Opinion: Molds without Paperwork

What is your take on molds that have no paperwork? Small scale, 12-15' skiffs that are common in the marketplace. If there is zero writing behind the mold, what do you do?

 

You buy the some beach and build boats. Who cares about paper work, what the heck kind of paper work do you think you will get when buying molds any way. Only thing I want is a bill of sale. Rookies!!

 

Licence Free

There are a few guys out there who've made mouldings based on commercial hulls - buy one of those and someone might notice if you try to sell the boats produced.

So get a little legal help in drafting the receipt/bill of sale

You need it to state in effect that it is a novel design and does not include content which is the intellectual property of others.

The flip side is that you need to ensure that you are buying the rights (ideally exclusive) to produce and sell that design (commercailly and without limit), as well as to improve and amend it, without being subject to any fee, licence or royalty.

Sometimes the reasons for the copy are innocent enough - I know one was made after the individual had pretty much worked the boat to death over 20 years - went to buy a new one and found no useable deckspace - fixed moulded in pedestals, bait tanks and other 'junk' had taken over the interior.

A friendly yard owner was commisioned to take a mold from his old hull - they also made some tweaks and his custom made outboard brackets became integrated into the hull and a little lengthening also occured - the guy got a new copy of his old boat - where's the harm in that?
Then his sons each also got one and the yard owner too in return for storing the mold...

 

No harm in tweaking an existing design. Progress is made this way. In music, it's called an 'arrangement'.
Intellectual property rights is for one unique item, not for a whole class of similar items.
My understanding is, you CAN NOT patent an idea. Only hardware, or you can copywrite original writings or music. Others are free to re-arrange the same information, or notes, in a different unique way.
You can copywrite a logo, but not a name. Someone whose surname is McDonnald, can open a hamburger stand called McDonnalds. But the logo must be different.
Eddie Murphy in "coming to America" had a character in the movie, do exactly that.

 

junior member, gees. Don't know of to many commercial hulls 12-15 feet long?? Get a bill of sale, that's all you need.

 

The point I was making is that your 'Bill of Sale' MUST be carefully worded so as to protect you from a lawsuit for counterfeit goods.

Some states have some fairly significant penalties and there has been a sea-change of late in that larger companies are contracting specialist law firms on an enforcement/ bounty hunter type contract to protect their designs (open target - Law firm is at liberty to purse any and all infringements), such firms are very aggressive.

As we are talkin 10-15 foot, and I mentioned commercially produced models, I'll arbitarily use Boston Whalers base model as an example for no other reason than it was the first to enter my head;-

It is as YoBarnacle says quite legal to be inspired by a particular design and create your own plug, and thence mould. Heck, you can even advertise and claim that it's your own much improved take on e.g. the classic 11'4 Boston Whaler Sport 110 (but recognise their TM), put into production and sell. You might have to later defend your design and prove that other than similar dimentions there was no duplication.

On the other hand, you could also, quite legitimately, buy a brand new Sport 110, spray all over with liquid release agent and take a direct mould/mold from that with the intention to make as many partial hull mouldings as you ever needed, in the course of your business, repairing every hull damaged sport 110's that are brought your boatyard door, you could never legally sell any complete boat made using that mould, even if you sold it under a different name.

Yard closes and both of the above are sold....

Point is both those moulds could look quite similar, but putting the latter into production could lose you your house and business - the bill of sale establishes that you were never intending to produce clone Whalers but a third party 'tribute'.

 

If still in doubt, talk to your lawyer about protecting yourself from business liabilities.
depending on local and state laws, you may be able to insulate your home from the business by a family trust owning home, or by incorporation or Ltd partnership in business. ect ect.
Varies state to state, city to city.

 

Carolina Skiffs comes to mind. There are operations that sell knock off boats, and if you want a mold, they have those also. Hulls, consoles, inner liners, structural grids, etc, parts or molds, they don't care, a buck is a buck.

If you are just going to make a few boats for you and a friend or two, there's not much worry. If you want to manufacture them on a larger scale, you might have some worries, maybe from whomever you pirated the design from, but mainly because you won't be able to compete and you'll go broke. In the meantime you're just hanging in the wind with some serious legal liabilities of different sorts and you won't have any insurance.

And then there is always your health to consider.

 

This likes to pop up....

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2004/813.html

Jeff.

 

Thanx Jeff, very interesting reading!

 

Several years ago I researched legal protections for boat designs in the US. Below is a summary of what I found which I have posted several times before. I'll repeat the disclaimers:

I am not a lawyer.

The discussion below is about the legal aspects of protecting designs, not about what may be "right" or "moral".​

_____________________________________________________________

I've looked into this and the best that I can tell is from a legal standpoint there are major differences between what is commonly believed abut rights to boat designs and what is supported by applicable law. Also, I've studied primarily US law. While the basics of copyright and patent law are generally similar for most nations there are differences, particularly for "design".

Here is my summary of what I found about US law:

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

---------------------------

More information I found:

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship, ”including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.
Above is from the US Copyright Office website: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
There have been several international treaties on copyright which most countries subscribe to including the US, so the scope of copyright is generally the same in most of the world. Ability to enforce copyright in a foreign country depends on the laws of that country.

Copyright does not apply to functional objects. The lines, curves and text contained in a boat plan are subject to copyright. It's usually a violation of copyright to reproduce a boat plans without permission. Boats built to a particular plan are not subject to copyright.

-------------------------------

The anti-splashing laws which several individual US states were intended to provide the ability to sue for damages in state courts rather than federal courts, and provide protection against copying and "splashing" beyond the limited or no protection provided by federal law. The 1989 US Supreme Court decision in Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats effectively invalidated these state laws.

-------------------------------

A review of the US and UK copyright office websites finds that copyright applies to artistic works, including sculpture, and architecture. There are no references to it applying in general to shapes.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...ect.html#elvis
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-a...isticworks.htm

The last link from th UK in the section about artistic work includes:
In the case of a drawing of an article to be mass-produced, there will only be copyright in the article made to the design in the drawing if the article itself is also an artistic work. This would have included something that could be called a work of artistic craftsmanship. However, design right protection might exist for such an industrially produced item even if there is no copyright. Applying for a registered design is another possibility.

The lines, curves, text, etc on the plan are what is covered by copyright, not the idea of the shape. From a US Copyright Office website: Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation If hull shape was protected by copyright then a firm as Bonito boats who had the means to go to court over someone directly copying their design and pursue the case the to US Supreme Court would have cited copyright law.

Perhaps an analagous situation is a recipe. This is from a US Copyright Office website:
How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

In the US architectural work became subject to copyright protection in 1990 through a specific provision of copyright law, and architectural work is defined as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Boats are not buildings though.

In the US at least software copyright and intellectual property rights are covered by different law than copyright for other works.

-------------------------------

Design Patents apply on to ornamental aspects of an object not dictated by the functional aspects of the object. Ornamental features on the side or deck of a boat would be covered, the overall shape of a hull or aspects which have hydrodynamic or other functions would not.

US Patent Office web page about Design Patents: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resourc...ignapp.jsp#def
Highlights from the page:

A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not structural or utilitarian features.

A design for an article of manufacture that is dictated primarily by the function of the article lacks ornamentality and is not proper statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or distinctive shape or appearance to the article not dictated by the function that it performs, the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be “original.”

-------------------------------

Designs registered under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act can be viewed at: http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/list/index.html

I was surprised at how few designs have been registered. Perhaps it is because a court decision in 2004 significantly restricted applicability of the law to copies which were virtual mirror copies of both the hull and deck. However Congress in 2008 amended the law to broaden the protection - more information at http://www.bromsun.com/media/OCT08_vesselhullV3.pdf[/QUOTE]