A kayak as a mold

And the converse sometimes happens. A party with questionable, sometimes very questionable, claims of "rights" but with deep pockets will threaten competitors with legal action. They probably don't want to actually go to court, but rather discourage competition by potential legal costs.

 

I don't like that people are selling things and then trying to control what people do with them after they have purchased them.

As far as I am concerned there should be a state of common law. Once you have purchased an item it is yours to do what you like with.

If you purchase an electric drill, does the manufacturer state that the drill is only to be used to drilll holes in the residence of the purchaser and not to be lent to someone else to drill holes.

Yet when you purchase a computer program they try and tell you it is only licensed to use in one computer. I've bought the program, it is mine, I will use it in as many computers as I damn well like.

I design material handling equipment, but I use known parameters to design them and I don't consider that I have any copyright over anything I design.

Also just because a person has changed the shape of a boat, is that design anyway. And they use a computer program to design it with, so in effect the computer has designed it anyway.

Unless you have designed a hull that uses 20% more fuel and is unique and therefore patentable then no design exists. Except in the mind of the manufacturer.

Anyway if a person purchases a kayak to copy it, at least you have sold a kayak. If the practice was policeable you wouldn't sell any.

You would still be a dick for copying it as it has been pointed out, buying the plans is a small cost of making a boat.

 

I think this thread is muddying the waters more and more.

1) We're talking about a direct copy: splashing a hull. Not "inspired by," not "looks similar."

2) We have talked about morality, and that's a good discussion, but we should be clear that that isn't necessarily the same as legality.

3) It is true that there is often a difference between the written law and practice. People get away with breaking laws all the time. And just because the law is on your side doesn't mean you can get the law to work for you.


So is splashing a hull illegal in the US?

 

Based on my research of US law, splashing a hull is illegal in the US if and only if:
1) The hull design is registered under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, and then only for 10 years after registration.
- or -
2) The hull design is covered by a patent, and then only for the life of the patent.

 

Justin:

I hope you don't live in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. If you do, I'm ashamed of you.

Your country DOES respect copyright, industrial design registration and patent protection - even if the originator of the design lives outside Canadian legal jurisdiction. There are bilateral trade agreements and copyright laws between countries that are easily researched in Canada. YOU may not respect laws, but that may be a lesson you need to learn the hard way.

Here in Ottawa we have a world renown expert on copyright and trade law who is a professor at the University of Ottawa. Michael Geist writes nationally as well as in the Citizen on just these topics - with focus on electronic media and digital issues as well. I know Dr. Geist's work quite well, and have been in touch with him on issues. Fair Use provisions that have been in effect in the music industry are under attack because of poor attitudes about copy and distribution of people's work. If people ONLY copy digital works for backup purposes and those within Fair Use, there would be no need for digital lockdown of content, more laws and more criminals. People's creative works are not free to copy - and it isn't a compliment to do so.

I make my living by creating copyrighted communication security works in the digital realm, and I for one do not appreciate theft or thieves. If someone used one of my programs without permission and license, I would use all legal means to recover my revenue, as well as to punish anyone as severely as possible as an example for future thieves who have such a cavalier attitude.

Please do not speak for a city or a country with your criminal attitude. People like you are the reason why we even need copyright legislation. If people just behaved with balance and respect to others, no laws would be needed.

--
CutOnce

 

Has anyone thought that maybe building a mold will probably cost as much as buying 3 or more brand new kayaks? And then you need to buy materials to make a kayak from that, and put in the effort to do so?

I wonder what the break-even point would be:

(buy X new boats) = (splash a mold, buy materials, make X boats yourself, pay yourself for the labor)

IMO, given what I make in my day job and given how fast I work with fiberglass, I could buy an infinite number of new kayaks without reaching the break-even point.

 

Don't think for one second that this country or any other free country controls what a citizen can and can't do with respect to emulating/copying a product.

In fact if there are restrictions on what you can and can't do emulating/copying a particular product it is because it is copyright/trademark protected. For example installing software and agreeing to terms of use, the opening copyright warnings on movies, print material for CDs.

All of those are copyright protections, not patents. There is a huge difference.

I would suggest speaking more in depth with Giest regarding the differences, he may clear your fractured understanding. Also ask him about copying a kayak exactly, for personal use, and the laws that contradicts.

A kayak will never get copyright protection, it's absurd to think they could. Design plans are copyright protected. The copyright protection does not magically transfer to a kayak produced according to said plans.

As I said a few times now, the realm of hobby kayak building is far far from the business of kayak building, Canadian law reflects that.

Patents do not protect the owner by, not allowing any citizen to build a similar product or even an exact copy. That's absurd.

It's protects the owner from an economic perspective, I would go so far as to say that this is strictly related to (reasonable) return on investment. The fact that patents expire, and are rarely renewable makes the previous point intuitive.

Copyright I believe lasts for 50yrs after death of the creator, which makes absolute sense.

While speaking with the patent lawyer Giest ask him about slander.

Consider, you and I congruently design a kayak coincidentally exactly the same.

I submit for a patent and get approved, you don't. Later I see you in your kayak that's exactly the same design as mine.

Do you think the law would rule your kayak must be destroyed or that I could somehow press charges? Absurd! but according to the flawed logic I see some have, that makes sense and is justice.

I'm unsure how narcissism could reach such a depth that one could think their ideas are somehow purely for their own utility. Especially in the context of kayak design, I mean re-design of course.

It's not very dissimilar to suggesting mathematical equations should be copyright/patent protected. Poor Einstein, he should have been able to profit financially from people using his equations. Including all of special / general relativity, since it was after all, his idea. (apologies for putting the name of someone who grew an idea almost purely organically into something so fantastic, in comparison to that of a kayak designer, who merely takes a preexisting frame work, modifies it for improvement, often via computer software which does the "hardwork" and says "See what I made it's MINE and mine only and you can't copy it!")

I'd guess those on the protection side of the fence would love to be the first to design/create ummm, a cure for all cancers. Because....

Imagine how rich you could get with that!

Lastly, this whole debate opened on a fallacy.

The opening title to this thread I stared is "A kayak as a mold". The intent of "splashing" here is not even remotely to "steal" someones "hardwork" put into designing a kayak (that hardwork I "stole" wouldn't even have monetary value to me. what's the beef? you not getting $$??lol). The intent is, as the title suggests, can a kayak be used as a mold. While reading about kayak building I saw that making the mold for a kayak is the most difficult part. Thinking of ways to make a mold easily, I thought of using another kayak. i.e. buying a used beat up cheap kayak and splashing it. Clearly not to steal some ones hard work and some how profit from it. Note I don't want to give the impression I'm retreating from my stand, I could copy a brand new kayak like this and retail* them if I pleased (*after checking for any patents of sorts, there being any is very unlikely).

 

Yes, they do. At least in the US. Go get a copy of a patent, and build from scratch that which is patented, and you are violating the patent. Even if it's only for personal use. That's the law. In practice, the patent holder won't know so nothing would come of it.

This is true even if you didn't intend to copy a patent. Invent something on your own that is already patented and that item is still subject to the patent.

 

In the context of legalities and exclusive of patent protection the comment above is false.

In the context of doing the right thing, I'd say hardly, but acknowledgment to the designer would be polite.

In the context of being granted permission, that's just laughable.


Clearly Im just being a bulldog in an alley full of cats, i'll stop.

 

Maybe if you spent years working to perfect your own design and then months building a plug and then your own mold from scratch, you would better understand why people here are sensitive and don't take kindly to the idea of splashing other designers' work.

 

Yea I just read that, and it looks like it's true for Canada as well. i was way wrong there. Interestingly, here is some more info from the web site directly cut and pasted .

"Patent protection applies in the country that issues the patent. In Canada, this protection extends for 20 years from the date of filing. Patents are granted for products or processes that are novel, useful, and inventive (new, workable, and ingenious). In this way, patents serve as a reward for ingenuity."

I particularly like the words novel, inventive and ingenious. I will be sure not to copy any kayaks that are novel, inventive or ingenious in appearance, of course those ones may no longer be kayaks by definition. Whats cool is if I came up with a novel, inventive or ingenious way of copying one of Par's unprotected kayak designs I could potentially patent that particular process of copying a kayak via splashing.

 

I do understand what Im doing here, thats what I meant by,

"Clearly Im just being a bulldog in an alley full of cats, i'll stop."

A couple of posts ago.

Im only stirring a bees nest by continuously stating my opinion is another way to put it.

Why would I spend years perfecting a kayak design (which means what to a kayak?), months making a plug for it and then make my own mold from scratch when I could just splash any ol' kayak? !!!

As if it would be suggested I should pay with respect to the years of service perfecting the design of any ol' kayak, when splashing said kayak.

 

I think you're missing the main point of contention here. The law offers some limited protection against the theft of designers hard work, but that's not what has stirred up this argument. The real issue is a moral one: Is it morally right to steal the work of another without payment?

I can tell you first hand that the design work, prototype construction, testing, mould making etc that goes into producing a boat hull is hard work and time consuming. You're seeking to steal that hard work by making a copy. The attempt at justification of this theft by claiming it's "for your own personal hobby use" is wholly fallacious; aren't the majority of kayaks purchased for just this reason?

In my view, the laws that protect people from having their work stolen aren't really adequate. The situation is at best a bit complex, with various elements of existing law being quoted, none of which wholly cover the case of producing a straight forward copy of a boat hull.

If you think that I'm wrong and that we should embrace the culture of openly copying the work of others, then maybe you need to take a look at the impact of far eastern manufacture on western trade and some of the reasons for it. In countries like China, for example, intellectual property laws are given little credence, the result being that dozens of companies compete with each other to reverse engineer western designed goods and manufacture copies at a lower price. Part of their price advantage comes from these companies not paying for research and development, they are just stealing the research and development undertaken by companies (and governments) in countries where IP is respected. They even copy at the component level - I have some supposed International Rectifier electronic parts here that are counterfeits from China. They are pretty close to being the same as the genuine article in performance, but less than 20% of the price. I understand that the Chinese factories just bought some parts and copied them exactly, just as they do with thousands of other products.

 

Exactly..just as DVDs and CDs are too..all are for personal use. Probably some 99% of DVDs/Cds (possibly higher) is for personal use and no more. So if all these pople just copy them..it's ok?

Lets copy because it is for my own use.....don't think so matey!

 

I think the want-a-be kayak builder just is too young, to have a point of reference. To him, it's "just a stupid kayak", which shows a complete lack of understanding or appreciation, for not only the various sorts of effort that went into it's creation, but also the significance of the engineering and the hydrodynamics, incorporated into the design. His suggestion that he'll only copy insignificant kayaks, clearly shows he hasn't a clue as to what makes one better or worse then another. And to that point I offer this; do you really think someone went to the trouble to design, develop, mold and market a picayune product? Yea, sure, there's a whole lot of "margin" in that concept.

The bottom line is the product (the kayak) was an attempt to address probably quite specific needs and desires, other wise the exercise is fruitless. The fact you can't recognize this, let alone the specific elements it physically addresses, clearly suggests your grotesque lack of experience in this and likely other industries. This and the arrogance they came with it, pissed more then just one off and additionally exhibits the need for more comprehension across several avenues of understanding. These are typical traits of the inexperienced and the young, though often is compensated for with exuberance, in this case, best dealt with in education and real life trials. You'll feel differently when your "stupid stuff" is stolen. The guy that suggested it was flattery obviously didn't create things, because I've never met anyone who thought it was anything but wrong, when it happened to them. So much so, they've generated laws, with unambiguous indications of particular instances, across several areas of pursuit.