Can anyone find a more beautiful boat?

[John Swarbrick Yacht Designer]

Cooky :

The 4 judges of the Federal Courts "quote" could not see the why Yacht Design / Naval Architecture was any different to the design works of the designer of buildings (Architecture). Why should designers of buildings be exempt from registering their works.

The High Courts reasoning is unsupported, further the defense (of copying my design) was Innocent Infringement of Copyright. As history now reveals a member of the infringing party has been found guilty of stealing part of the Design works they were claiming innocence to.

[Tad]

Originally Posted by John Swarbrick Yacht Designer

The High Court of Australia have reasoned that one of my designs did not posses any real (substantial) artistic expression,

I should read the full ruling before saying anything.....but.....As your design is a unique creation, in my opinion it is art. My Merriam-Webster defines ART as....4: the use of skill and imagination in the production of things of beauty; also : works so produced.

I know it took skill and imagination to create your design, and it is unquestionably beautiful, but of course "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Even though a hull section (curve) or surface can be created from a simple mathematic equation, no equation can tell us the "right" stem profile, or the "correct" sheer line.

Someone on this forum was crowing about a computer program that "designed" hulls perfectly every time. Any designer with experience knows that is rubbish. Even if it were possible, there would have to be art in the creation of the program.

[Tcubed]

Yeah i'm with you on that. As far as i know there has yet to exist a computer that has imagination, or that truly can come up with an idea all on its own. Therefore, whether it's pencil and splines or the latest super duper design program, they're still just tools for the human brain to use to get the idea into concrete form.

Sorry to learn about your case Swarbrick, definitely has me reconsidering my operating procedures to protect myself...

[Tcubed]

If the main virtue in life has become just outsmarting your fellow man, then we live in dismal times indeed. Common decency merits some following too.

I don't know the whole story here but i don't think registering one's designs is yet all that standard practice. Taking advantage of legal loopholes to 'outsmart' someone else does'nt make it right.

The boats mass produced in Taiwan at the end of the seventies largely used W. Garden's designs. However, as they were far too cheap to pay Garden they would modify them just enough to get away with it. It probably doesn't need clarification that none of their modifications improved the designs...

[Raggi_Thor]

I saw this today, for sale, that's a beautiful boat for a reasonable price

http://www.finn.no/finn/boat/object?finnkode=18937311

[mwatts]

Anything built by Frauscher:

[Landlubber]

mwatts,

Yep, they count.......

[peter radclyffe]

[eponodyne]

Looks like it might want to list to port a little.

[Verytricky]

My new favourite boat is about to be built!! And it uses my very own hull design. The top side is completely different, but the bit that counts for me is the bit that runs in the water!!

[Willallison]

A CELEBRATED America's Cup yacht designer faces financial hardship after the High Court ruled former employees could copy his design of a popular yacht.

In the decision, announced yesterday, the court said former employees could also sell the design overseas because it was not a "work of artistic craftmanship".

John Swarbrick, 51, a prominent West Australian yachtsman who designed Kookaburra I, II and III for Australia's unsuccessful defence of the America's Cup in 1987, last night said he was shocked and stunned by the judgment.

The ruling means that several Perth businessmen who paid just $7500 for the moulding of a popular racer, the JS 9000, are allowed to make exact copies of the 30-footer and sell them in Australia and overseas for up to $65,000 each.

The court unanimously found that businessmen Sergio Zaza and Glen Bosman, as well as Mr Swarbrick's former employees Benjamin Warren, Trevor Rogers and Brent Burge, were entitled to copy the yacht's design.

Neither the fibreglass yacht moulding nor the wooden boat-shaped "plug" from which it was made were covered by copyright law because the JS 9000 was not "a work of artistic craftmanship", the court found. The design had no other protection because Mr Swarbrick had not registered it under either the Designs Act 1906 or 2003, the court found.

Mr Swarbrick said he believed his design certainly was a work of artistic craftmanship; he considered yacht design an art and a science and had handcrafted the yacht's plug and moulding over two years.

"It's just disgusting to think that all my work and experience can be ripped off like that," Mr Swarbrick said.

"I think naval architects deserve the same copyright protection as other architects - this could not have happened if they had copied a building instead of a boat."

Yesterday's High Court ruling comes after a four-year legal stoush over the yacht.

Mr Rogers and Mr Warren had been working for Swarbrick Yachts International in its workshop in the West Australian south coast town of Albany, making moulding hulls and decks, when they left to work for a company that Mr Zaza and Mr Bosman formed for the purpose of building JS 9000 yachts, Boldgold Investments. It was their intention to build the yachts by using a hull and deck moulding that Boldgold bought from Mr Rogers for $7500.

Mr Swarbrick said he had given Mr Rogers a moulding for the JS 9000 as a bonus for hard work. Mr Burge, a friend of Mr Swarbrick's since their days together at Guildford Grammar school in Perth, also worked for Boldgold as factory operation manager.

The dispute between the men has been long and bitter.

Mr Swarbrick is facing a defamation action and, in June 2004, Mr Warren was charged with stealing as a servant over the disappearance of part of the yacht's deck mould from Mr Swarbrick's workshop.

He received a spent conviction and a $1000 fine.

The lawyer representing Boldgold, John Garnsey QC, yesterday said the High Court decision had important ramification for yacht designers.

"Yacht designers would be well advised to try to get registration under the Designs Act if they want to protect the shape of their boats," he said.

Mr Bosman told The Australian he was relieved that the case was over.

But he did not know if Boldgold would now manufacture the JS 9000 as it had been planning to do in 2003 when Mr Swarbrick successfully sough a temporary injunction over Boldgold's factory in Pinjarra, south of Perth.

His JS 9000 design was well-received because it was fast and could be sailed easily by two or three people.

He said that since the legal dispute over the yacht, he had closed his Albany factory and licensed his commercial boat designs to overseas builders, including an improved version of the JS 9000.

The Australian

A lesson in that for us all
And my sympathies to you JS. Shame the high court obviously has no yacht designers on it....

[Bart-NL]

who needs engines?



Bart

[u4ea32]

Crouch's Baby Bootlegger. But here is a great modern replica, Babyface Nelson.

There have been some beautiful boats brought forth - Very sorry to shut down the thread.


....................................................With this;
......................................

[Manie B]

not so fast

here is the most beautifull boat on the water right now

http://www.alessandrodibenedetto.net...mid=54&lang=en

superman is dead
long live Alessandro