out there - it's what this is all about.
Steve
Per Corell
"Stephen Baker" <saild...@aol.comnospam> skrev i en meddelelse
news:20021211153058...@mb-cr.aol.com...
> b) This is important - DON'T POST IT ON A NEWSGROUP..... ;-))
>
Theat all depends wha't it all about. You may make your own copy and
the designer shuld be glad, but if you need a better alternative, and
ask if two outboards couldn't make a nice sailboat into a handy pover
boat . there are the frameworks you se at ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cyber-Boat/
Trouble is, that is offer the hills the size you ask , that you will
need a trendy canvas cabin, and the designs are top technology within
intregrated frameworks, you could compensate by asking stainless
steel frames and the hull framework will be a true ship.
Bad there are only two and a halve panels at outher skin and two with
inner paneling each side, but it proberly be a nice alternative, as
this design are free download ,this mean any person can build one.
P.C.
Steve
I think we are all missing an important point. When you own a true WW
Potter, you become a member of a group who share the company of other like
owners.
I suspect that if you showed up at the annual sail-in in a DIY knock off, no
matter how well you copied the lines and details, you wouldn't be welcome.
Kinda like showing up at a Harley Davidson rally on a motor cycle you built
on a home made frame with a home made everything else. (but I don't think
these guys would stop after a good laugh)
If you want a WW Potter, buy the basic boat and add your own touch. If you
want to build it your self, select a design that is in the public domain or
is sold for you to build. The WW Potter isn't the prettiest boat around, it
isn't the fastest boat in it size range, but it is a nice trailable boat
with a very strong following.
There are other less popular boats that 'can' have all those feature and can
be built DIY.
One of the pleasures of being between boats is you have all of this time to
walk the docks, read the boat magazines and admire all the possible boat you
could be building, once you select the design. Often times it's easy to be
come 'enchanted' by one boat because of an eye catching picture of an
especially well maintain and detailed boat in the water or on a trailer. I
have been known to obsess over a boat design and often I never get the idea
of building out of my mind, even after I conceed that it really isn't the
boat for me.
90% of backyard boat build pleasure comes while sitting in the 'thinking
chair'. Many a boat has been built purely in the mind of a creative person.
They call us "Dreamers", so I say "Dream On!"
Steve
s/v Good Intentions
Rick Tyler
>As 'dedicated' as the West Wright Potter owners are, I'm sure there is an
>association and may even be a web page.
>
>Although, I'm sure they would not let a 'knock-off' sail in their class, I
>would imagine there are many who have built knock-offs for recreation use.
>
>Do a Google search and start asking owner about a plan package.
On the other hand, the world of boat designs is chock-full of
hard-chine, short-rigged, flat-bottomed pocket cruisers between 15 and
20 feet long. Why go through the agony and possible legal problems of
trying to duplicate a production fiberglass boat when you can buy the
plans for an amateur-friendly boat from a source that can offer advice
and assistance? Unless you are dying to race in the WWP class, I'd
look elsewhere.
Samples: Devlin's Nancy's China, Mertens' Vagabond, Selway Fisher
shows six pocket cruisers between 17 and 20 feet, Thomas Firth Jone's
Tuckahoe Catboat, and Bolger's Chebacco and Micro.
- Rick Tyler
FHol...@nopsamcableone.net
version of a 5 meter? It was identical in every respect to a five meter except no
keel.
Stephen Baker
>If that is the case how do you explain the fact that we owned a centerboard
>version of a 5 meter? It was identical in every respect to a five meter
>except no
>keel.
That's a good case in point - thanks!
The 5-metre class, like the 12-metre, is a development class, and there is no
"Class" hullform. However, you could not have raced that boat with the
5-metres, as they are specifically intended to have a keel.
Kind of like a giving Lance Armstrong a motorcycle for the Tour de France.
You state that you owned one - but how does this detract or otherwise from the
statement that copying a design without paying for plans or royalties is
effectively stealing from the deisnger. Who built the boat? Who decided that
a centreboard was equal in righting power to a (very) heavy keel that would
normally be found on a 5-Metre? Was the rig shorter as a result? etc.
Steve
William R. Watt
protected by a long line of patents. Imagine if someone held a patent for
steam bent frames. I think boat designers are extremely fortunate that
boatbuilding predates both formal design and patent legislation.
It would be difficult, I think, to decide what portions of a particular
design could be protected from being copied, the hull shape, the frames,
the rigging on a sailboat, the cabin layout for a cruiser? If taken to
court it may have to be a subjective judgement. I may be wrong as there is
quite a history of maritime law fo which I am ignorant.
For large one off designs the designer is paid for the design,
normally a percentage of the total cost of the boat.
Plans are something else. A plan is a document which can be protected by
copyright. You can't make copies of a plan. The person selling a boat plan
might claim the right to limit its use to the contruction of one boat. I
don't know how valid such a claim is. As for enforcement, people who sell
computer programs have quite a problem with copies being made. They still
make a profit because their cost of copying a program to sell is as little
as it is to the people who copy it to use without payment. Its the same
for a boat designer. Once the design is paid for in the cost of that first
boat it costs almost nothing to make copies to sell.
It may be getting more difficlut to sell boat plans with amateurs
designing original boats to try out ideas that other amateurs can copy
freely off the Internet. There are lots and lots of free boat plans on the
Internet. There are others in books at the public library.
A fellow who owns a West Wight Potter has written a book called "Frugal
Yachting". It contains a survey of many small cruisers under 20 ft. There
is a copy of the book in the Ottawa Public Library. There is a Dingy
Cruising Association in the UK which has a web site. Their interest is not
limited to open dingy cruising. Some members have boats similar to the
Potter.
In the Ottawa area you see second hand Siren 17's and D&S 16's come up for
sale for less than the cost of building a similar boat. They are
fibreglass and heavier than plywood, but the weigth gives them the extra
stability that's nice to have in a small cruising boat.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Capital FreeNet www.ncf.ca Ottawa's free community network
website: www.ncf.ca/~ag384 "Tank, take me in."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Crandall
in favor of building one's own boat, but Potter's are very inexpensive.
What's the charm of climbing a mountain all day, if there's a road up the
other side?
Rick
copyrighted or other wise protected? I am really out of loop with
respect to that.
Rick
Sakari Aaltonen
William R. Watt <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>It would be a shame to see boats become like automobiles, every part
>protected by a long line of patents. Imagine if someone held a patent for
>steam bent frames. I think boat designers are extremely fortunate that
>boatbuilding predates both formal design and patent legislation.
Patents have a time limit; I think all intellectual property
(including copyright) has. The Polaroid patent lapsed, IIRC,
sometime in the 70's. Did the same happen to GoreTex, some years ago?
So, even if the original West Wight Potter, designed 50 (?) years
ago, was patented, I don't think the patent would be enforceable
today.
Sakari Aaltonen
Juha Ohtonen
for a DIY-man. He´d seen a picture in Practical Boat Owner. That was a
starting point, and now we know lot more. I also asked plans from a company
which is manufacturing Potters, and they said they don´t have (sell)
pictures.
But the main question is, how to build a safe (tested)
pocket-trailer-cruiser. And we get very good advices from other models than
a Potter. So thanks a lot.
The discussion about copyrights in boat-planning, that´s a difficult one. It
is also in a level "who owns words", like common words in company names. I
mean, the basic evaluations are common to human race.
What if a monkey designs a boat, how to tell it, sorry, the model is
copyrighted by humans.
Oh, I ment to say thanks to everybody who helped us. I think we don´t have
Potters here in Finland, so for example Devlin´s Nancy´s China could be it
Juha
Stephen Baker
>What's the charm of climbing a mountain all day, if there's a road up the
>other side?
So you can get driven down the other side after getting tired climbing the face
;-)
Stephen Baker
>It would be a shame to see boats become like automobiles, every part
>protected by a long line of patents
No kidding - but it's getting that way with equipment.
>It would be difficult, I think, to decide what portions of a particular
>design could be protected from being copied, the hull shape, the frames,
>the rigging on a sailboat, the cabin layout for a cruiser?
Hull form is the most important, from a designer's point of view. Construction
technique is less important, unless you have something REALLLLLY fine. My
hullforms are the result of years of evolution, and I guard them reasonably
zealously. I have had good friends in the business refuse to supply me with
plans for 10 yr-old boats that need alterations on this basis alone. Doesn't
stop me from measuring the boat, but stops the owner wanting to pay extra for
that.
>Once the design is paid for in the cost of that first
>boat it costs almost nothing to make copies to sell.
>
No, but a lot of what an owner looks for in a custom boat is the fact that it
IS custom, unique, etc. To then sell the plans to all and sundry (no offence,
folks) would seem unfair on the poor sap who paid out a 5-figure sum for the
design in the first place. All of my custom designs are contractually the
joint property of the owner and myself, while most designers keep the design as
theirs. with the owner being granted a licence to build one. THis way, I
cannot sell the plans without the original owner agreeing, and sharing in any
income. Works so far.....
Craig Kossowski
: Patents have a time limit; I think all intellectual property
: (including copyright) has. The Polaroid patent lapsed, IIRC,
: sometime in the 70's. Did the same happen to GoreTex, some years ago?
Copyright however, lasts for a _significantly_ longer time. Details vary
by locale of course, and sometimes by art form. 50+ years wouldn't
surprise me. Intent is different in patent and copyright, in copyright
protection often lasts for a substantial period following the creator's
death, as it's intended to protect ownership. Patent protection is
essentially a measure to encourage innovation and disclosure, by giving
exclusive rights to an inventor to produce the invention for a number of
years, and is dependant on disclosure (the patent application). They
apply to different things, and have different criteria. The
lines of a hull are artistic design, and copywritable. A process (not
program, but the process itself) used to _develop_ ultrafast hull shapes
might be patentable (and you would hold copywrite on the resulting
shapes).
CraigK
stevej
copyright is assumed automatically when a work is created.
This link describes the 1998 Act that protects hull designs
from being copied http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html
I would think that anyone who designs a vessel and wants to protect that
design would register the design here.
stevej
§ 1305. Term of protection
(a) In General.-Subject to subsection (b), the protection provided under
this chapter for a design shall continue for a term of 10 years
beginning on the date of the commencement of protection under section 1304.
SteveJ
Craig Kossowski
: exerpt from the Bill
American bill... I was speaking more generally.
CraigK
Sakari Aaltonen
The American (United States) bill was acted, I believe, to protect
vessel/boat hull designs, because copyright does not apply to them.
That is, boats are not 'works.'
Sakari Aaltonen
P.C.
"Sakari Aaltonen" <sak...@cc.hut.fi> skrev i en meddelelse
news:athikv$eeq$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
Any intelectural property are protected under the internasional copyright law's.
If anyone need an exchouse to steal intelectural property there are a reson,
this shuld be obvious and so shuld the harm copyright violations caurse be
known.
Nomatter if any contry "allow" you to steal interlectural property, your act
define your goal. What's on your mind define your Visions , and if your visions
are to violate others right, the result will be obvious.
If a designer spend the time producing a whole concept, you can not just take
what you allready decided to get. As then you violate more than the
intelectural property, as if the designer accept to fullfill a task , -- the
design in itself are maby just a small part, --- where the main issue could be a
better production idear .
This is how it is discussing rights, ------ do you scrap the boring chapters in
all bestsellers ? Do you think intelectural property according boats are just
the forms or do you think designers only shuld give what you ask, as then no one
need any designers and can just find some exchouse.
There are an old tale, about a goose that made gold eggs.
P.C.
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2197.jpg
William R. Watt
In Canada copyright protection is automatic. You don't need to register
the work. I think you'd have to establish authourship and creation date.
The Canadian law was revised in the 1980's when computer programs
were not covered and we were copying them freely.
Al
> chair'. Many a boat has been built purely in the mind of a creative person.
very true. I build most of my boats this way due to financial and space
pressures (sharing a garage with the family means I tend to have about
3x6" (not a typo) of build space at any one time...
...plus all the voyages I take on my boats are on warm evenings, with
just the right amount of wind to really sail without getting wet...
...it has it's compensations :)
New Zealend Backyard Boatbuilder is a great book for us armchair
builder-sailors...
Al
stevej
One need not register the design for it to be protected.
Apparently a need for recording these designs was apparent.
Hence the registry.
Also, is there a difference between the "design" and the
physical hull? A published design PLAN cannot be reproduced
in whole or in part without the authors consent,just as any literary
or graphic work cannot. So if there was a table of offsets of a hull
included in a design plan, one could argue that constructing the hull
that the table describes, without permission, could be an infringement.
One could also argue that another table of offsets that described the
same hull, even though the numbers might be different because the
stations were moved, would also be an infringement because the IDEA of
the shape(form)of the hull is also copyrighted.
However, since design work of any type does not take place in a vacuum,
and all designers draw their ideas from the ideas of people that went
before them, the question of what constitutes originality must be asked.
How much does a designer have to change the dimensions of a pre-existing
hull for it to be original?
Certainly the practice of not allowing anyone to create a variation of a
previous design does no service to the art of recreational boat design.
If such a practice existed in the last thousand years, we might not have
such perfectly developed watercraft as the canoe and kayak.
JAXAshby
as it if most everywhere in the world, by international treaty.
>One need not register the design for it to be protected.
true since 1978 (I think), under the then new treaty. prior to that,
registration was required "prior to publication" for a valid copyright.
sour (max camirand)
Watt) wrote:
>Craig Kossowski (3c...@devnull.queensu.ca) writes:
>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:22:11 -0500, stevej at vtb...@sover.net wrote:
>> : exerpt from the Bill
>>
>> American bill... I was speaking more generally.
>
>In Canada copyright protection is automatic. You don't need to register
>the work. I think you'd have to establish authourship and creation date.
>
>The Canadian law was revised in the 1980's when computer programs
>were not covered and we were copying them freely.
>--
You can always use Poor Man's Copyright, which consists of mailing a
copy of the work to yourself, and not opening the envelope.
This provides you with an established date of creation that can be
presented in court.
I use this for all of my fiction work, as it's been stolen before by
some high school kids trying to pass it off as their own.
-m
------
"In order to understand the world, one has to turn away from it on occasion..."
-Albert Camus
secure email: max c at ziplip dot com