I want to share these plans.

[Raggi_Thor]

On the other side, I see the point of fair use, the usefulness of sharing :-)

[PAR]

Robert, I didn't take it too seriously. The thought of it irked me a touch though. For the most part, the designers were long since dead, when he picked up lines, if he had a clue about whom really drew the original. Usually he had an idea or educated guess about the draftsman, but nothing he could use in a book or as reference.

[sharpii2]

I, as a hobby designer and a hopeful novelist, think this copy right thing has gone way to far. Copy Rights were originally intended to insure writers and designers and creators of various stripes would enjoy the fruits of their labors. And, if their creations fail to become popular in their life time, for these delayed fruits to be passed on to their immediat descendents. But even this was supposed to be for a limited time (a total of 70 years IFIRC).

Now that we have corporations in the act, this copy right thing seems to extend forever. It seems that, just like patents, copy rights are drifting over to the corporate crowd. Now, I hear, even human genes can be patented. Imagine being suied every time you even mention the name 'Superman'. If that isn't enough, even words in the dictionary are being purloined as 'trade marks'. Culturally speeking, this is like putting a toll gate every two or three feet on every side walk. Where anyone who dares to use that sidewalk will have to pay a toll to, presumably, the long dead peasant who poored that sidewalk, but really to the corporate giant who owns his 'whatever' right.

Sure. I do want to get paid for what I do (hasn't happened yet). But I don't think some distant descendent (or corporation in her/his stead), who may have never even known me, has a right to make a living forever from some good deed I might have done in my lifetime. Let 'em do their own good deeds.

There's another phrase for this new 'ownership society'.

I call it the 'future serf society'. Where just about everyone will labor under a tiny 'ownership class' that does next to nothing for all their priveleges.

Copy Rights should be for living people and their children only. Corporations should not be able to own:
1.) Copy Rights (except when co-owned with the living holder for a term not exceding 35 years),
2.) Any living organism that can reproduce, or any part of that organism, and
3.) any word in the English language (or other language, when applicable) that existed BEFORE they started using it as a trade mark (a misspelled word should be okay, though. Like 'Tallships' instead of 'tall ships')

Sorry, guys. This one really got under my skin.

Bob

[Man Overboard]

The definition of fair use:
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

More info can be found here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-b.html

The fact that Boreas has posted the plans on a boat design forum, that specifically exists for commenting and commentary on aspects of design, may indeed give Boreas fair use rights. In addition the posting has drawn a comment of significance from Par regarding the author, and his intent behind such drawings, which satisfies one of the parameters that a judge would look at to determine the nature of fair use. The guideline is as follows:

Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

There are other factors:
The work is from a published source, a source that most boat designers are aware of
The work is factual, as apposed to an artistic original
The work as posted by Boreas has benefited the public
I rather doubt that proof could be shown that the market for book sales has diminished do to the posting.

As disturbing as it may be, ‘fair use’ especially when you are talking about a forum such as this, gives the poster a fair amount of clemency .

All of the pictures on the random picture thread are copyrighted material, yet we post other peoples work there daily for comment; ‘fair use’ is the exception to the law that allows such postings.

[berkeleyminitug]

I wouldn't share the plans. The copyright belongs to the original designer. It is copyright infringement.

[westlawn5554X]

even books you can only take out 10% for refrence photocopy, if whole piece with exact wording and picture then it is crimminal, I would prefer to say it- I would share only if given consent by the property owner.

[berkeleyminitug]

Yes, you are exactly right! People have to respect the original work of others

[PAR]

I'm not completely sure, but am reasonably so, that Chapelle's work was documentation of public domain designs (mostly). An example would be the Hampton boat, who's lines he recorded in 1938 (page 143, "American Small Sailing Craft"). The vessel's designer dreamed up the general type over 130 years earlier, making the boat well within the realm of public domain (I think). Chapelle believed (after considerable research) she was one of the last, if not the very last of her type and the reasoning behind his documentation. For this particular type, he had fortune to see under sail (some years earlier), though it was fuller ended then the one he pulled the lines from (with owner's consent) during a winter haul out, which he suspected was a shoal version, for near shore work. He personally knew of no other existing examples of this type, which he estimated to be of the later model (of the Hampton). Without Chapelle's efforts this design would likely be lost. I think it only fitting, that interest has been raised in yet another of these antique craft and that use of the lines, wouldn't be pursued by the last publisher of his work (Norton?) or possible benefactor such as a museum.

It surly would be a hell of a thing to try to qualify the use of a bottle opener if the copyright or patent law extended that far into the future. Some designers efforts have been unjustly carried to these extremes, mostly do to the money they still can wrestle out of folks for a set of plans or threats of a law suit. In a real court battle, with a determined builder, set on building from LFH's Rudder Magazine plans in the 1920's, the current plans owner wouldn't have much of a chance. Just to many copies, made available to millions of readers over the years to suggest it has continued protection (under copyright), even if the current plan owner wants you to think so. This is a common ploy. Make the would be builder think they have the full protection, when in fact they really don't. It's a business decision, based in economics. It's much cheaper to send a big hairy bluff, on official looking letterhead (or email) then hire a team of attorneys to defend the copyright infringement. They don't have to be right or legally protected, so long as they can convince you they are with a few letters and a mean spirited phone call or two.

[Antisthenes]

more please

sharing is important no idea can be owned according to math that would be a violation of another persons human right

knowledge is power and power over leads to abuse let all be equally empowered to access all knowledge to best their own means

and boats are nice and will be important when coastal flooding starts

[jelfiser]

about copyright please have a look there :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqySp7Nq5j0

[berkeleyminitug]

Very interesting! Thanks for sending it along!

[Boreas]

I must admit all what you have said is very intresting. There are many things I didn't consider as I posted those plans but I've learnt a lot from you all. Now...I'd like to know -hopefully from the more seasoned- are those plans enough to build a boat or is there something else I should pay attention to?

[Raggi_Thor]

I think you could build a boat from those plans and the book, if you know a little about boatbuilding and woodworking.
You should probably loft the lines from the table of offsets, that is make a full scale line drawing on the floor, to get a fair hull.

[Boreas]

Gainer, you said "Don’t you think they should charge the cost of reproduction and mailing so the general public isn’t paying for your hobby?"

I don't wanna sound unpolite, but do you think that is an argument in the era of internet??.

Anyway, all postings are very intresting and I've red them all carefully.

Keep on giving your opinions.

[Robert Gainer]

I was talking about hard copy. Most people don’t want to build from small prints so they want a larger copy and there is a charge for that. A PDF or Xerox is free.
All the best,
Robert Gainer