Protecting boat designs and plans?

[ben2go]

I have a question about protecting my design and plans.Is it worth it to copyright my plans?I know some people do this and issue a license with the plans to build a boat.I also know it's easy for someone to copy a design and make subtle changes to avoid copyright infringement.I talk to a copyright lawyer and he had never dealt with boat plans.So what's everyone's opinion on this?Would my plans and the boat hold value better if the plans are copyright protected?

[masalai]

That could lead to a difficulty if your plans included something that was copyright by a bigger (permanent lawyers on staff) design house.... - Just a clause on the issuance of the plans to a builder for the right to build one boat - see your lawyer....

[Ike]

What you need to look up the following:
The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (US) Overview and analysis of the VHDPA http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

Federal Protection for Vessel Hull Designs US Patent and Trademarks Office http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/archives/2002/march-02-anti.htm

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act is an attempt by the Gov to prevent copyright infringement and hull splashing. It is not a copyright. Not exactly anyway. I'm not a lawyer and the legal difference escapes me. But essentially it says you can register a design with the patent office. Of course first they check to make sure someone hasn't already registered a very similar design.

The problem here is, there is very little that hasn't been tried in the boat design biz. Most hull shapes have been around forever. Very few designs are patented, however variations on the design are.

Anyway I hope the links help.

[ben2go]

Thanks.

[PAR]

Peter it falls under "Intellectual Property", which is a way of protecting clever engineering, styling or innovation that doesn't directly fall under a patent or copyright. Most just copyright their work which makes things simple and defensible under the intellectual properties portion of the law.

Every design I've seen has had some interesting twist or approach and solutions to common problems. How a designer handled the chain plate loads, mast steps or other notable piece of thinking. In themselves not sufficient to warrant an application, but the product as a whole worthy of some protection. I know I can recognize most designers work, just by the way they draw up their plans. This in itself is protectable under copyright.

[Frosty]

So you have a copyright and years later you find some one copied it at the other side of the world. No one knows the builder or they went bust. What would you do?

Even if they had'nt gone bust and were still making them all you can do is try to stop them from making anymore . You could try to suit them I suppose,--but if they don't have money and speak a funny language.

Unless some one big is mas producing them there is not a lot you can do that wont cost you more than its all worth.

[Wynand N]

. You could try to suit them I suppose...

And the only winners are the lawyers :(

[Ike]

PAR, you are correct, and yes it can be copyrighted, but try to collect. Boston Whaler has been fighting that battle ever since they first started making the now famous 13 foot Boston Whaler. Just look around at how many builders make a boat just like it, well almost like it. Just enough different to keep the lawyers from the door.

However, many designers do copyright their work. It makes them feel safer, but with all the cases of splashing going on I doubt it does much good.

An example. Back in 1986 or 87 I visited a boat manufacturer in Longview Texas, He very proudly showed me his "latest" model. He was in the midst of splashing a Ranger (bass boat) hull. And then he said, oh, but we are going to change this, and that, and that,.....etc. He didn't seem to understand or care that what he was doing was stealing. And I'm sure he thought I was an ass for asking. But he wasn't breaking any Federal Laws, and I was constrained by Federal law from revealing his "trade secrets".

This is just one (probably the most blatant) of many instances of this I have seen. So all the anit-splashing laws and the Vessel Hull Design law have been passed to try and curtail it. But with over 4800 boat builders in the US and Canada and thousands more around the world, it doesn't do much good. You just have to go with what you got and hope others don't try to copy it.

I know this sounds cynical but then I guess it is.

[ben2go]

Thanks everyone for the info.I'm not selling plans for a living.My design is a simple utility design.It is a spin off of a boat that has already been copied by hundreds of manufactures.It just seems that ever time I build a boat people ask where they can purchase one.After I tell them I built it myself, they either want me to build one for them or want build plans.Liability is to much for me to build for someone,so next best thing I can do is offer plans.So,I guess it isn't worth the effort to protect the plans.They will be sold in a binder with pictures.

[duluthboats]

If you produce original material (text, drawings, graphics, art) they are covered by copyright law. The only thing you need a lawyer for is to enforce your rights because no one else will do it for you. The market for small boat plans is not that big. If you put out a good package and it sells well don’t be surprised when it shows up on e-bay.
Gary

[PAR]

Peter, I understand the realities of the protection laws and also have seen hulls being splashed.

The simple truth is you have to "defend" your rights, which most don't nor have the pockets to do.

Boston Whaler's suit has some issues that has kept it unresolved and in my opinion they're not deserving. In a nut shell their 13' boat is a knock off of a knock off. They used Jackson's work, which was based on Hickman's work, then later modified, because they didn't think they could sell a true "sled" design. With Both Hickman and Jackson's efforts in the public domain, Whaler doesn't really have much of a right to bitch. Jackson is the one that should have been taken to court, but there's the rub, Hickman's work wasn't protected.

The bottom line is unless you've got a fair amount of experience with this type of law, just show up with the best attorney you can afford. Unless you can afford to defend your law provided protection, across the average litigation of 7 years, then you shouldn't bother trying, which is what most do. It's really a simple business decision. Drag out the legal ramblings until the other party loses interest, money or appeal. In the long run, this isn't the cheapest approach, but is the most successful. Eventually it's a "last man standing" thing, with the deeper of the two pockets out lasting the other. Welcome to free enterprise.

[Frosty]

Some would say that those who buy a cheap copy would never buy the real thing anyway. There is something in that when you talk of copy Rolex, the copy guy would never buy a real one one so no damage is actually done to Rolex. same with the Guchi bags etc etc .

Colvic marine makes a a copy Swan, they say its a copy and don't call it a Swan. However if they pay a royalty or not I do not know.

However a Colvic is bought as hull or parts there of, the real Swan is millions and therefore the copy buyer would never ever buy a Swan anyway.

[Ike]

Par, well said. Exactly my point.

[Poida]

I'm wondering how they would ever come to a decision whether a design has been copied or not. Who makes the final decision? A judge. Unless he/she is an expert in building design a boat hull would look like a boat hull. So the two parties would have the same old setup in all disputes. One side pays someone like a navel engineer to say they are different and the other side does the same to say they are not.

As someone has already pointed out he who runs out of money first loses.

Rather than worry about someone stealing your design, I think in business it is better to concentrate on a good quality product and good customer service.

[PAR]

Judges are constantly the "dumb" one in regard to any particular issue, but that's why "experts" are provided as witnesses. The judge doesn't have to know anything at all about boat design, just the points of law that are being challenged, of which he is the expert.

[Fanie]

Exactly when are you stealing someone else's property wrt a boat ?

If you see a boat someone else has designed, and you get an idea to build the same thing without actually copying ie the hull, is it still stealing it if you design it yourself ?

As far as I can see, if someone designs a hull that has say for some reason a specific shape that makes it much faster than it's peers, then despite patients, despite copyright, in a short span of time many other builders suddenly have almost the same thing to offer, probably with said or mock improvements.

Everyone in any trade is learning from others that design or build things. To copy something exactly I have a problem with because you are stealing someone else's intellectual property. But if you design the same thing is it copying it ? I know it is competition for the first guy, but is it illegal ?

If it is illegal, why are there so many manufacturers of the same product. Take TV, GPS, cars. Cars good grief if one makes a new shape RV then the rest brings theirs out and mostly if not exactly the same shape and features, and they are all competition for one another. Frosty may have a point here, the guy who cannot afford the BMW is going to buy the Mazda look-alike because he wasn't going to buy the beemer in the first place.

So in this respect I agree with Poida - Better quality product and better customer service at competitive pricing. This is what brings improvement, innovation and lifestyle.

If not, and only one person has the right to manufacture and supply an item then there is not going to be any improvements and all have to be content with what they get, the existing not developed unrefined product. Remember this if your doctor next time uses really old primitive equipment on you :D

Sorry for bringing a political issue up, but in SA there are far too may monopoly's and the result is poor service, exploitation (overly expensive), and prosecution of those that dare try a competitive service or product.

[Fanie]

As for the boat plans ben2go, as far as I know copyright exists on any and all of your intellectual property. Anyone making an illegal copy of your documents can be prosecuted, same if they sell it.

In the event of someone else selling the same thing but designed by him I doubt you can prosecute him - As far as I know he must be able to prove the development and process he used to derive the results he now offers.

Be lousy if someone does offer your exact design as competition.

One other thing wrt patent and copyright. I see in the US it seems everyone there patent anything. As far as I know you cannot patient something that is already existing or that has been done or used before. A patient is something to protect the new and unique design that was thought up or initiated by you (your intellectual property) so that someone else cannot use your 'thing' and put you out of business.

Surprise surprise, most of the 'patents' I see on the internet is either old technology or is something I know has been in use for years. Just because the original guy didn't go to the trouble to get it patented doesn't mean it's now open for anyone to claim that patent.

I'm no expert on legal stuff, but there was a time I tried to find out when and what to or not to patent. In the end I came to the conclusion that to patent costs money, lawyers are not our friends, others will steal your exact design and claim it is theirs.

[PAR]

There's nothing wrong with doing the work, coming to similar conclusions or using similar approaches or solutions to issues. It stands to reason that like minded folks will generate similar answers.

Splashing is quite different, in that you literally use one boat as the plug mold for another, direct copy. It's done fairly often, particularly if the design has an advantage of some sort.

Yes, concepts will be employed in other design efforts, but you can pursue if you desire it and have the pockets. The wings on Australia II sprouted on nearly every appendage the follow year, each with their creator's own twist. Yep, they were wings and nothing new to the industry, but the new ones were developed independently, in other words the work was done, not hijacked.

What most attempt to do is offer a brand specific set of shapes, that are clearly specific and easily identifiable. Whaler's bottom, Grady's sheer, etc. This makes splashing more difficult to hide.

Patents are on objects, copyright is to protect less tangible things, like music or artwork. Copyright was expanded to cover intellectual property rights when the current laws weren't able to cover software sufficiently. It has since been modified and tested to also cover "design" efforts across many industries.

Of course you can't stop some from stealing, regardless of the laws. You can make them give up much of the profits they've gained as a result of the theft, once the appeals process is worn through.

It's a misnomer to think all you have to do is make a slight change to a design or device and apply for a new patent, you can't. It has to be a new approach, though could and usually is based on previous efforts of someone else.

If a new innovation does turn up, it's perfectly okay to incorporate similar changes into your next project, so long as you do the work and offer a substantial difference in approach.

Bulb keels are a classic example of this. No two are alike and each design team can justify the decisions made in regard to it's unique shape.

As to getting a patent on something that wasn't previously patented, yes, you certainly can. It's not uncommon to find a device or design in the public domain without protection, re-engineer it and apply for protection. Many a song writer has learned this lesson the hard way, as they didn't copyright their stuff, but the record label did and now the record company owns the rights, not the performer that dreamed up the work.

If you don't get the protection and get spanked, who's fault is it? If you do get the protection and permit a spanking anyway, who's fault is it?

Bottom line, copyright your stuff. If it's good enough to be hijacked it's good enough to defend. Most that have splashed or stolen property will happily give up after a few phone calls from an attorney. The remaining few hold outs will risk losing everything and having assets frozen until the mater is settled, which many just can't afford (the reason they splashed in the first place) or have deep enough pockets to beat you down in the waiting game.

[Fanie]

Bottom line, copyright your stuff.

Is copyright something you have to apply for or is it something you are covered for under the law ?

[Ike]

Now that's the 60 million $ question. An example. I do some photography. I have had copyright law explained to me by supposed experts that the split second I take the photo, it is mine an no one else can use it without my permission. (there is an exception to all copyrights called the fair use doctrine. See the bottom of any page on my web site). However. The dificulty is in the proof. Digitial photos are easy. Buried in all that data is what is called an EXIF file containing the date and time the photo was taken, and the camera settings. If you have a more expensive camera like mine it also says the camera make, model, serial number and my name. for photos or paintings, sculpture, artwork etc, you don't have to send in anything for a copyright. It's automatically coveredas long as you say right on it or next to it where everyone can see it, copyright@year and name.

But how do you prove you came up with an idea before some one else, if you don't actually file a copyright with the patent and trademark office?? So as PAR said copyright it. With most intellectual property the procedure is simple and does not require a lawyer (Praise God) You fill out a form (available on line) and send them a copy of the item to be copyrighted. There may be a fee. There usually is with the Government. I'd have to look it up. Voila, it's done.

Patents are a whole different animal requiring patent searches and special patent drawings and so on. It's royal pain in the ass. But once it's patented, it's yours.

[Ike]

By the way, look here for all the information you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

[PAR]

Actually if you've applied for copyright previously, all you have to do in the future to have protection is post a circle C, the year and a signature or initials in a plainly visible location.

On my posted work, I often include the circle C after the model name, but in micro print the full blown syntax as they suggest, which is often buried in the clutter of the drawing. Any copies of the drawing will pixilated or will erase the micro print, but the original has it "plainly visible", which is easy proved with it in hand or on a high resolution image.

You can also "group" things together. I have a few "series" of design, all along a similar theme and covered by this grouped copyright. It saves some paper work. This was developed for artists and song writers, so each song on an album or numbered prints would have to have separate filings made for each.

[Frosty]

If I go to a comedy show, can I repeat the jokes he told the next day at work.

When I cemented my house I put in broken glass from the car window shop, it sparkles at night . A bloke down the road has done the same thing ,--can I sue him.

I also invented port and Stbd socks, red on the left and green on the right. Everyone knew me by this , now another bloke is doing it.

He has stolen my identity.

I guess a good idea is a good idea.

By the way --this post is unique ,--it is mine- the words are placed in such a way as no one has ever placed them before.

I dont want any one using this post---(pat pending) if you want to,--then you have to give me money, then its Ok. Its not the principle its the money that I want.

[Wynand N]

Frosty, you just about summed it up :D

Patents are technology and need to be protected by its inventor for financial gain or just fame perhaps:confused:

However, boats are as old as man himself and nothing is new. Most boats look the same, moreso with the smaller speed/fish boat variety.
Imagine yourself of the billions of people on this blue planet, how many are boat builders per se. I would say quite a few million. These millions of boat builders builds how many boat each?
Or, lets say each boat builder design/build one boat each, chances are very good some will unintentionally duplicate each other without even seen others work....

Best way to go about is to create/design/build your "unique" boat, get it on the market, advertise well and make a killing because others will soon follow. That said, keep your quality, backup and service up to speed and lead the way and all should be well.

As a side note; the greatest compliment a boat designer/builder can get is when others start coping his work;) - means something was done right.

Lastly, USA are well known internationally as a "paranoid" nation where you can sue anyone for just about anything, no matter how ridicule, and do so as a way of life. I really do not want to be a businessman down there..:D :D

[PAR]

Actually you could be dragged into court for not paying royalty fees to the joke writer, if their stuff was copyrighted and you tried to make money off it. Sure people talk and telling a joke is no harm, but making money off it, can land you in hot water.

I'm reasonably sure you can't sue the broken glass idea thief down the street, because you didn't apply for protection prior to the offence, not to mention I'm pretty sure they were doing this in the middle ages (your childhood?), which long since places it in the public domain.

Your not old enough to clam the port/starboard socks thing, though your icon looks like you're close. A false clam of invention is fraud and punishable. Honestly, no really wants your identity anyway.

Yes, you posts are always unique and it's fortunate we have this public and open forum to hear them. Since you posted without reference to copyright protection, suggesting you didn't have any at the time of the posting, you're **** out of luck on this one too. Nice try though.

In reality, the only reason for these laws is to keep others from unfairly profiting from your efforts. That's all they do. They don't tell you what you can and can't say or build. Just don't be a whore and you're not likely to be involved in a suit.

There are countries much worse then the USA for law suits Wynand. Yet other countries that don't bother with suits, they just shoot you having dinner at a cafe, then steal you ideas or project.

[Fanie]

Ha Frosty ! I knew stealing that middle ages avatar was going to land you in deep water for using it for personal gain here on the copyright forum :D

[Frosty]

No probs fanie just felt like a change,--you know a bit of fresh air.

Its just a picture of no one in particular, I didnt say it is or is not of anyone. Nore am I writing this to any one in particular in fact it not writing at all really its just drivel. When I say drivel I dont mean that I say it is drivel or is not but resembles drivel ,---in my opinion.

[Fanie]

Par, you seem to know more about the legal stuff than we do - or what I do for that matter.

Tell more...

[PAR]

I've been through it a few times and had the misconceptions that most have.

When I was younger, my designs attempted to steal market share from well entrenched designs, leaving me with few sales and the very prospect of having concepts and engineering solutions hijacked.

I've learned and now don't try to design a better "Catalina 22", but rather a different approach to a similar design brief. This removed restraints across many aspects of the final products and things improved for me.

Each designer is commonly known for something(s) and is typically associated with it. I guess I'm getting known for certain design elements too now, I'm just glad it's not for "box boats".

Frosty, the skipper of the Titanic?

[Fanie]

One thing is for sure, I'm not allowing anything I have to go remotely by the name 'Titanic' or any variation there of.

Sometimes something just isn't destined to be.

At least we now have someone to pester about legal matters if it comes to that :D

[joz]

I have a question for you, what about those boats that are designed to a box rule to which you are given a set of specifications where is the copyright there?

[PAR]

Just because you've designed to a rule doesn't mean you've released your protection under copyright. They are two distinctly different things.

[lylelirette]

I'm new to the board and I've been trying to find a discussion on this topic. I'm the research stage of possibly building a mahogany boat based on a mid-70s to early 80s fiberglass hull more spacifically a sleekcraft aristocrat a boat that's no longer in production but the company still in buisness. I planned on building one for myself but I might be persuaded to build more if there is enough enterest. Of course i'm not talking mass production. 15-20 if I live long enough. Wouldn't mind a little input on fiberglass to wood conflict or does design rights apply .

[ancient kayaker]

Does the copyright apply to the drawing(s) or the design represented thereby? In the art world copyright applies to the image or form, in the literature world it applies to the sequence of words, but a design is more than the lines on the page, isn't it? If the design itself is covered by the copyright then someone redrawing and marketing it could face litigation. Of course, even the slightest change puts the success of the litigation at risk. If the copyright just covers the document then a redraw gets around it.

What is the situation of someone recreating a classic boat, under the same name? As a paddler I can name the Wee Lassie by Rushton which was built in the 1880's but there are dozens of variations now, including versions that have been enlarged to accommodate the greater body mass of today's public, but they still go under the same name. I myself have a version that I might market (if I can build it). The Adirondack Museum sells plans for the original boat and presumably has the right to do so; the museum folk don't seem to pursue the commercial users of either the design or the name; at the price they charge for the plans it probably isn't worth it. Nonetheless, and unlike a lot of people, I am concerned about the ethics.