charity plant sales - plant licences?
Victoria Clare
I have got involved with a dog rescue organisation, and was thinking of
growing a few plants for a sale or ebaying to raise a little cash for them.
(I know it's a bit late this year, but I'm thinking about it now)
Now, most of the things I grow are tough little sods or they would not make
it through periods when I am not concentrating properly on gardening
(horror!)
In this category, I have an almost unkillable osteospermum, a specially
tough (it appears) sort of bizzy lizzy, a few random geraniums and
pelargoniums, the dratted ivyleaved toadflax, aquilegias, a creeping
campanula, convolvulus sabatius, loads of ferns, a couple of sorts of
strawberry, leycesteria formosa, not to mention the hawthorns and hollies
that scatter themselves annoyingly about in a prolific manner.
Now most of these things shlep around my garden making more of themselves
pretty much unaided. I have so much of them I often have to howk them out
and compost them. It seems like a good fundraising tactic to stick them in
pots instead and flog them at a fair or a car boot or something like that.
HOWEVER - I have no idea where I got many of these plants. Some of them
were found already at this house, others I took with me from previous
gardens I've owned or rented, or were given to me by their owners when I
admired them in passing.
But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or
specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me
or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them.
Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just
growing on seeds?
Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--
Nick Maclaren
In article <Xns96518AEE3B2C3vi...@195.8.68.207>,
Victoria Clare <vict...@markpoles.org.uk> writes:
|>
|> But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or
|> specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me
|> or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them.
|>
|> Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just
|> growing on seeds?
If you aren't selling them as the named variety, no. An increasing
proportion of those signs are bogus, but even the ones that do refer
to genuine plant breeders' rights aren't likely to be enforced for
unidentified plants at a charity sale. However, it isn't allowed
in the latter case - though whether it applies to propagation by
self-seeding is most unclear.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
J Jackson
: In article <Xns96518AEE3B2C3vi...@195.8.68.207>,
Currently it can NEVER Apply to seed. It only applies to vegetative
propagation.
Jim
p.s. With the advent of Genetic engineering, I believe that seed bearing
the patented GM gene is covered and you could not seed save and grow
those. Though give the promiscuity of pollen, if you seed saved any
brassica within a 10mile radius of a GM Rape crop you'd have some of the
stuff in some of the seed!
Sue Begg
<nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they
would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be
pure to the 'protected' variety
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply
Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
Nick Maclaren
In article <d5nohf$jkh$1...@iss-nntp.leeds.ac.uk>,
J Jackson <j...@comp.leeds.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> Currently it can NEVER Apply to seed. It only applies to vegetative
|> propagation.
Ah. I wondered. But see below.
|> p.s. With the advent of Genetic engineering, I believe that seed bearing
|> the patented GM gene is covered and you could not seed save and grow
|> those. Though give the promiscuity of pollen, if you seed saved any
|> brassica within a 10mile radius of a GM Rape crop you'd have some of the
|> stuff in some of the seed!
That does not apply in the UK. You can't patent a gene. Yet.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <wes8YLVO...@whinhill.me.uk>,
Sue Begg <s...@myclotheswhinhill.me.uk> writes:
|>
|> I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they
|> would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be
|> pure to the 'protected' variety
It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane
person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers
think.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Sue Begg
<nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>
what sanity they produce :-))
Phil L
:: In article <wes8YLVO...@whinhill.me.uk>,
God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P
on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other
day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys'
ruling like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in your
house, or replace a pane of glass.
- To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand scale
(anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for example) you
won't get your collar felt.
--
If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs.
Mike Lyle
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>> In article <wes8YLVO...@whinhill.me.uk>,
>>> Sue Begg <s...@myclotheswhinhill.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding
then
>>>>> they would have possibly crossed with something else and would
>>>>> no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane
>>> person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers
>>> think.
>
> God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a
> capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the
> supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just
> another 'jobs for the boys' ruling
Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop
altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is
somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the
result of years of experience and training.
> like the ones where it's now
> illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane of
> glass.
It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the law
for me or my representative to read. I smell straight bananas,
wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded pages
of the Daily Mail.
> - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand
> scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for
> example) you won't get your collar felt.
That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a few
plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe a bit of
beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop, and I begin
to lose sympathy.
--
Mike.
Neil Tonks
"Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97Ofe.28659$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
> :: In article <wes8YLVO...@whinhill.me.uk>,
> :: Sue Begg <s...@myclotheswhinhill.me.uk> writes:
> ::::
> :::: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then
> :::: they would have possibly crossed with something else and would
> :::: no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety
> ::
> :: It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane
> :: person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers
> :: think.
>
> God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P
> on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other
> day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys'
> ruling like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in
> your
> house, or replace a pane of glass.
It's not illegal to replace a light switch. The new rules on electrical work
require the Local Authority's building control department to be told about
most electrical work but NOT repairs, replacements and other maintenance
work. Neither do they have to be told about the addition of extra power or
lighting points or other alterations to existing circuits unless these are
in a kitchen, bathroom or outside.
This "you need an electrician to change a bulb" stuff is a myth!
--
Neil
Visit my Peak District walking website - www.peakwalking.co.uk
Nick Maclaren
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Phil L wrote:
>>
>> God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a
>> capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the
>> supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just
>> another 'jobs for the boys' ruling
>
>Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop
>altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is
>somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the
>result of years of experience and training.
It requires neither to stick such a notice onto a variety that has
been grown since time immemorial and, unfortunately, there is no
law against such deception. I have seen such notices on varieties
that I know were not covered by a valid Plant Breeders' Right.
That is a consequence of a one-sided law.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mike Lyle
I did say "Well..." I don't want an American drug company stealing
the rights to the neem tree any more than you do. There are limits,
though.
--
Mike.
Phil L
:: Phil L wrote:
::: Nick Maclaren wrote:
::::: In article <wes8YLVO...@whinhill.me.uk>,
::::: Sue Begg <s...@myclotheswhinhill.me.uk> writes:
:::::::
::::::: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding
::::::: then they would have possibly crossed with something else and
::::::: would no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety
:::::
::::: It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane
::::: person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers
::::: think.
:::
::: God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a
::: capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the
::: supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just
::: another 'jobs for the boys' ruling
::
:: Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to
:: stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is
:: somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the
:: result of years of experience and training.
So?
My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the government to pass
a law stating that all DIY decorating should be banned.
::
::: like the ones where it's now
::: illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane
::: of glass.
::
:: It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the
:: law for me or my representative to read. I smell straight bananas,
:: wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded
:: pages of the Daily Mail.
You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member
of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing....it's
all safety and who can argue against that? - maybe decorators *will* get a
law passed, based on the stupidity of the average person who thinks he can
reach 'if I just stand on this box....'
::
::: - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand
::: scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for
::: example) you won't get your collar felt.
::
:: That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a
:: few plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe a
:: bit of beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop, and
:: I begin to lose sympathy.
Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog
12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular
supplier has lost a few quid?
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> Phil L wrote:
>>>> I noticed a
>>>> capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the
>>>> supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just
>>>> another 'jobs for the boys' ruling
>>>
>>> Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to
>>> stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys"
is
>>> somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the
>>> result of years of experience and training.
>
> So?
> My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the government
> to pass a law stating that all DIY decorating should be banned.
You are certainly far too intelligent to imagine that I'm not
intelligent enough to see why that's a load of dulux. So who is your
target audience?
>>>> like the ones where it's now
>>>> illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane
>>>> of glass.
>>>
>>> It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the
>>> law for me or my representative to read. I smell straight
bananas,
>>> wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded
>>> pages of the Daily Mail.
>
> You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be
a
> member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...
Where? Since when? By whose rules?
> it's going the same way as
> plumbing....it's all safety and who can argue against that? -
maybe
> decorators *will* get a law passed, based on the stupidity of the
> average person who thinks he can reach 'if I just stand on this
> box....'
>
>>>
>>>> - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a
grand
>>>> scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers
for
>>>> example) you won't get your collar felt.
>>>
>>> That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a
>>> few plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe
a
>>> bit of beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop,
and
>>> I begin to lose sympathy.
>
> Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and
decide
> to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been
> done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid?
Again, if you follow urg you're surely far too intelligent to imagine
that that is what plant breeders' rights are about. So why say it?
--
Mike.
Phil L
:: Phil L wrote:
::::: Phil L wrote:
::: So?
::: My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the
::: government to pass a law stating that all DIY decorating should
::: be banned.
::
:: You are certainly far too intelligent to imagine that I'm not
:: intelligent enough to see why that's a load of dulux. So who is
:: your target audience?
::
I don't know what your talking about here - I'm saying that DIY is a
free-for-all, whether it's decorating the lounge or taking cuttings from
your neighbours plants.
::: You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and
::: be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...
::
:: Where? Since when? By whose rules?
::
In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations.
http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html
:::
::: Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and
::: decide to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm
::: has been done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid?
::
:: Again, if you follow urg you're surely far too intelligent to
:: imagine that that is what plant breeders' rights are about. So why
:: say it?
Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant breeders rights
are, if they are anything like songwriters' copyrights etc, then I don't
think they have a leg to stand on, once something (whether it's Elton's new
track or a brand new bloom) is out 'in the wilderness', it's a free-for-all
again - you can't stop people from collecting seeds or taking cuttings so
why try?
Sacha
"Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog
> 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular
> supplier has lost a few quid?
>
After 20 years, you might be in the clear! But plants with Plants Breeders
Rights on them are exactly like inventions with a patent on them. You must
not produce copies (cuttings) of them. My husband has PBR on a couple of
things and I can tell you that to the breeder some plants are worth a lot of
money, depending on the demand and popularity. So, having done the work and
paid for the PBR and the trials and everything else that has to be done,
which can also cost a thousand or two, a plant breeder would have every
right to stop you selling his plants for your gain. And these things *are*
followed up to my certain knowledge. Now, all that said, nobody is going to
go after anyone who takes a few cuttings to give to friends or sell at a
charity stall - the rip off would have to be on a much larger scale than
that.
But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
breeder and it is quite possible that the breeder would take a dim view of
that if it became known. I know we certainly would. PBR is there to protect
the interests of the person who has done all the work, used their time and
their skill, spent their money, paid for the trials and licences, so
effectively, you would be taking their money away from them. I knew the man
who invented the Black & Decker workmate and some years ago he told me that
never a month went by without his agent having to fight some case over
others trying to rip them off with copies - as it is for large 'solid'
objects, so it is for PBR plants. Just because they're plants and easier to
copy (propagate) doesn't mean it isn't illegal to do so.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
Nick Maclaren
Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.
Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
as I said, I have seen them abused.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Sacha
Maclaren" <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
breeder.
Nick Maclaren
Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
>>> breeder ...
>>
>> No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
>> entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.
>>
>> Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
>> as I said, I have seen them abused.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
>brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
>would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
>to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
>breeder.
You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of
Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia
'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any
Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so.
I am happy to agree that people shouldn't propagate such varieties
improperly, but not that the royalty holder loses one fee for every
such plant so propagated.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Sacha
Maclaren" <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <BEA63042.13F2B%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>,
> Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the
>>>> original
>>>> breeder ...
>>>
>>> No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
>>> entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.
>>>
>>> Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
>>> as I said, I have seen them abused.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
>> brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
>> would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
>> to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
>> breeder.
>
> You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of
> Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia
> 'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any
> Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so.
We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And
if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
yoghurt tub.
<snip>
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and
>>>> be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...
>>>
>>> Where? Since when? By whose rules?
>>>
>
> In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations.
> http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html
Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth.
There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and
I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member
of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not
repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements,
that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site:
<Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to
repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).>
And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
life, give or take a detail or two.
It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should
approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to
self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out and
check.
On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are
rules, and everybody in the business knows them.
[...]
HTH,
--
Mike.
Nick Maclaren
In article <BEA63A8C.13F35%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>,
Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
|> plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And
|> if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
|> profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
|> they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
|> their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
|> specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
|> yoghurt tub.
Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking
about facts.
I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a
plant, only he or she has those rights.
That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct.
If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom,
rightfully, ...
That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by
the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt
that you actually know mine on this matter :-)
But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they
have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales.
They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large
majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder.
Some may, but typically only a small proportion.
If they had not done that, you would NOT have seen a comparable
jump in profit, neither in the short term nor the long.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Sacha
Maclaren" <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <BEA63A8C.13F35%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>,
> Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
> |> plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights.
> And
> |> if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
> |> profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
> |> they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
> |> their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
> |> specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
> |> yoghurt tub.
>
> Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking
> about facts.
>
> I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a
> plant, only he or she has those rights.
>
> That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct.
It is correct enough to allow the breeder or his agents to stop those who
are breeding from the mother plants without licence to do so.
>
> If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom,
> rightfully, ...
>
> That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by
> the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt
> that you actually know mine on this matter :-)
Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to
anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply
will cease to come along. It costs someone money to produce them on a small
scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or
someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid
for their work through royalties.
I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it
once before when this came up but I might be misremembering.
>
> But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they
> have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales.
> They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large
> majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder.
> Some may, but typically only a small proportion.
You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available
locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it
will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite
often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the
supplier which get passed back to the breeder.
While I agree absolutely that a few plants sold here or there doesn't bother
anyone, the fact is that those plants are sold illegally, just as the
rip-off copies of the Workmate would have been. Just recently we found
somewhere selling Bluebird and enquired of the agent as to whether these
people had paid for the right to sell it. They hadn't and were asked to
stop selling it or to obtain future plants from the wholesalers. This was
a small nursery so the numbers being sold ran only into hundreds or possibly
thousands, not just a few at a plant sale. As I say, it would have to be
someone very pernickety who objected to that.
<snip>
We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us
all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few
PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but
making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants
almost certainly would.
Nick Maclaren
In article <BEA65739.13F48%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>,
Sacha <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to
|> anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply
|> will cease to come along.
Which is why there were so few new varieties developed before that
law was passed? Oh, come now!
|> It costs someone money to produce them on a small
|> scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or
|> someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid
|> for their work through royalties.
That is true.
|> I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it
|> once before when this came up but I might be misremembering.
No, I have never expressed it on Usenet, let alone on this group.
It is not what you think, and the reason I have never posted it
is that my views on the matter are too complex and philosophical
for such a medium.
|> You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available
|> locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it
|> will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite
|> often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the
|> supplier which get passed back to the breeder.
Yes, I am. What you say is true, but you are assuming that all 144
people really want that variety - and remember that the context was
that it was being sold as an UNNAMED variety. I doubt that, of those
144, more than a dozen would buy the named variety if they had not
bought the unnamed one in a charity sale.
|> We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us
|> all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few
|> PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but
|> making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants
|> almost certainly would.
Oh, yes, quite agreed. That is a very fair summary.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tumbleweed
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ebducF...@individual.net...
<snip>
> there's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and
> I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member
> of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not
> repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements,
> that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site:
>
> <Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to
> repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
> Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).>
>
> And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
> work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
> life, give or take a detail or two.
>
Whats the site? I've just replaced a number of internal doors, would be
interesting to see what regs apply to a door! I wonder if a door purchased
from a DIY store would anyway meet the regs? And how would someone buying my
house in say 5 years time know if they had been replaced/met the regs?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Mike Lyle
The site is:
http://www.fensa.co.uk/faq.html#1
I can't imagine what relevance it might have to _interior_ doors.
Well, I suppose there must be something to stop idiots using ordinary
glass at child height in interior doors, but you wouldn't have done
that.
I don't know when you last sold a house, but these days purchasers'
surveyors are extremely picky and own-arse-covering (I bear the
psychological scars a year later!) It helps a lot if you've got
evidence of Building Regs approval, too; a certificate from a FENSA
member is apparently equivalent.
--
Mike.
Phil L
:: The message <wnQfe.28775$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
:: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
::
::
::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant
::: breeders rights are,
::
:: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue
:: about?
Is that the Royal 'we'?....don't presume that you speak for anyone else on
this group or any other because you don't, no - one does.
I advised the OP to take no notice of 'the winged monkeys of death' notices,
if there are any...she asked whether there would be 'trouble', which
obviously there will not...from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than
stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop
individuals from doing what they want.
ever.
Sacha
US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Phil L"
<neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
> more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than
> stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop
> individuals from doing what they want.
> ever.
>
"from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise other
people on a potential legal question.
Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What will deter
individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume and intention and the
reaction of the plant breeders' agents to both.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Phil L
:: On 10/5/05 19:15, in article
:: US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Phil L"
:: <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
:: <snip>
::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do
::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them,
::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want.
::: ever.
:::
::
:: "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise
:: other people on a potential legal question.
OK, what I should have said is, "go ahead and do what you like, no one has
ever been prosecuted in the UK for infringing these PBR's"
Wake up and smell the coffee Sacha! - imagine if the OP is at her Charity
sale and the owner of the PBR *himself* walks past (the one person out of 60
million in the UK) what is he to do? - phone the police?....even without the
astonomical odds of this happening aside, do you think that:
A) the police either know or care about this law?
B) can spare the manpower to deal with it?
C) would attend the scene at all if there were no firearms involved?
:: Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What
:: will deter individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume
:: and intention and the reaction of the plant breeders' agents to
:: both.
As I said earlier, can you point me in the direction of an *individulal*
being sucessfully prosecuted in the UK?
The OP was talking about a car boot sale or similar, hardly Kew Gardens is
it?
IMV these laws are aimed at companies and other nurseries stealing the
copyright or PBR of another, once they are sold to the general public, no
one has *any* kind of control over what happens next and rightly so.
Victoria Clare
Sounds like I can get on with potting up my surpluses.
I'n not planning to take cuttings of anything that I know to be a specific
named, protected variety, or sell any plants as named types, but, for
example, I know I have at least four different 'named varieties' of
strawberry plant in the garden, plus a couple of things which probably had
names once but not by the time I got them.
Given the habits of strawberry plants and the regrettable inattention I
have paid them over the last 8 months ;-), I have no idea which the ones
that have generously planted themselves all the way down my bark path are.
I'm fairly sure one of the varieties had a label threatening winged monkeys
of death (or similar), but I don't know which one is which.
Now I know that no-one is likely to be checking, or bothered about it, I
can just mark them 'strawberry' (which will at least be accurate, if brief)
and leave it at that.
Now I think about it, I think the 'winged monkey' protected strawberry was
also described as an old French variety.
Surely it can't be a traditional variety and a protected genetic variant
???
Victoria
Sacha
yk9ge.29439$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Phil L"
<neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sacha wrote:
> :: On 10/5/05 19:15, in article
> :: US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Phil L"
> :: <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::
> :: <snip>
> ::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
> ::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do
> ::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them,
> ::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want.
> ::: ever.
> :::
> ::
> :: "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise
> :: other people on a potential legal question.
>
> OK, what I should have said is, "go ahead and do what you like, no one has
> ever been prosecuted in the UK for infringing these PBR's"
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee Sacha! - imagine if the OP is at her Charity
> sale and the owner of the PBR *himself* walks past (the one person out of 60
> million in the UK) what is he to do?
<snip>
I clearly said that I doubted anyone would worry about a few plants at a
charity sale BUT that if you intended to make yourself a business out of
someone else's property, you could be in trouble. If you have reading and
comprehension difficulties I'm afraid that's not my problem.
Nick Maclaren
Victoria Clare <vict...@markpoles.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Now I think about it, I think the 'winged monkey' protected strawberry was
>also described as an old French variety.
>
>Surely it can't be a traditional variety and a protected genetic variant
>???
That is precisely what I was referring to as bogus claims. There is
(in general) no law in the UK against false advertising, false claims
of legal constraints and so on. And it is a hell of a lot cheaper to
make such claims than it is to do the work to justify them!
For example, "shrink-wrap licences", most of the Web pages that say
"By clicking on the button, you accept ..." are void in law. There
is no valid contract, and therefore no licence. But there is no
law against making a claim that there is, and precious little against
actually persecuting you on bogus grounds.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Chris Bacon
> You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member
> of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing....
You don't, in most domestic cases. What about greenhouses?
> it's all safety and who can argue against that?
There are lots of arguments against over- or inappropriate regulation.
Phil L
:: The message <US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
::::: The message <wnQfe.28775$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
::::: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
:::::
:::::
:::::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant
:::::: breeders rights are,
:::::
::::: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue
::::: about?
::
::: Is that the Royal 'we'?....
:: No, it's the plural "we" . Several people other than myself
:: noticed your cluelessness in this thread, concerning PBR, glazing
:: and electrical regulations, and corrected your wrong information.
::
Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows nor
install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and covered
by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking
price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs for
the boys' jibe.
::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do
::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them,
::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want.
::: ever.
::
:: PBR legislation applies equally to individuals who propagate for
:: commercial use without a licence.
::
I have not said otherwise, only that nothing will happen if she (the OP)
does - try reading the OP - she asked for opinions on whether she would be
in trouble, not legal advice - that would have been sent to uk.legal and not
a gardening group - opinions - IE 'has anyone ever heard of anyone getting
dusted?', my answer is a resounding NO! and I've yet to hear from anyone in
here that they have heard of it happening either.
Phil L
:: Phil L wrote:
::: Mike Lyle wrote:
:: [...]
:::::: You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work
:::::: and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...
:::::
::::: Where? Since when? By whose rules?
:::::
:::
::: In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations.
::: http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html
::
:: Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth.
::
:: There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site,
:: and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a
:: member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement
:: installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to
:: meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A
:: sample from the site:
::
:: <Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed
:: to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
:: Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).>
It's not just replacement windows (IE frames) it's glazing in general, the
actual frames are never going to fall out and kill someone, but if you
install ordinary glass (as opposed to toughened) below a certain height and
someone falls into it and cuts themselves or worse, you can go to jail,
unless of course you are a member of FENSA, pretty much like the members of
CORGI, they are covered, both insurance wise and from those above who carry
out 'investigations'.
:: And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
:: work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
:: life, give or take a detail or two.
::
:: It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should
:: approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to
:: self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out
:: and check.
What I'm saying is that these pieces of legislation are in place for no
other reason than to line the pockets of those who pushed to get them
introduced.
::
:: On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are
:: rules, and everybody in the business knows them.
::
But the general public just download whatever music they like without fear
of the law.
Mike
> Phil L wrote:
> > You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a
member
> > of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing....
You don't need to be in anything to replace glass. But if you replace a
whole window you either need FENSA or a building control application.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze
> windows nor install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained'
> to do so and covered by various bits of legal claptrap....if you
pay
> the government the asking price, you can get all kinds of everyday
> stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs for the boys' jibe.
I don't quite understand why you keep saying this. The man in the
street is in no way restrained from glazing his own windows, or
installing his own electrics. He can also rip out all his windows and
doors and fit entirely new ones if he wants to; but he has to comply
with Building Regs, and, apart from anything else, may have trouble
getting a purchaser's surveyor to OK the house if he doesn't. That
isn't new. An authorised professional window fitter can self-certify
his materials and installation, thus saving everybody time and
money -- that's the reverse of "jobs for the boys", though I don't
personally trust it.
>
>>>> from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
>>>> more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do
>>>> no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing
them,
>>>> it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want.
>>>> ever.
>>>
>>> PBR legislation applies equally to individuals who propagate
for
>>> commercial use without a licence.
>>>
>
> I have not said otherwise, only that nothing will happen if she
(the
> OP) does - try reading the OP - she asked for opinions on whether
she
> would be in trouble, not legal advice - that would have been sent
to
> uk.legal and not a gardening group - opinions - IE 'has anyone ever
> heard of anyone getting dusted?', my answer is a resounding NO! and
> I've yet to hear from anyone in here that they have heard of it
> happening either.
But everybody with an opinion on it has been agreeing with you, very
clearly, in the case of the OP's small-scale charitable project.
They -- we -- also went on to describe circumstances in which a
breeder would, and in one case did, invoke his or her legal rights
(nothing to do with the Police or "busting", by the way: this is
Civil Law).
You're not one of those rare people who finds being agreed with just
as distasteful as being disagreed with, I hope. I find them very
difficult to talk to.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Sorry: didn't see this before posting my last. No, I can't
necessarily go to jail for it: nobody mentioned the criminal law. I
can be sued, of course, and serve me right; but that costs money, not
liberty.
>
>
>>> And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
>>> work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all
my
>>> life, give or take a detail or two.
>>>
>>> It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you
should
>>> approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to
>>> self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out
>>> and check.
>
> What I'm saying is that these pieces of legislation are in place
for
> no other reason than to line the pockets of those who pushed to get
> them introduced.
I see no pocket-lining mechanism here. If anything, it may be a
tax-saving measure by reducing the need for building inspectors; so I
suppose it lines your pockets and mine a little bit.
>>> On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are
>>> rules, and everybody in the business knows them.
>>>
>
> But the general public just download whatever music they like
without
> fear of the law.
No doubt, and the industry doesn't like it. But start selling pirate
discs on a market stall, and things may get more exciting.
--
Mike.
Kay
<sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us
>all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few
>PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but
>making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants
>almost certainly would.
I think you're both agreed on that. But what Nick seems to be saying is
that just because someone has illicitly propagated and sold 1000 plants
doesn't mean to say you have lost 1000 sales. Not all of those who
bought the 1000 plants would otherwise have approached you, by mail
order or otherwise.
You could argue that you have lost 1000 'royalties' ... except that, had
the other guy been licensed, he'd probably have had to sell the plants
at a higher price to cover that, and so may only have sold 850 of them,
not 1000 ;-)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"
Alan Holmes
But in an old house how would anyone know if the fittings were not
original, and who would keep builders bills from 20 or 30 years ago?
--
alan
reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net
Alan Holmes
"Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jasge.29985$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Janet Baraclough wrote:
> :: The message <US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> :: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> ::
> ::: Janet Baraclough wrote:
> ::::: The message <wnQfe.28775$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> ::::: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> :::::
> :::::
> :::::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant
> :::::: breeders rights are,
> :::::
> ::::: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue
> ::::: about?
> ::
> ::: Is that the Royal 'we'?....
> ::
> :: No, it's the plural "we" . Several people other than myself
> :: noticed your cluelessness in this thread, concerning PBR, glazing
> :: and electrical regulations, and corrected your wrong information.
> ::
>
> Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows
> nor
> install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and
> covered
> by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking
> price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs
> for
> the boys' jibe.
I've done both of those, in two houses, together with building a brick
garage and altering the house.
When can I expect to go to prison?
Alan Holmes
"Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jasge.29985$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> :: The message <US6ge.29343$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> :: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> ::
> ::: Janet Baraclough wrote:
> ::::: The message <wnQfe.28775$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> ::::: from "Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> :::::
> :::::
> :::::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant
> :::::: breeders rights are,
> :::::
> ::::: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue
> ::::: about?
> ::
> ::: Is that the Royal 'we'?....
> ::
> :: No, it's the plural "we" . Several people other than myself
> :: noticed your cluelessness in this thread, concerning PBR, glazing
> :: and electrical regulations, and corrected your wrong information.
> ::
>
> Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows
> nor
> install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and
> covered
> by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking
> price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs
> for
> the boys' jibe.
I've done both of those, in two houses, together with building a brick
Alan Holmes
But in an old house how would anyone know if the fittings were not
original, and who would keep builders bills from 20 or 30 years ago?
--
alan
reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in [...]
>> I can't imagine what relevance it might have to _interior_ doors.
>> Well, I suppose there must be something to stop idiots using
ordinary
>> glass at child height in interior doors, but you wouldn't have
done
>> that.
>>
>> I don't know when you last sold a house, but these days
purchasers'
>> surveyors are extremely picky and own-arse-covering (I bear the
>> psychological scars a year later!) It helps a lot if you've got
>> evidence of Building Regs approval, too; a certificate from a
FENSA
>> member is apparently equivalent.
>
> But in an old house how would anyone know if the fittings were not
> original, and who would keep builders bills from 20 or 30 years
ago?
Well, I suppose a professional surveyor could sometimes tell, and
sometimes not tell -- I quite strongly suspect he'd get it right more
often than not (in a really old house it would usually be obvious to
anybody, of course). It's not so much the builder's bills as the
Building Regs evidence; but it would be rash to not to keep the
bills, as you might want to make a claim.
But having just sold a partly-new and partly-old house under the new
rules, I very strongly urge everybody to take these things seriously.
I lost my first potential purchaser because of an over-cautious
surveyor's report: thank Heaven, the next offer came from people
whose surveyor expressed himself differently though describing the
same things.
--
Mike.