A kayak as a mold

I completely disagree, regardless of the thief's intentions, it's still stealing and this can't be justified. I don't give a damn if he's a priest making a burial barge for his father the good monk, it's stealing.

The CD comparison is a classic example of this mentality. The latest generation of kids think "hey, what's the harm . . .", well the music industry is dieing as a result of the lost revenues folks, so maybe it's not so "harmless" after all. The number one reason industry experts point to for this dramatic down turn is illegal downloads and black market copies.

 

FWIW, PAR is completely right on this.

Consider that his perspective is a bit different: He is the engineer designing the boat. I suspect that, having looked at some of his plans, the number of sales he gets are measured in the dozens or less for many of his designs rather than in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. Not basing that on some perceived lack of quality but rather on the scale of the boat and the cost of the plans.

Even something so small as a kayak is not a few minutes work. It takes the designer a considerable amount of time to come up with it, not to mention resources for every step. The designer prices the plans or finished product such that he can make a living based on the number of anticipated sales. If he prices too high, nobody buys the plans or the boat. If he prices too low, he loses money because production costs eat up all his profits. Either way, his kids don't eat. This is how capitalism works.

When you make your plug (or photocopy plans, or burn the CD) you are literally stealing food off his table.

FWIW, the CD defense only applies to a performer who consistently tops the charts in a high-volume genre like rock and roll. Fringe groups and less popular genres measure their CD sales in the thousands and consider it good, and they live no better than middle class in some cases, even for one of the more popular performers of the genre.

 

Unfortunately Par, as technology changes, it will effect businesses. Button sales fell when zippers were invented, zipper sales fell when velcro was invented.

A lot of information is now available on the internet and the people who put it there make money from the advertising space.

As we speak, there is probably someone compiling a data base of free boat plans to download and his or her income will come from the advertising of boat building products.

Two large chain of bookshops have just closed in Australia due to the online sales competition.

Finally this topic is about copying a kayak. They don't cost that much that you would need to stuff around trying to lay up on a mold that was molded from a kayak.
And, if you needed to ask if you could copy a kayak that way, indicates that the person knows very little about GRP work and will probably stuff it up anyway.

 

I do understand your point.
And I do not try to make the matter 'harmless'.

Until now I believed that if I copy a CD (that I had legally purchased earlier)for my own and personal use only, it would be lawful to do so.
And therefore I considered the same applicable for a boat.
But there may be details unknown to me.
I also believe to know that if a product is not copy right protected, it can be cloned.
Perhaps I lack some legal knowledge here and you can explain a little further?

 

Unfortunately, the information on the net is often deliberately inaccurate. There's a term called "article writing" that deliberately floods the search engines with random articles containing appropriate keywords grouped together but no genuine substance. They use that for search engine optimization. Some authors put out hundreds or even thousands of articles out in a day. Others put deliberate misinformation which is essentially accurate except in a few details on public sites to protect their proprietary information.

Technology definitely affects business. However, free plans are generally worth no more than what you paid for them. I remember the mid-80's when the rage was ultralight aircraft. People bought plans or kits sight unseen, and often were unknowingly the test pilots for a plane that had never existed except on paper before they ordered the kit or plans.

We're not talking about the latest top 40 hits here, the boats in question will still be boats, and still be desirable to people who want boats for decades or longer.

 

@HakimKlunker,

I can't say about patent law so much, but I am fairly familiar with some types of copyright law.

A plan set, such as for a boat, usually gives the buyer the right to produce exactly one copy of whatever it is from that plan unless explicitly stated otherwise. For an expendable part, the plans are generally amended or understood to allow the builder to build replacement parts.

Music licensing generally is intended to follow the "one working copy" idea, but the way MP3 players and similar work now they are changing that up a bit. Generally a "license compliant" music player follows a licensing strategy. For example, iTunes from Apple keeps track of the device which "owns" the songs, and only allows a finite number of copies to be made from it. I believe the licensing strategy is now migrating toward "one per household" but different sales points have different licensing models which their software attempts to enforce.

DVDs follow similar licensing. I have had a commercial DVD chip, so I burned it onto a copy, taped the original to the inside of the case and put the copy in there too. One working copy, and the intent of the manufacturer is that you have the right to watch that movie on one system at a time. I followed what I consider to be the intent, since the media itself is not the critical component.

Computer software is a bit different. If you buy a license for software (say, for example, Microsoft Office) you then have to follow the terms of the license. There are generally a few options for license terms for the same software and you need to decide which one you will use before you buy. The options generally are something like this:

1. One working copy on one computer for one user.
2. One license per user, allowing multiple copies on a number of systems. (rare, usually for testing or development)
3. Some number of users using the software on one computer. (office site license on a terminal server)

 

As I understand copyright, the "personal use" exception is only about viewing and studying the information, not about producing anything. So, if I purchase a set of plans, with a licence to build one boat, I can make as many copies of the plans as I wish, as long as they're for my personal use. I can only build one boat, though, without purchasing another licence.

Also, measuring an actual boat and drafting plans from the measurements is allowed, for your personal use (for example, they could be used to modify the existing boat in some way). But you aren't allowed to build another boat from the plans you draft.

If you really want to avoid paying for plans, go find some historical plans whose copyright has expired, or some plans that have been released as public domain by their designer.

 

For people who fit this category (not Tapio evidently), seriously sit down and think about it. Good plans cost a tiny fraction of the total cost of the boat. They save you many times the price of the plans in wasted work trying to make crappy plans work, or possibly a significant fraction of the cost of the boat if you try to design one yourself and forgo plans altogether.

Come on.

Some people would spend a thousand dollars to avoid paying somebody else ten dollars. Scale that up to whatever your plans cost.

 

Not advocating copying old designs, but what is the typical timeline by which designs fall out of copyright protection and enter the public domain?

Do different copyright laws and timeframes apply to printed plans, a plug/mold, or a built boat?

 

copying

I think I understand now. Comments about plans shed some light on the issue for me.

Designs are creative work and I would guess are treated simularly to a novel, painting ect.

The protection lies with the design, not the final product of the design. For example I can build a "corvette" without any prosecution. I cannot obtain someone elses plans on how to build a corvette without asking/paying.

I can emulate any product based on my own "creative work". I cannot emulate a product based on your "creative work", without asking/paying.

So, you sell one of your Kayaks made according to your plans, you just sold me the product of your "creative work", not the "creative work" itself.

Patents are completly different, and are protection of the final product. If you can manage to get a patent for a kayak then your protected from this, and good luck with that.

Think about this, why would coca cola / KFC be so concerned with protecting their reciepes? Because the final product could easily & legaly be emulated and retailed. Of course and luckily, coca-cola and KFC don't hold patents on fried chicken and cola beverages.

I would guess "shapes" fall into the same catagory as other natural products (ingredients in coca cola / KFC). The least far fetch possibility of protecting a kayak is to create one that is easily distinguished from other kayaks, and only make that specific design, keep at it long enough too become part of the branding and apply to have it trademark protected.

Because of the R&D expense involved, pharmaceutical companies enjoy different rules and can get patent protection for their products made via "creative work". However they also only have a couple of decades lifespan (which runs congruent with FDA approval testing, many years worth) On a side note, the effects of patent protection of pharmaceuticals is debated. This return on investment game spoils the advancement of pharmaceuticals.

Alot of holes in my reasoning there Im sure, but the sum of it, I can copy a kayak designed by "Par" and not get into trouble with anybody, except "Par" and his "biker freinds" who I'm sure are actualy nice people and think Par is a "dick" sometimes.

 

Boat design work hits both the intellectual rights category and the unique product column in regard to how the courts here and abroad have handled design theft. The concept(s), as well as the unique combination of engineering and hydrodynamic shape(s) are clearly covered. In fact, you can't even copy part of a design, no more so then use the first few bars of a hit song (still under protection) on your latest foray into rock and roll engenders.

You can do anything you want including stealing other peoples work or even shooting people and you can convince yourself that it's okay, but you'll find as most do, that they've "miscalculated". Insisting you are correct, when you aren't (and an easily documented issue) is a obvious sign.

So I'm a dick for being pissed about a hypothetical theft of my work? This sounds tenably ironic, coming from the would be, want-a-be thief.

 

No Par, a dick for threating violence.

I'll remmeber your interpretation of copyright protection next time I practice guitar, I would hate to have played riffs from a hit song in error.

I cannot imagine a kayak being patent protected because it runs through the water easily (at best you could make the case that it required alot of R&D $$$). That would be due to physics, which if I understand cannot be patent protected. (Perhaps some airplane wing designs are protected from unauthorized reproduction, )

again pretty interesting topic, Ima have to edumacate myself on this some.


You need to be more of a share bear.

Oh one last thing I NEVER insisted I was correct, in fact I hope it came across that I don't know protection law well.

 

I was wrong

Par, I was wrong about kayaks not being able to be protected. The can be, if granted a:

1.) Utility patent
2.) Ornimental Design patent

Get both of these and your kayak is fully protected from unauthorized copying.

 

Just like boat designs, aircraft designs are similarly protected by law. Just like PAR, I would be seriously pissed if a thief just decided to make copies of aircraft parts I'd designed without getting my permission.

Folk who think that it's morally acceptable to steal ideas and designs that others have expended a great deal of time and money in perfecting are every bit as heinous as thieves who break into homes and steal peoples hard-earned possessions. After all, what's the distinction between stealing hundreds of hours of a persons work, which has a finite value, and stealing the same value in physical assets?

Theft is theft, in my book, whether it be of ideas, money or other goods. As it happens I believe in putting as much of my work that may useful into the public domain as possible (and am currently doing just this with a boat design), but this is my choice and is, as far as I'm concerned, an act of deliberate altruism because I'm fortunate enough not to need to earn an income from my hard work now. For those that still rely on generating income from their hard work I would defend their right to protect themselves from theft as I would any other victim of crime.

 

There are major differences between:
1) Legal protection of designs (very limited)
2) What many if not most designers believe the legal protections are
3) What may be ethically and morally acceptable

I researched the legal aspects of design protection a few months ago. There is very little legal protection of the shape of a boat. Plans are a somewhat different story. Below is a summary I've posted before of what I found about the situation in the US. I'm not a lawyer and I'm very interested in hearing from anyone with additions or corrections based on a knowledge of the law (as opposed "what it must be", etc).

Utility Patent, 20 years. Must be applied for and granted. Most boat designs and elements of boat designs don’t qualify for a utility patent because they don’t meet the required conditions. Validity of a patent is only established through litigation. After 20 years the contents of a utility patent are public domain.

Design Patent, 14 years. Must be applied for and granted. Protects only the original aspects of the appearance and ornamentation of an object, not it’s functional aspects or construction. Validity of a patent is only established through litigation. After 14 years the contents of a design patent are public domain.

Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, 10 years. Registration must be applied for and approved . Designs which are covered by a design patent are not eligible for VHDPA registration. Covers the shape and the hull and deck if they are sufficiently unique. “Protection is afforded only to vessel hull designs embodied in actual vessel hulls that are publicly exhibited, publicly distributed, or offered for sale or sold to the public on or after October 28, 1998.” Does not apply to designs which have not been built and application for registration has to be made within two years of the first public showing of the hull. Once the 10 year term expires the design is in the public domain.

Copyright, term varies and for works created before 1978. and without copyright notice and/or registration there may be no copyright. Works created after 1977 do not require registration or notice. Terms for works which qualify for copyright are very long. In general copyright applies to “original works of authorship”. Artwork is covered by copyright to the extent it is non-functional. Functional objects are not covered by copyright. Boat plans which are original may be covered by copyright and can’t be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner (other than within the fair use exemption). However the knowledge in the plans isn’t covered so boats can be built from copyright plans without infringing on the copyright.

Trade Dress, indefinite. Trade dress are the unique, visual, generally non-functional elements of a product (or its packaging which is unlikely to apply to a boat) which are identified with its source. Once rights to a trade dress are established they can last indefinitely. Registration is not required though there are advantages to registering a trade dress. I assume that similar to a trademark, trade dress has to be defended or rights to it may be lost. Trade dress appears to have been the primary basis of Hinckley’s claims concerning its “picnic boat” designs. Only certain elements of a boat’s design could constitute trade dress.

Trademark, indefinite. “A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.” The name of a boat design such as “Laser” or “Sunfish”, or of a manufacturer such as “Benateau” may be a trademark and if so can only be used by the trademark owner. However, a trademark is not a design so ownership of a trademark does not confer any rights to a particular design.

License Agreements and Contracts, term depends on the agreement. Private agreements between two parties which are only enforceable by one of the parties, and in general require agreement by both parties. An example would be a license agreement between a designer and a builder under which the designer agrees to furnish the builder with plans for a boat and the builder agrees to pay a fee, build only one boat from the plans, and not allow anyone else to build a boat from the plans. Presumably this type of agreement is what is meant by statements such as “buying a set of plans only allows one boat to be built”. A license agreement can also include a requirement that the plans cannot be transferred to another party without their agreement to the license terms. Someone who is not a party to the license agreement or contract cannot be forced to abide by its terms, nor can they require the parties to the agreement to behave in a certain manner. Museums and others who own plans can require agreement to a license agreement which may include building of boats to the plans as a condition of purchasing copies of the plans. However they cannot restrict the building of boats of the designs by parties who did not agree to the license conditions.

David Cockey
7 December 2010
Revised 31 March 2011