Woodworking ethics
Waterworks International Corporation
misrepresentation. If you asked someone to design something with the
intention of taking the design and building it yourself or having someone
else build it without compensating the designer, that's theft. If you see a
piece and use it as an example that's not theft. If it's ok with the owner
of the piece (store, individual etc.) to measure everything up, then I
wouldn't be concerned. They paid for the piece (including the design) and
are free to do with it as they see fit.
Just ask yourself if you're being upfront about what you're doing. If you
tell the gallery owner that you want a picture and measurements so you can
see if your wife likes it and it will fit in a space then that had better be
the reason. If you're actually going to take it home and build it than you
would be a no talent hack with the morals of a politician and very little
self worth. On the other hand, if you tell the owner that you really like
the piece but have more talent than money and you'd really like to build it
yourself and could you please take some measurements so you could make one
(they'll probably hit you for talking in run-on sentences) but most likely
will agree and be flattered. You could offer a few bucks for the courtesy
and if they're a real assbag, they'll take the money.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and general design concepts
aren't patentable or copyrightable (huh?). Otherwise there wouldn't be a
mission style, shaker style, etc.
> Let's say I see a piece of furniture or whatever that I decide I like and
figure
> I could build. Maybe a picture in a catalog, or on a web site, or the
real
> object in somebody's house or office. Or, for that matter, on display for
sale
> in a craftsman's showroom?
>
> Any reason I shouldn't build one of my own? Take a photo of the example,
or
> make a sketch for future reference? Pull out my tape and start taking
> measurements?
>
> At what point does flatery by imitation become theft of design?
>
> I realize there's no one correct answer, but I'd be interested to hear
people's
> thoughts on the subject.
>
> --
> Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
> New York University School of Medicine
>
>
Jack-of-all-trades
(Waterworks International Corporation) wrote:
As a professional designer, my answer would be only when there is
Also, if you are making one copy or so for your own use, you should
be able to sleep well at night. I would. However, if you are intending
to make copies for sale, you could be in for some serious legal
complication. This subject has been covered before, look up copyright
in the archives for example.
JOAT -- If you got the money (fast loat)
http://www.angelfire.com/country/bobp/LEFTYFRIZZELL/FRIZZELL2.RAM
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/ Archives
http://x29.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
WWA Search Engines http://www.woodworking2.org/index.htm
Doug Stowe
Corporation" <wic...@swbell.net> wrote:
> They paid for the piece (including the design) and
> are free to do with it as they see fit.
I'd like to clarify this one point. They may have paid for the piece.
They don't own the design, which still belongs to the original copyright
owner unless the copyright is explicitly sold by contract along with the
piece.
I saw a survey in a woodworking magazine where approximately 80% of
woodworkers working from plans make some modifications to suit their own
needs and production techniques. There is so much to be gained from
personalizing work rather than directly duplicating it. You will also
gain more experience and become a better woodworker as a result. This may
also alleviate any pangs of conscience.
Doug Stowe
--
Doug Stowe http://www.DougStowe.com
Author of "Creating Beautiful Boxes With Inlay Techniques"
and "Simply Beautiful Boxes". Both from Popular Woodworking Books
Michael Glennon
For what it is worth, there are only so many ways to build a piece of
furniture, the laws of physics sees to that, and most of those were done,
in one form or another, over the last several hundred years. Chances are
that anything you see, outside of gallery furniture, is a; copy, tweaked
version of, influenced by, stolen from , reproduction of, etc. an existing
design. Hell, take a look at the arts and crafts (mission) furniture.
Everyone with a skill saw was producing Gustav Stickly (Stuckly? Damn
Altzhimers) designs or something pretty close to it and he was fashioning
his stuff after ------- (can't remember his name either. The English Gent
who started that whole movement). Same thing with Heppelwithe, Chippendale,
Eastlake, Queen Ann, etc....... They were so copied they had whole era's
named after them.
Copying is a time honored tradition in woodworking as is the fact that,
unless it is meant to be a true reproduction, the original design seldom
survives the process intact.
I don't normally work from plans and usually draw my own but I don't kid
myself by thinking they aren't at the least influenced, either consciously
or unconsciously, by things I've seen in the past.
Frankly I sleep fine though I might not if I went to a gallery show and saw
a "one of" then had someone in China knock off a few thousand cheap copies
for me to sell. Depends on how much profit I made I guess.
A thought
--
Mike G.
Weymouth Ma.
PS For those lacking any form of sense of humor, and I know there will be
one or two out there, the Queen Ann thing was a joke that I couldn't
resist. Do I have to add that the profit thing was also?
http://home.att.net/~mjag/
mj...@worldnet.att.net
"Roy Smith" <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:roy-7921A7.1...@netnews.nyu.edu...
Fred the Redshirt
dst...@arkansas.net (Doug Stowe) wrote:
> In article <wEOv5.2135$ly5....@nnrp3.sbc.net>, "Waterworks
International
> Corporation" <wic...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > They paid for the piece (including the design) and
> > are free to do with it as they see fit.
>
> I'd like to clarify this one point. They may have paid for the piece.
> They don't own the design, which still belongs to the original
copyright
> owner unless the copyright is explicitly sold by contract along with
the
> piece.
>
Indeed.
Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
philospphy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication of
a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
Obviously it is not a violation if the copyright has expired
(true for most antiques). Obviously also the sale of plans implies
permission to make the furniture. I have read here on rec.nahm of
at least one case of a vendor of plans suing someone who set up shop
selling furniture made form those plans. I don't know what the final
word there was once the dust had settled.
One issue is how much of a change to a design is necessary to avoid
infringment of the copyright. Whereas with something like a novel,
merely changing the formating of the pages, the names of the characters,
or other trivial change is not a defense against copyright violation,
trivial changes to a piece of furniture, including minor changes in the
dimensions, are a defense. I _think_ this is a consequence of there
being so much similarity between pieces of furniture. If the same
standard were applied to chairs as to novels then all Windsor chairs
would infringe on the original (ignoring expiration). So I don't have
any worries about infringing on a furniture copyright. I don't have
the skill to make an exact duplicate of anything.
Shop jigs and fixtures will be covered under patent law. Here a trivial
change is not a defense against infringement, for a jig or fixture you
build yourself to be non-ingfringing it must be functionally different.
If you go to a woodworking and see somebody selling their recently
patented blurfl, then go home and knock off one of your own, you have
violated their patent.
Also, whereas copyright attaches at the moment of creation, patents
must be granted by the government.
In either case, the hobbiest has two practical defenses against
being sued for infringement.
First, there is anonmymity. How's the owner of the intellectual
property being infringed upon going to know?
Second, any individual hobbiest is just not going to be causing any
tangible financial harm so that there is no incentive to go to the
trouble or expense to sue.
I am not an attorney, you are not my client. I most definately am
not _your_ attorney. This is not legal advice--just discussion. Etc.
--
Fred the Redshirt
Fallacies do the most damage when they are used in a well-intended
but ill-conceived effort to defend objective truth.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Walt Akers
Michael Glennon wrote:
> Hell, take a look at the arts and crafts (mission) furniture.
> Everyone with a skill saw was producing Gustav Stickly (Stuckly? Damn
> Altzhimers) designs or something pretty close to it and he was fashioning
> his stuff after ------- (can't remember his name either. The English Gent
> who started that whole movement).
William Morris, John Ruskin, and Charles Rennie Mackintosh to mention
but a few...
Walt - Living the Art's and Crafts Dream
jimco
Early American in style, some finished and some unfinished.
When I had the shop in South Florida I appeared on TV with several of my
pieces( a carved wooden rocking horse, a solid mahogany Hooded Cradle, etc.)
and during the course of the taping of the show they asked me where I got my
ideas, and I replied: "By plagiarism" and then laughed like hell, assuming
they would treat it as a joke. They didn't and the program never appeared.
So much for honesty!
Up here in N. Georgia we had a gal named Joyce Eddy who started a company
called Habersham Plantation with a line of Early American furniture which
became a huge success. I do not exaggerate when I say that at least 500
"cabinetmakers" or "woodworkers" in this area have copied every design she
ever had to the point where it is almost a new American standard design. It
got funny for a while, because Habersham printed a beautiful color catalog
of their line and if you stopped in their showroom and asked to buy the
catalog, they wouldn't sell it to you if you looked like a woodworker!
(Actually happened to me once)
So.........in answer to your question, it appears that most ideas spring
from other ideas, usually someone else's, and unless it is a vicious
knockoff, I see no harm. Most of my "stuff" incorporates different features
and I don't think I have made the same piece twice.....ever.
Interesting subject tho, eh?
Jim Cooley
Sweet Sawdust
designs I get very upset, as in come and talk to my lawyer upset, when I see
some one selling a ripoff of my work. When I do go to a show and another
woodworker comes up and wants to make one of my items for his own pleasure I
try to give him/her as much information and help as I can. Other
woodworkers at shows have treated me the same way, even to giving away trade
secrets on production. I don't mind as all having some one make one of my
items for themselves, just don't try selling my patterns.
Roy Smith wrote in message ...
Roy Smith
Axel Grease
<39BFEF58...@home.com>...
> Michael Glennon wrote:
> > arts and crafts (mission) furniture.
> > who started that whole movement).
> William Morris, John Ruskin, and Charles Rennie Mackintosh to mention
> but a few...
>
> Walt - Living the Art's and Crafts Dream
Since you seem to be familiar with them, which guy (and in about what time
period) made the version of the Morris chair which has a black button in
the right arm connected to a rod linkage to release the back catch for
angle adjustment? The ones I've seen most often have small wooden casters,
fixed black leather seat upholstery, a loose back cushion, a retractable
wire mesh magazine basket in the pull-out for the footrest, and were made
of Oak ... sometimes called Tiger Oak.
Axel
Michael Glennon
Ruskin was the particular gentleman I was thinking of. Mackintosh is not a
name I'm familiar with and, other then his chair design, I know little of
Morris. I'll have to take a few minutes when I get them and look up
Mackintosh.
Take care and thank you again.
--
Mike G.
Weymouth Ma.
http://home.att.net/~mjag/
mj...@worldnet.att.net
"Walt Akers" <twiste...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39BFEF58...@home.com...
>
>
> Michael Glennon wrote:
>
> > Hell, take a look at the arts and crafts (mission) furniture.
> > Everyone with a skill saw was producing Gustav Stickly (Stuckly? Damn
> > Altzhimers) designs or something pretty close to it and he was
fashioning
> > his stuff after ------- (can't remember his name either. The English
Walt Akers
pegs or a cross member in the back for adjustment. Where did you see such
a thing (and was it a genuine antique or a more modern adaptation).
Of the English craftsman from that period that I've studied, I would suspect
that
Mackintosh would have been most likely to have made such an adaptation.
However, his designs really departed greatly from the original Arts and Crafts
movement in his later years --- They attribute most of his work to the Glasgow
School (Which is really cool, with lots of inlayed constrasting squares).
Let me know if you find the manufacturer...
Walt
Axel Grease
> Wow... I've never seen one of the old ones that had anything more than
either
> pegs or a cross member in the back for adjustment. Where did you see
such
> a thing (and was it a genuine antique or a more modern adaptation).
It is the latter, but over 60 years old. I am sure these chairs were mass
produced in a factory, perhaps on license from the original designer and
represents a sort of transitional design leading up to modern recliner
chairs. The one I own now is pre-WWII (Depression Era or before). I know
that out from the words of former owners' "kids" (approx 60 years old).
The chair was already owned by their parents prior to their earliest
recollections and it may have been owned by one of their relatives before
that. My parents used to have one very similar to it. I was hoping you
would have some idea of when this type of release mechanism design came
about in Morris style chairs.
More details -
The style is a very basic Mission design ... flat slatted sides, no
carving, but fairly decent Oak.
Two extension springs are attached to 2 steel braces that anchor the rest
of the linkage underneath. They help return the back to an "UP" position.
The framing is a mix of hidden wooden angle bracing held with screws and
also some dove-tailing.
The linkage mechanism is made of steel, but entirely hidden unless the
chair is tipped upside down.
> Let me know if you find the manufacturer...
It is a factory production piece ... marked as "STOCK 469", stamped in
black ink (an old font) on a frame member underneath the seat. No other
markings or labels are visible without stripping off the upholstery. It
was probably re-covered in the last 20 years. Although I don't like the
color, the cloth is in too nice of condition to do destroy. It is a very
comfortable chair.
> Of the English craftsman from that period that I've studied, I would
suspect
> that
> Mackintosh would have been most likely to have made such an adaptation.
> However, his designs really departed greatly from the original Arts and
Crafts
> movement in his later years --- They attribute most of his work to the
Glasgow
> School (Which is really cool, with lots of inlayed constrasting squares).
None of that is present. The chair is actually rather simple, outwardly.
Axel
DaveyK
--
Later Gater,
Dave
http://basselope_east.homestead.com/index.html
"Roy Smith" <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:roy-7921A7.1...@netnews.nyu.edu...
Praising Jesus
was influenced by his environment. He had seen similar things and assembled
those ideas into whatever it is that caught your eye (there is nothing new
under the sun). The work is taking that idea and turning it into actual
measurements and construction methods. Even if you disassembled their work,
took their measurements and made your own, it's borderline as to whether
that would be unethical. I have seen many people make plans-based projects
and the appearance of them, made from the same plans, varies widely. What we
call "fit and finish" is what we sell, individual craftsmanship is what
makes the difference.
Also, I'm assuming you are talking about producing for resale, because the
courts have ruled you can make anything you like for your personal use.
---Mike
"Roy Smith" <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:roy-7921A7.1...@netnews.nyu.edu...
ScoopKW
I looked around for some Shaking Quakers to ask about all the designs of theirs
I've been swiping.
Couldn't find any Shaking Quakers. So I'll go back to planing wood for a table
now.
:-)
Whole nations have lived on because of the strength of their workmanship. I
haven't problem problem-one taking something I like and doing it in the shop.
Hell, I'm brazen enough to ask a craftsman how he did a certain piece. More
often than not, he's flattered, not upset. (One look at ME and the guy knows I
can't afford his prices, anyway.)
Eric
Key West
Fred the Redshirt
"Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote:
> Also, I'm assuming you are talking about producing for resale, because
the
> courts have ruled you can make anything you like for your personal
use.
>
This is news to me. 'Anything' is pretty broad.
David Randolph
>
> Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
> philospphy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication of
> a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
> make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
Don't forget the doctrine of "fair use" which allows limited copying for
the personal use of someone.
Bill J
running a red light on a deserted highway at 2:00 a.m. isn't as 'unethical'
as doing the same thing in a school zone at 8:30.) Copying the measurements
from a standard picnic table isn't as serious as disassembling a cuckoo
clock to steal the design although it's still technically theft. A design
is someone's intellectual property. It is the result of someone else's
talent, skill, training, effort and probably several versions. If you're
manufacturing for profit, the designer deserves to be paid. After all, you
wouldn't be lifting the measurements if they weren't worth something to you.
Praising Jesus <kjb...@qn.net> wrote in message
news:39c0...@news.qn.net...
> Do you suppose "the designer" invented it from scratch? Whoever he is, he
> was influenced by his environment. He had seen similar things and
assembled
> those ideas into whatever it is that caught your eye (there is nothing new
> under the sun). The work is taking that idea and turning it into actual
> measurements and construction methods. Even if you disassembled their
work,
> took their measurements and made your own, it's borderline as to whether
> that would be unethical. I have seen many people make plans-based projects
> and the appearance of them, made from the same plans, varies widely. What
we
> call "fit and finish" is what we sell, individual craftsmanship is what
> makes the difference.
>
> Also, I'm assuming you are talking about producing for resale, because the
> courts have ruled you can make anything you like for your personal use.
>
> ---Mike
>
>
> "Roy Smith" <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:roy-7921A7.1...@netnews.nyu.edu...
Praising Jesus
"Bill J" <sendnoper...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:8pr274$2ub$1...@news.junction.net...
> Like everything in ethics, it's a matter of degree and judgement.
(Example:
> running a red light on a deserted highway at 2:00 a.m. isn't as
'unethical'
> as doing the same thing in a school zone at 8:30.)
Actually, it is just as unethical, it just isn't as hazardous :-)
Russell Green
My saw. My wood. What I make is my business.
The ONLY caveat would be if I tried to SELL it as another person's or
companies product.
I view ALL furniture as three dimensional plans.
Enjoy it!
Russ
Jerri Blavittł
Fred the Redshirt <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ps0kj$d24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39C0E6...@gte.net>,
> da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> > Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> > >
> > > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
> > > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
> > > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
> >
> > Don't forget the doctrine of "fair use" which allows limited copying
> > for the personal use of someone.
> >
>
One single copy could be argued to be "limited".
>
> Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
> scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
>
> A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
> copy of an entire novel.
What about a photograph of an original painting?
Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
original painting ...?
>
> Note crossposting.
noted.
>
> --
> Fred the Redshirt
Fred the Redshirt
da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> >
> > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
> > philosophy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication of
> > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
> > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
>
> Don't forget the doctrine of "fair use" which allows limited copying
> for the personal use of someone.
>
I have not. Copying a work in its entirety, is not 'limited.'
Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
copy of an entire novel.
Note crossposting.
Praising Jesus
"controlled". You can't make a nuclear bomb, automatic weapons (without a
permit), narcotics, etc. But, if it's not controlled, you can make anything.
---Mike
"Fred the Redshirt" <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pqn0f$ono$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39c0...@news.qn.net>,
> "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm assuming you are talking about producing for resale, because
> the
> > courts have ruled you can make anything you like for your personal
> use.
> >
>
> This is news to me. 'Anything' is pretty broad.
>
Doug Stowe
> It's called "fair use" and is broad. It covers anything that is not
> "controlled". You can't make a nuclear bomb, automatic weapons (without a
> permit), narcotics, etc. But, if it's not controlled, you can make anything.
>
> ---Mike
So does this mean that you can make a copy of Microsoft office?.....borrow
a neighbor's CD, then copy it for your own use? Well gee, you weren't
planning to sell it? Come on guys, it might be good to actually look into
copyright law before expounding upon it in public places.
Waterworks International Corporation
> I looked around for some Shaking Quakers to ask about all the designs of
theirs
> I've been swiping.
>
> Couldn't find any Shaking Quakers. So I'll go back to planing wood for a
table
> now.
>
Here they are http://www.shaker.lib.me.us/ Be sure to let us know what they
say ;^) .
Moses Knows
>From: dst...@arkansas.net (Doug Stowe)
>In article <39c2...@news.qn.net>, "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote:
>
>> It's called "fair use" and is broad. It covers anything that is not
>> "controlled". You can't make a nuclear bomb, automatic weapons (without a
>> permit), narcotics, etc. But, if it's not controlled, you can make
>anything.
>>
>> ---Mike
>
>So does this mean that you can make a copy of Microsoft office?.....borrow
>a neighbor's CD, then copy it for your own use? Well gee, you weren't
>planning to sell it? Come on guys, it might be good to actually look into
>copyright law before expounding upon it in public places.
>
Doug,
Notice that he wrote "fair use". Making copies of a CD for others is not
"fair use". Borrowing a CD is "fair use".
Ed
Bob Mathison
> > In article <39C0E6...@gte.net>,
> > da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> > > Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
> > > > philosophy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication of
> > > > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
> > > > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
Aboslutly Not. A design copyright is different from a book copyright.
I can go to the store buy any modern piece of furniture I wish, say a
chair. And
make 7 others. I can't sell them, or even say they are "famous designer
chairs" but
I can certainly make them and use them in my house. And if I change the
design
a little from even just a construction and assembly way and make up a
new
name I can sell it. it's what's called in the fashion and design
industry "a Knockoff" And it's legal.
Note: you can even buy a piece of furniture. Take it home measure it and
return it
and then make copies for yourself. It's legal - but tacky.
> > >
> > > Don't forget the doctrine of "fair use" which allows limited copying
> > > for the personal use of someone.
> > >
> >
> > I have not. Copying a work in its entirety, is not 'limited.'
>
> One single copy could be argued to be "limited".
>
> >
> > Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
> > scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
> >
> > A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
> > copy of an entire novel.
>
> What about a photograph of an original painting?
Same thing applies although you cannot sell it. The MET for example
allows anyone to
come in an photograph or paint a copy of anything provided they sign a
waver saying it is for personal use only.
>
> Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> original painting ...?
Happens all the time just don't call it original and don't sign it
picasso
(that's forgery)
On software you buy a CD and copy it for yourself that's legal under
fair use no matter what the
software companies say. You give that CD to a friend that's a violation.
>
> >
> > Note crossposting.
>
> noted.
>
> >
> > --
> > Fred the Redshirt
Bob
--
Bob Mathison - Curator
Museum of Woodworking Tools
http://www.antiquetools.com
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Stuart Johnson
copyright laws or anyone being upset if I try to copy their design. I can
guarantee the only resemblance is mine is also made out of wood.
Stuart Johnson
Red Oak, Texas
Jonathan R. Larsson
Per your MS Office example, if you used the program (all legally purchased,
etc.) and had the programming know-how to make your own program, for your
own use, that does exactly the same thing and even looks like MS Office, but
did not sell it or reverse-engineer the MS product, what's the problem?
Jon Larsson
Doug Stowe <dst...@arkansas.net> wrote in message
news:dstowe-1509...@max01-eu-31.eu.anc.net...
> In article <39c2...@news.qn.net>, "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net>
wrote:
>
> > It's called "fair use" and is broad. It covers anything that is not
> > "controlled". You can't make a nuclear bomb, automatic weapons (without
a
> > permit), narcotics, etc. But, if it's not controlled, you can make
anything.
> >
> > ---Mike
>
> So does this mean that you can make a copy of Microsoft office?.....borrow
> a neighbor's CD, then copy it for your own use? Well gee, you weren't
> planning to sell it? Come on guys, it might be good to actually look into
> copyright law before expounding upon it in public places.
>
Charles Self
>> What about a photograph of an original painting?
>Same thing applies although you cannot sell it. The MET for example
>allows anyone to
>come in an photograph or paint a copy of anything provided they sign a
>waver saying it is for personal use only.
>
>>
>> Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
>> original painting ...?
>Happens all the time just don't call it original and don't sign it
>picasso
>(that's forgery)
And almsot everything in the Met, and many museums, is way past copyright date,
or from a variety of countries that have different copyright laws.
Waivers in such instances are meaningless.
>On software you buy a CD and copy it for yourself that's legal under
>fair use no matter what the
>software companies say. You give that CD to a friend that's a violation.
Yup. And, IMHO, only a nut won't copy software they pay hundreds of dollars
for. What do you do if the dog chews your original CD?
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Never lick a steak knife.
David Randolph
>
> Like everything in ethics, it's a matter of degree and judgement. Copying the measurements
> from a standard picnic table isn't as serious as disassembling a cuckoo
> clock to steal the design although it's still technically theft. A design
> is someone's intellectual property.
I'm going to argue the intellectual property issue a little. When I look
at history, "intellectual property" is a very recent concept and isn't
widely held.
In my experience (in the software field), the key issue is not
intellectual property (something that was developed once) but software
service - the ability to keep on making new stuff. (Which brings more
value to Microsoft: the source code to Windows 2.0 or the ability to
produce new versions?)
In my mind, "intellectual property" is a concept that came from the
industrial revolution to prevent the mass production of someone else's
design. When dealing with hand production, there really isn't a need for
the concept. There was a recent discussion in alt.crafts.professional
about the issue of knock offs with the same result - complain to the
person doing the knock off once and then come up with new designs that
are not being knocked off.
PC
I put this question to a patent attorney a couple of weeks ago because I found a
patented device that I wanted to build solely for my own use. The long and short of
it is that it does violate law but as a practical matter it is unusual for anyone to
litigate since they have not suffered monetarily.
My own perspective is that if an artist had created a particularly nice painting or
piece of jewelry and someone copied it, the artist should have the ability to act.
They do if they can afford to.
Phil
Praising Jesus
called. It is legislation trying to address this. When it was passed it was
generally considered rhetoric because it did not deal with issues involved
so became fluff. This is the same problem with using VCRs to tape TV (courts
have said it is OK), cassettes recording music/radio (courts have said it
OK), giving a copy of your tape/CD to someone else on same or different
media (thought to be a violation, but no case has ever been prosecuted -
industry turns head), selling a copy of any of these (definitely illegal and
being prosecuted on a single definable instance). Libraries also went
through this argument. Can multiple people use a single book? What does a
purchase buy?
1. An opportunity for the purchaser to read the contents
2. A copy of the material to share with anyone
3. A right to use the material in other places
Some questions that arise are, If I buy an original, can I copy it and use
the copy until it is worn out then make another copy? This would
dramatically increase the life of the property. Some folks believe you buy
one copy and when it wears out, you buy another copy. Others believe you can
make a copy and use the material forever. This becomes more impacting when
you consider electronic media - imaging books.
Now lets apply this to woodworking. If I buy a chair, did I buy the wood,
the design or just use of the product? Can I make a copy of the original and
use it until it breaks and then make another copy? Did I buy a right to use
the chair, but not actually own it? Did I buy the rights for me to use it,
or can my neighbor sit on it as well? If I buy a pine chair from you and
make an Oak one just like it, is it the same or different?
I can go on for a long time, but this gets very complicated and no one, NO
ONE, has been able to articulate exactly what is and isn't transferred in
intellectual property that applies to all circumstances. The library book
argument was one of the great court cases. As most people who use the
library know, you can read almost anything there. Rent movies, music,
software; read books, magazines, periodicals, journals; get woodworking
plans, clothing patterns, etc. If you are the author or creator of some of
these things, you are clearly losing sales to these places.
I won't even go into video rentals and the like.
---Mike
"Moses Knows" <nospam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000915094758...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Woodworking ethics
> >From: dst...@arkansas.net (Doug Stowe)
>
> >In article <39c2...@news.qn.net>, "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net>
wrote:
> >
> >> It's called "fair use" and is broad. It covers anything that is not
> >> "controlled". You can't make a nuclear bomb, automatic weapons (without
a
> >> permit), narcotics, etc. But, if it's not controlled, you can make
> >anything.
> >>
> >> ---Mike
> >
> >So does this mean that you can make a copy of Microsoft
office?.....borrow
> >a neighbor's CD, then copy it for your own use? Well gee, you weren't
> >planning to sell it? Come on guys, it might be good to actually look
into
> >copyright law before expounding upon it in public places.
> >
>
Charles Self
>The library book
>argument was one of the great court cases. As most people who use the
>library know, you can read almost anything there. Rent movies, music,
>software; read books, magazines, periodicals, journals; get woodworking
>plans, clothing patterns, etc. If you are the author or creator of some of
>these things, you are clearly losing sales to these places.
Actually, the argument is, you may be losing a few sales, but not many, as
library readers cannot possibly buy all the books they read. I sure can't, and
it's not just because of the cost for the books. One of my hobbies is building
bookshelves, but I'm running out of wall space.
ScoopKW
>My own perspective is that if an artist had created a particularly nice
>painting or
>piece of jewelry and someone copied it, the artist should have the ability to
>act.
>They do if they can afford to.
Just ask anyone who has ever been sued by Disney.
Eric
Key West
Joe Gorman
http://www.sun.com/staroffice/get.html
> So does this mean that you can make a copy of Microsoft office?.....borrow
> a neighbor's CD, then copy it for your own use? Well gee, you weren't
> planning to sell it? Come on guys, it might be good to actually look into
> copyright law before expounding upon it in public places.
>
Bob Mathison
>
> Bob Mathison writes:
>
> >> What about a photograph of an original painting?
> >Same thing applies although you cannot sell it. The MET for example
> >allows anyone to
> >come in an photograph or paint a copy of anything provided they sign a
> >waver saying it is for personal use only.
> >
> >>
> >> Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> >> original painting ...?
> >Happens all the time just don't call it original and don't sign it
> >picasso
> >(that's forgery)
>
> And almsot everything in the Met, and many museums, is way past copyright date,
> or from a variety of countries that have different copyright laws.
>
> Waivers in such instances are meaningless.
They are not because the MET is letting you photograph the work in the
first place
only on the condition that you don't market it. It wouldn't be a
violation of copyright but a violation of the deal you signed with the
MET.
Bob
>
> >On software you buy a CD and copy it for yourself that's legal under
> >fair use no matter what the
> >software companies say. You give that CD to a friend that's a violation.
>
> Yup. And, IMHO, only a nut won't copy software they pay hundreds of dollars
> for. What do you do if the dog chews your original CD?
>
> Charlie Self
> Word Worker
>
> Never lick a steak knife.
--
William Nordman
it's not installed on 2 computers and used at the same time. Software
on floppys used to have in the installation instructions to install only
from a copy of the original, just in case your machine or the dog ate
the disk. CD disks can't be eaten by the computer so that's not a issue
anymore. If you have a laptop and a desktop you can install software on
both as long as you only use one at a time. If someone else uses one
while you use the other, that's a violation. So, call your friends and
if they are sitting on your chair copy, you have to wait before you can
use your chair original.
PS: I think you would have to sell a lot of chairs, claiming to be an
original in your advertising, to attract the attention of the copyright
holder. They are more interested in preserving their advertising clout
(aka namesake) than their actual design. Sell ANY design toilet paper
and call it Charmin or sell the exact same product made with a stolen
formula and call it butt-wipe2000 and see which they react to in court.
madee
>>>>>Word Worker
>>>>>
>>>>>Never lick a steak knife.
Most large and many small libraries now will not permit you to copy
more that one page or perhaps just a couple. While some small copy
shops will let you copy to your heart's content, Kinko's recently
settled [at large cost] a case against them for permitting unlimited
copying of text books.
Charles Self
>> And almsot everything in the Met, and many museums, is way past copyright
>date,
>> or from a variety of countries that have different copyright laws.
>>
>> Waivers in such instances are meaningless.
>
>They are not because the MET is letting you photograph the work in the
>first place
>only on the condition that you don't market it. It wouldn't be a
>violation of copyright but a violation of the deal you signed with the
>MET.
Which means it has nothing to do with copyright or fair use, so it's not a
pertinent example in this particular thread.
Charles Self
>Software licenses used to allow a copy for backup purposes as long as
>it's not installed on 2 computers and used at the same time. Software
>on floppys used to have in the installation instructions to install only
>from a copy of the original, just in case your machine or the dog ate
>the disk. CD disks can't be eaten by the computer
No, but there are many other ways to screw up any form of computer media, and
most of them exist on our desks.
Coffee, coke and a gin fizz come to mind, as do various sharp instruments like
pens and pencils. Scratch producing dust can work some evil, too.
As far as I'm concerned, I'll take a back-up copy every time over the chance of
laying out hundreds of bucks for a replacement.
ScratchAnkleWood
(Moses Knows) writes:
> Notice that he wrote "fair use". Making copies of a CD for others is not
>"fair use". Borrowing a CD is "fair use".
Read your agreement on the CD software -- you know, the place where it says
"READ THIS" -- the same place where you immediately hit the continue button
without reading. You load it on ONE machine and only ONE machine uses it. If
you buy multiple license software, you can load it on more machines, up to the
number licensed. Borrowing a CD from a friend to load on your computer is not
covered under the agreement.
Moses Knows
>From: scratcha...@aol.comkdsflk (ScratchAnkleWood)
>Date: 09/16/2000 7:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000916070241...@nso-cf.aol.com>
When I said CD, I was referring to the 33 rpm records and 8-track tape
replacment. The thingie that has music on it.
Regrettably, I got rid of my 78's. Caruso sounded best on those.
Cathy Morgan
copyright violation.
Cathy Morgan
caught or punished isn't relevant.
William Nordman wrote in message
Cathy Morgan
CD to load onto your computer, who's the one who could be
fined. Ethically, it's software piracy for the borrower
too.
ScratchAnkleWood wrote in message
Cathy Morgan
alt.crafts.professional here. There have been quite a few
on copyright issues. There are lawsuits in progress now to
stop knockoffs made in other countries. The artists whose
work was copied certainly think the violations matter.
Also, photographs of a handmade piece can be used in
advertising, on calendars, notecards, etc. These can be
significant sources of revenue to the artist, who retains
these rights even after a piece is sold.
David Randolph wrote in message <39C23B...@gte.net>...
Praising Jesus
is not binding or legal. It is contrary to the stated purpose and becomes
void. It is like those parking garages that park your car for you, but have
a disclaimer that says they are not responsible for things left in your car.
The courts have said they took money for that purpose and, notwithstanding
the disclaimer, they are responsible for the care of your vehicle while it
is in their possession.
---Mike
"ScratchAnkleWood" <scratcha...@aol.comkdsflk> wrote in message
news:20000916070241...@nso-cf.aol.com...
> In article <20000915094758...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
nospam...@aol.com
> (Moses Knows) writes:
>
> > Notice that he wrote "fair use". Making copies of a CD for others is
not
> >"fair use". Borrowing a CD is "fair use".
>
> Read your agreement on the CD software -- you know, the place where it
says
> "READ THIS" -- the same place where you immediately hit the continue
button
> without reading. You load it on ONE machine and only ONE machine uses it.
If
> you buy multiple license software, you can load it on more machines, up to
the
> number licensed. Borrowing a CD from a friend to load on your computer is
Paul Buerk
of your ticket to a sporting event, which says that the team seller is not
responsible for any damages or injury from flying pucks/balls/spears/etc. I
remember my B-Law professor giving examples of where this has been
successfully challenged, and I seem to remember that the argument was based
upon the fan's inability to negotiate the terms with the seller.
Praising Jesus wrote in message <39c3...@news.qn.net>...
Paul Tauger
"Jerri Blavittł" <n...@never.no> wrote in message
news:%biw5.1131$wN2.3...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Fred the Redshirt <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ps0kj$d24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <39C0E6...@gte.net>,
> > da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> > > Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from the
> > > > philosophy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication of
> > > > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if you
> > > > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
> > >
> > > for the personal use of someone.
I missed the post that started this thread. The above statement is
completely incorrect. Fair use doctrine does NOT allow "limited copying for
the personal use of someone."
> > >
> >
> > I have not. Copying a work in its entirety, is not 'limited.'
>
> One single copy could be argued to be "limited".
Doesn't matter, since "limited" isn't the standard.
>
> >
> > Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
> > scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
"Personal uses" isn't correct, however the four uses listed above are
examples that MIGHT constitute fair use depending upon the circumstances.
> >
> > A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
> > copy of an entire novel.
>
>
> What about a photograph of an original painting?
That is an infringement of the protect right to prepare derivative works.
>
> Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> original painting ...?
That's a violation of the right to prepare copies.
Jerri Blavittł
Paul Tauger <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote in message
news:8q0i5a$n1u$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Qualifying that I don't have the definitive legal precedent, I would guess
that you may be incorrect one this one ...
>
> >
> > Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> > original painting ...?
>
> That's a violation of the right to prepare copies.
Really? Why wouldn't it be an entirely new, protected, interpretation
of an existing work?
ScratchAnkleWood
(Moses Knows) writes:
>When I said CD, I was referring to the 33 rpm records and 8-track tape
>replacment. The thingie that has music on it.
>Regrettably, I got rid of my 78's. Caruso sounded best on those.
Sorry. I got that confused but the thread is confusing. In the light of
music, you actually can borrow without loading and violating copywrite laws.
Praising Jesus
pertains to copyright:
-----
Executive Summary. The exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act are
limited by several statutory and Constitutional limitations on copyright
law. The most well known of these limitations is "fair use". However, the
Copyright statute itself sets forth over ten separate limitations on
copyright law. Because of the limited applicability of some of these
limitations, the discussion on copyright limitations in BitLaw has been
limited to the following three topics:
Fair Use
Fair Use in the Copyright Act,
Fair Use Example, and
Other Fair Use Examples;
The First Amendment; and
Compulsory Licenses.
The fair use statute: The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as
courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's
interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This
doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be
banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news
reporting, teaching, and research.
Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary,
it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to
be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be
considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole;
and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
-----
That's how "personal use" can be interpretted into the doctrine.
---Mike
"Paul Tauger" <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote in message
news:8q0i5a$n1u$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Doug Stowe
discussion. However, it would have been appropriate to credit the source
rather than just copy and paste without proper regard for the author's
rights. Do you suppose this was copyrighted text?
D. Anderson
1 1/2 hp or 3 hp. I want to do some general shaping, including making
doors for kitchens. What brands do you recommend? I have had success
with Jet tools and Grizzly tools. Has anyone had experience with their
shapers?
Thanks
Dave
Paul Tauger
>
>
>
> Paul Tauger <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote in message
> news:8q0i5a$n1u$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> >
> > news:%biw5.1131$wN2.3...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > Fred the Redshirt <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8ps0kj$d24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <39C0E6...@gte.net>,
> > > > da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> > > > > Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from
the
> > > > > > philosophy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication
of
> > > > > > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if
you
> > > > > > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
> > > > >
copying
> > > > > for the personal use of someone.
> >
> > I missed the post that started this thread. The above statement is
> > completely incorrect. Fair use doctrine does NOT allow "limited copying
for
> > the personal use of someone."
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > One single copy could be argued to be "limited".
> >
> > Doesn't matter, since "limited" isn't the standard.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
> > > > scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
> >
> > "Personal uses" isn't correct, however the four uses listed above are
> > examples that MIGHT constitute fair use depending upon the
circumstances.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
> > > > copy of an entire novel.
> > >
> > >
> > > What about a photograph of an original painting?
> >
> > That is an infringement of the protect right to prepare derivative
works.
>
> Qualifying that I don't have the definitive legal precedent, I would guess
> that you may be incorrect one this one ...
And you would guess wrong. A photograph translates one medium, painting,
into another, photography. The resulting print is a derivative work based
on the original expression, namely the painting.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> > > original painting ...?
> >
> > That's a violation of the right to prepare copies.
>
> Really? Why wouldn't it be an entirely new, protected, interpretation
> of an existing work?
"An exact replica" is a copy. You are, of course, free to go to whatever
was the source of the original painting, e.g. the woodland scene, the
particular model, etc. and create your own original expression based on
that. You may not copy someone else's original expression. There is an old
maxim in copyright: "Anyone is free to copy the original, but not the copy."
Paul Tauger
"Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote in message
news:39c4...@news.qn.net...
> For all the chitchat, here's one lawyer's explanation of Fair Use as it
> pertains to copyright:
>
First of all, Mike, _I'm_ a lawyer -- an intellectual property litigator for
a major law firm. That aside, the explanation you copied above is
absolutely correct. You'll note that "personal use" doesn't appear
anywhere -- and the reason for that is the fact that something has been
copied for "personal use" does not render it fair use.
>
>
>
> "Paul Tauger" <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote in message
> news:8q0i5a$n1u$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
Jerri Blavittł
Paul Tauger <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote in message
>
> "Jerri Blavittł" <n...@never.no> wrote in message
> news:RATw5.377$yX3.2...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > news:8q0i5a$n1u$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > >
> > > news:%biw5.1131$wN2.3...@news.uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > > Fred the Redshirt <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8ps0kj$d24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article <39C0E6...@gte.net>,
> > > > > da...@prairietrail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Fred the Redshirt wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Furniture is covered under copyright, evidently following from
> the
> > > > > > > philosophy that furniture is an art form. A precise duplication
> of
> > > > > > > a piece is a violation of the copyright. This is true even if
> you
> > > > > > > make it for yourself not for resale, distribution or display.
> > > > > >
> copying
> > > > > > for the personal use of someone.
> > >
> > > I missed the post that started this thread. The above statement is
> > > completely incorrect. Fair use doctrine does NOT allow "limited copying
> for
> > > the personal use of someone."
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One single copy could be argued to be "limited".
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter, since "limited" isn't the standard.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover the permitted personal uses are limited to education,
> > > > > scholarship, criticism, research, commentary and such.
> > >
> > > "Personal uses" isn't correct, however the four uses listed above are
> > > examples that MIGHT constitute fair use depending upon the
> circumstances.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A single copy of a chair would be as much of a violation as a single
> > > > > copy of an entire novel.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What about a photograph of an original painting?
> > >
> > > That is an infringement of the protect right to prepare derivative
> works.
> >
> > Qualifying that I don't have the definitive legal precedent, I would guess
> > that you may be incorrect one this one ...
>
> And you would guess wrong. A photograph translates one medium, painting,
> into another, photography. The resulting print is a derivative work based
> on the original expression, namely the painting.
It just logically leads to all kind of peculiar situations/results ...
Taking a photo a building would violate the architects rights?
How about audio recording the "ambient noise" of the exterior or interior
of a IM Pei building, does this transpose media?
A work created in any one medium is forever protected in all derivative media,
even when the "artist" never works outside of their original media?
I have trouble with photography being considered "creative work" in ALL instances.
Granted, professional photographers who actually uniquely compose and render the
media should be covered, but the instamatic snap-shot of an event/.object is not
necessarily creative or unique, but merely a stored image.
Are mug shots and drivers license photos copyright of the droid who takes them?
Does Kinkos have protection when they take your passport photos?
Is footage from the 7-11 surveillance cameras protected copyrighted "works"?
Does a photo of a Ferrari translate the protected work of the Enzo design engineers into
another derivative media? Would a photographer, amateur, beginner or professional
need permission from Ferrari to take a photo of ANY of their automobiles?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> > > > original painting ...?
> > >
> > > That's a violation of the right to prepare copies.
> >
> > Really? Why wouldn't it be an entirely new, protected, interpretation
> > of an existing work?
>
> "An exact replica" is a copy.
Well if it is a new painting done by hand, then it can never be an "exact replica" now can
it?
If just one brush stroke or Pantone shade is different, then it is merely a rendition.
> You are, of course, free to go to whatever
> was the source of the original painting, e.g. the woodland scene, the
> particular model, etc. and create your own original expression based on
> that.
>You may not copy someone else's original expression.
So it is always prohibited to make a expression an expression? Why isn't that
considered a new expression unto itself?
An artist takes a photo, another sees the photo and creates a sculpture based upon
the photo, a third artist sees the sculpture and paints an oil, a musician sees the oil
painting and renders it into music, another hears the music and renders it into dance,
and they all violate the original photographers work ...?
Seems rather improbable.
Mario Nunez
When I remodeled my kitchen, I bought a 7/8 HP (yeah, really) shaper
from AMT, which has since gone out of the retail tool business. It's a
shaper that can take regular shaper cutters or 1/4" shank router bits.
That machine has never flinched, and I've put all sorts of wood through it,
from white oak for the kitchen, to hard maple for a kitchen island, white
pine for window sash, etc. But it's starting to get to the end of its
life, as far as bearings.
I would guess that the 1-1/2 HP machine would do the job for you, unless
you're going to get into large scale production. I don't have experience
with either the Jet or Grizzly shapers, but in general, people here on the
wreck seem to be satisfied with their quality.
And be careful to keep your fingers out of the way.
Cheers.
Mario
"D. Anderson" wrote:
--
*************************************
Mario Nunez * Buffalo, NY USA
*************************************
Where are we going?
And what's with this handbasket?
*************************************
George
for hobby and light commercial. You'll get tired before it does. The Jet
and Griz are related through their roots - Delta, though my experience with
Griz has been all negative, with Jet, a single-instance positive.
A few extra bucks might make the difference.
"D. Anderson" <dav...@nsta.org> wrote in message
news:39C43D1D...@nsta.org...
Ed Clarke
>Make your "first" your last. A nice cast iron shaper with 1 1/2 HP is fine
>for hobby and light commercial. You'll get tired before it does. The Jet
I would recommend that you get one that has a 1.25" spindle available as
an option. You'll probably use 3/4 inch cutters in most cases, but if
you ever have to do large doors then you'll be glad that you can get the
larger spindle and cutters.
I have a six inch diameter three inch high multiple pound lock miter cutter
on my shaper. You really don't want that deflecting into the cast iron
table top .... Scariest damn thing I've ever seen. Probably the safest
though; I never go near it without thinking everything through in great
detail.
Paul Tauger
No. 17 USC 120: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been
constructed does not include the right to prevent the amking, distributing,
or public dispaly of pictures, paints, photographs, or other pictorial
representations of the work . . ."
>
> How about audio recording the "ambient noise" of the exterior or interior
> of a IM Pei building, does this transpose media?
Obviously not.
>
> A work created in any one medium is forever protected in all derivative
media,
> even when the "artist" never works outside of their original media?
That's right.
>
> I have trouble with photography being considered "creative work" in ALL
instances.
> Granted, professional photographers who actually uniquely compose and
render the
> media should be covered, but the instamatic snap-shot of an event/.object
is not
> necessarily creative or unique, but merely a stored image.
Sorry, but your wrong. There is selectivity involved in determining angle,
composition, etc. The amount of creative expression required to result in
protectable expression is extremely low.
>
> Are mug shots and drivers license photos copyright of the droid who takes
them?
No, since they are produced by employees of the government.
>
> Does Kinkos have protection when they take your passport photos?
Yes, they do.
>
> Is footage from the 7-11 surveillance cameras protected copyrighted
"works"?
Yes, it is.
>
> Does a photo of a Ferrari translate the protected work of the Enzo design
engineers into
> another derivative media?
Yes and no. Functional elements are not protectable under copyright.
Purely ornamental elements are protectable.
>Would a photographer, amateur, beginner or professional
> need permission from Ferrari to take a photo of ANY of their automobiles?
See above.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Or if I hire an expert painter to make me an exact replica of an
> > > > > original painting ...?
> > > >
> > > > That's a violation of the right to prepare copies.
> > >
> > > Really? Why wouldn't it be an entirely new, protected, interpretation
> > > of an existing work?
> >
> > "An exact replica" is a copy.
>
> Well if it is a new painting done by hand, then it can never be an "exact
replica" now can
> it?
I was just using your language. However, going back to your original
language, hiring a painter to create a copy of an existing protected work
would result in copyright infringement of the original work.
> If just one brush stroke or Pantone shade is different, then it is merely
a rendition.
No -- it is merely a derivative work, and the right to prepare such is one
reserved to the copyright owner.
>
> > You are, of course, free to go to whatever
> > was the source of the original painting, e.g. the woodland scene, the
> > particular model, etc. and create your own original expression based on
> > that.
>
> >You may not copy someone else's original expression.
>
> So it is always prohibited to make a expression an expression?
I don't understand what you are asking, here.
>Why isn't that
> considered a new expression unto itself?
Do you mean a copy of a copy? That's because it is a derivative work. And,
yes, the derivative work contains original expression and THAT expression is
the protected intellectual property of the person who created the derivative
work. However, he/she can not do anything with that additional protected
expression without permission from the holder of rights in the underlying
work.
>
> An artist takes a photo, another sees the photo and creates a sculpture
based upon
> the photo, a third artist sees the sculpture and paints an oil,
These examples could result in illegal copies. The test for infringement in
most jurisdictions is two-pronged: there must be (1) access to the original
work, and (2) the accused work must be "substantially similar" to the
original work. Substantial similarity is determined based on a two-pronged
analysis: (1) is the accused work objectively similar, i.e. are there a
substantial number of correspondences between the two works, and (2) is the
accused work subjectively similar, i.e. would a reasonable observer conclude
that the accused work is substantially similar to the original.
>a musician sees the oil
> painting and renders it into music,
"Renders," as you've used it hear, does not suggest copying. Though, in the
figurative sense, someone could "describe" physical appearance in music,
this clearly would not constitute "copying." The reason it would not is
obvious when you apply the infringement analysis described above.
>another hears the music and renders it into dance,
Again, no, for the same reason, though the choregrapher could not perform
the dance using the music from which it was "rendered" without permission.
> and they all violate the original photographers work ...?
See above.
>
> Seems rather improbable.
It is.
Fred the Redshirt
"Paul Tauger" <tauger...@SPAMusa.net> wrote:
>
> > A work created in any one medium is forever protected in all
> >derivative media,
> > even when the "artist" never works outside of their original media?
>
> That's right.
>
Uh, no. You slipped up here. It is not protected forever, but
only until the copyright expires. While it is protected, it is
protected in all media though.
This why it is generally safe for woodworkers to copy antiques
both for fun and profit. The copyrights on antiques, if they are
'antique enough,' will have expired.
The notion of a 'design copyright' is new to me. Is there such a
thing in copyright law, as distinct from plain old copyright?
--
Fred the Redshirt
Fallacies do the most damage when they are used in a well-intended
but ill-conceived effort to defend objective truth.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fred the Redshirt
> be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be
> considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
>
> the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
> the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
> the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole;
>
> and
>
> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work.
>
> -----
>
> That's how "personal use" can be interpretted into the doctrine.
>
> ---Mike
>
Under which of the four?
The first would apply only if your 'personal use' were 'non-profit
educational. That would apply, for example, if you were to copy a
chair for a woodworking class. It would not apply if you copy the
chair so you can sit on it while doing your homework.
The second, requires a more detailed explanation as to how the
nature of the work figure in. But, clearly this refers to the
nature of the _work_ itself, not the motivation for the copy.
The third clearly does not apply to a situation in which you
copy an entire piece of furniture. It might apply to copying
selected design elements.
The fourth might apply if the coyright holder has left the market
entirely. But if they still sell the piece being copied, then by
copying it you deprive them of a sale (to yourself) I don't think
that arguing that you're too cheap to buy one from the copyright
holder will get you very far. A trickier question is what if the
specific piece is no longer on the market, but hte copyright holder
is selling other pieces that are a functiona substitute (and how
functional)? By copying the discontinued piece, you are ostensibly
depriving them of a sale of the replacement.
E.g. copying for personal use is only permitted under fair use if
the specific personal use, is already fair use. Being a personal
use, is coincidental with whether or not it is a fair use.
Fred the Redshirt
nospam...@aol.com (Moses Knows) wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> Notice that he wrote "fair use". Making copies of a CD
> for others is not "fair use". Borrowing a CD is "fair use".
>
No, Borrowing a CD is not 'fair use.'
It's 'use.'
'Fair use' is a doctrine that applies to copying of works protected
by copyright.
Fred the Redshirt
scratcha...@aol.comkdsflk (ScratchAnkleWood) wrote:
> In article <20000915094758...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
nospam...@aol.com
>
> > Notice that he wrote "fair use". Making copies of a CD for others
is not
> >"fair use". Borrowing a CD is "fair use".
>
says
> "READ THIS" -- the same place where you immediately hit the continue
button
> without reading. You load it on ONE machine and only ONE machine uses
it. If
> you buy multiple license software, you can load it on more machines,
up to the
> number licensed. Borrowing a CD from a friend to load on your
computer is not
> covered under the agreement.
>
I don't think you disagree here. Notice he aknowledges that
copying the CD is not permitted as 'fair use.' I think he realizes
that it makes no difference if he makes the copy of if he lends to a
friend to make the copy. Either way, the copying is infringment.
But, if he lends the CD to a friend so his friend can listen to it,
that's not infringment becuase his friend is not making a copy. He's
just using it.
Fred the Redshirt
madee <ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> Previously written:
> >>>>>Praising Jesus writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The library book
> >>>>>>argument was one of the great court cases. As most people who
use the
> >>>>>>library know, you can read almost anything there. Rent movies,
music,
> >>>>>>software; read books, magazines, periodicals, journals; get
woodworking
> >>>>>>plans, clothing patterns, etc. If you are the author or creator
of some of
> >>>>>>these things, you are clearly losing sales to these places.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Actually, the argument is, you may be losing a few sales, but not
many, as
> >>>>>library readers cannot possibly buy all the books they read. ...
Regardless, the library does not make copies. Unless the library
makes a copy, or allows copies to be made, copyright is irrelevent.
Copyright restricts the right to make copies, not other rights the
owner of a copy aquires when they aquire ownership.
Copyright law does not prohibit the legal owner of a copy from
lending it, renting it, reselling it, auctioning it, giving it
away etc. It does prohibit the legal owner from copying it.
That's why the right in question is called a 'copy' right.
> >>>>>
> Most large and many small libraries now will not permit you to copy
> more that one page or perhaps just a couple. While some small copy
> shops will let you copy to your heart's content, Kinko's recently
> settled [at large cost] a case against them for permitting unlimited
> copying of text books.
>
This is where the notion of limited copying under fair use applies.
Copying a few pages (limited copying) from a larger work for
purposes of scholarship, research, etc is fair use. Copying
the entire work, is not. Note that copying a textbook is almost
certianly done for educational purposes, and yet, in the case above,
did not qualify as fair use.
But we are straying away from furniture here.
Followups.
Paul Tauger
> > >derivative media,
> > > even when the "artist" never works outside of their original media?
> >
> > That's right.
> >
>
> only until the copyright expires. While it is protected, it is
> protected in all media though.
Right. I was reading quickly and focused only on "protected in all media,"
since our discussion was about derivative works and not expiration terms.
>
> This why it is generally safe for woodworkers to copy antiques
> both for fun and profit. The copyrights on antiques, if they are
> 'antique enough,' will have expired.
>
> The notion of a 'design copyright' is new to me. Is there such a
> thing in copyright law, as distinct from plain old copyright?
No. Copyrights protect designs to the extent that they are fixed in a
tangible medium. You may be thinking of a "design patent," which covers
ornamental works in certain contexts. A design patent is administered by
the US Patent Trademark Office, rather than the Copyright Office.
Fred the Redshirt
"Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote:
> Believe it or not, there are many lawyers who will tell you this
"agreement"
> is not binding or legal. It is contrary to the stated purpose and
becomes
> void.
It is generally said that 'shrinkwrap' licenses are not binding.
The very expensive software packeages usually are purchased under
a bona fide contract of some sort and those licensing agreements
will generally be binding.
>It is like those parking garages that park your car for you, but have
> a disclaimer that says they are not responsible for things left in
your car.
> The courts have said they took money for that purpose and,
notwithstanding
> the disclaimer, they are responsible for the care of your vehicle
while it
> is in their possession.
>
I hope this is true and would love ot see some verification.
Followups.
Fred the Redshirt
sco...@aol.com (ScoopKW) wrote:
> Phil said:
>
> >My own perspective is that if an artist had created a particularly
nice
> >painting or
> >piece of jewelry and someone copied it, the artist should have the
ability to
> >act.
> >They do if they can afford to.
>
> Just ask anyone who has ever been sued by Disney.
>
Yepper.
They have the budget to do things no Mickey-Mouse outfit could.
Errr, Uhhh, never mind.
Chas.R
Renata
Perhaps it's just as *illegal*, but certainly less hazardous.
Seems ethics should be about loftier things than red light running...
Renata
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:49:10 -0400, "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net>
wrote:
>
>"Bill J" <sendnoper...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>news:8pr274$2ub$1...@news.junction.net...
>> Like everything in ethics, it's a matter of degree and judgement.
>(Example:
>> running a red light on a deserted highway at 2:00 a.m. isn't as
>'unethical'
>> as doing the same thing in a school zone at 8:30.)
>
>Actually, it is just as unethical, it just isn't as hazardous :-)
>
>
>
>
>
Fred the Redshirt
woo...@webtv.net (Chas.R) wrote:
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1092-247
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> Are these people serious!
>
> Reading this post got me to thinking about HOW the lawyers will decide
> when the FIRST human being decided to sit on a pile of sticks and not
a
> rock!. I guess whoever it was, they invented the first chair!!!!!!
>
> Following the "logic" of the people posting answers to this question,
> EVERYONE in this rec woodworking group is violating copyright laws!
>
No. If you go back through the thread and read a bit more closely
you will see that making a chair does not infringe on the copyright
for a _different_ chair.
Perhaps you are confused with patents. If we apply the logic of
some patent law decisions (Polaroid vs Kodak) then if you patent
a chair anyone else would need a license from you to build any-
thing a person could sit on.
sde...@my-deja.com
Fred the Redshirt <fredf...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39c4...@news.qn.net>,
> "Praising Jesus" <kjb...@qn.net> wrote:
> >... Under the (Copyright) Act, four factors are to
> > be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to
be
> > considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
> >
> > the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of
> > commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> >
> > the nature of the copyrighted work;
> >
> > the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> > copyrighted work as a whole;
> >
> > and
> >
> > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> > copyrighted work.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > That's how "personal use" can be interpretted into the doctrine.
> >
> > ---Mike
> >
>
> Under which of the four?
The four "fair use" tests are not applied seperately; they are by law
four factors that a court MUST consider in determining fair use,
although a court may consider other factors. The exact language of the
law (17 USC 107, http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#107)
is:
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-" and then the
list. Courts take that list plus any other relevant factors, add up the
pros and cons, and decide if a use is "fair".
> The first would apply only if your 'personal use' were 'non-profit
> educational. That would apply, for example, if you were to copy a
> chair for a woodworking class. It would not apply if you copy the
> chair so you can sit on it while doing your homework.
This test does not say commercial use is unfair and non-profit
educational use is fair, this test says consider the purpose and
character, including those aspects, which I take as examplars of a
spectrum. "Personal use" is somewhere in the middle. Making a copy of a
work you already own, so that you have a backup or to use the work in a
different way (e.g. taping an album so you can listen in the car) is a
fair use, while copying a work you don't own is less likely to be
considered fair.
> The second, requires a more detailed explanation as to how the
> nature of the work figure in. But, clearly this refers to the
> nature of the _work_ itself, not the motivation for the copy.
Right. Copying the text of a political speech is more fair than
copying the text of poem, and copying a list of facts is more fair than
that (assuming the list is even copyrightable - some lists aren't). In
the woodworking world, copying a sculpture would be less fair than
copying a "standard" chair, while copying a truly novel, creative chair
would fall somewhere in between. This is not to say that one is fair
and the other is not, but to delineate a scale that would be considered
with the other factors.
> The third clearly does not apply to a situation in which you
> copy an entire piece of furniture. It might apply to copying
> selected design elements.
Again, all the factors get applied at once. Total copying is more
unfair than partial copying, but total copying isn't a bar to "fair
use" by itself; the other factors get weighed also. For example,
copying a 5 line poem in its entirety for a class paper is likely a
fair use (while including it in a novel is probably not).
> The fourth might apply if the coyright holder has left the market
> entirely. But if they still sell the piece being copied, then by
> copying it you deprive them of a sale (to yourself) I don't think
> that arguing that you're too cheap to buy one from the copyright
> holder will get you very far. A trickier question is what if the
> specific piece is no longer on the market, but hte copyright holder
> is selling other pieces that are a functiona substitute (and how
> functional)? By copying the discontinued piece, you are ostensibly
> depriving them of a sale of the replacement.
This factor does not say that the use must have no market effect,
this factor in effect says that the more market effect you have, the
less fair it is. Thus a "personal use" copy is more fair than a copy
made on request, for sale to a friend at cost, which in turn is more
fair than making lots of copies and putting them on the market in
competition to the original. You can quote just as freely in a negative
review that keeps people from going to a show as you can in a positive
one, despite the fact that you may deprive the creator of a sale or
even cause him to lose money. Likewise, when you make a backup of
software, you potentially deprive the manufacturer of another sale.
(Yes, I know that the law explicitly allows you to make an unspecified
number of backups; if it didn't, it would likely be a fair use anyway.)
The law doesn't prohibit market effects, just "unfair" ones.
> E.g. copying for personal use is only permitted under fair use if
> the specific personal use, is already fair use. Being a personal
> use, is coincidental with whether or not it is a fair use.
I'd have to disagree. While "personal use" isn't automatically a fair
use, it's a consideration in that it will influence the analysis of the
4 statutory factors, just as educational or commercial use will. While
educational use tends to be more "fair" than not, there are certainly
such uses that are not "fair use", just as there are commercial uses
that are "fair". But as to the original question concerning
woodworking, I suspect a whole copy of a functional piece of furniture
you don't already own for actual personal functional use is probably
very close to the middle of the balance, but I suspect it's on
the "unfair" side of it. Unless there's a fully adjudicated case (all
the way to the Supreme Court), we won't know the answer with any kind
of certainty though.
I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who spends a lot of time following
copyright law.
Cathy Morgan
lofty concern to some of us.
Renata wrote in message
<39c8c5ce....@news.newsguy.com>...
Charles Self
>A photograph of an original painting can certainly be a
>copyright violation.
>
>
>>What about a photograph of an original painting?
>
Too many variables here. I'd certainly want to get a lawyer's opinion, but much
depends on the age and location of the painting and the type of photo.
A photograph MAY be a violation of copyright, but it probably is not, unless
the intent is to reproduce the oil painting from the photo, or something
equally nefariouis--selling copies of the photo, for instance.
In other words, touring a museum in NYC, or Firenze, and snapping shots of the
old masters (and some younger ones), is not apt to violate any copyrights.
Going to a gallery and taking shots of newer artists' work and then using those
photos as parts of, for example, a calendar would probably be classed as a
copyright violation.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Never lick a steak knife.
Fred the Redshirt
charl...@aol.com (Charles Self) wrote:
> Cathy Morgan writes:
>
> >A photograph of an original painting can certainly be a
> >copyright violation.
> >
> >
> >>What about a photograph of an original painting?
> >
>
> Too many variables here. I'd certainly want to get a lawyer's opinion,
but much
> depends on the age and location of the painting and the type of photo.
>
> A photograph MAY be a violation of copyright, but it probably
> is not, unless
> the intent is to reproduce the oil painting from the photo, or
> something
> equally nefariouis--selling copies of the photo, for instance.
There are four obvious circumstances under which a photo graph of
a painting would not be a violation of copyright.
1) Copyright has expired.
2) THe copy is permitted as fair use.
3) Permission is granted
4) (maybe) The painting is an incidental low resolution component
of a larger image.
>
> In other words, touring a museum in NYC, or Firenze, and snapping
shots of the
> old masters (and some younger ones), is not apt to violate any
copyrights.
For the old masters, see 1) for the new ones, it most likely is
a violation of copyright. It is also likely that the owner of
the copyright has given the museum exclusive license to make and
sell copies.
In both cases, photography without permission probably violates the
conditions under which you were admitted to the museum.
> Going to a gallery and taking shots of newer artists' work and then
using those
> photos as parts of, for example, a calendar would probably be classed
as a
> copyright violation.
Almost certainly so.
>
>
>
--
Fred the Redshirt
Fallacies do the most damage when they are used in a well-intended
but ill-conceived effort to defend objective truth.
Rob Weaver
Cheers,
Rob Weaver