Whatever happened with that whole H 12 1/2 design copyright thing?

[ErikH]

Lots of interesting posts at the time, then no more info. Did anyone ever find out what was up?

(i was at the herreshoff museum yesterday, sigh... all those boats, locked in a shed. Many of which were actively used until donation. Depressing as all hell.)

[rbgarr]

I agree, seeing the boats stored away can be depressing sometimes. Years ago, I got to sail on INDIAN, the Bar Harbor 31 that's now on display there and it was an incredible thrill. What a powerful creation! My favorite of the small craft is Sidney Herreshoff's 16' VELITA. She's got numerous novel features and a hull that look ssweet and easy to build.

Personally, I think NGH's ALERION, now at Mystic, really belongs at the Herreshoff Museum, but alas....

[Steve Paskey]

Erik: What happened is that I got a form letter from lawyers for Cape Cod Shipbuilding Co., threatening to sue if I took any steps to produce plans of the 12-1/2 for sale. They assured me that they have the documents to back up their claim to exclusive ownership of the design, but weren't willing to say what the documents are. Unless someone drags them into court or otherwises forces their hand, it's not likely we'll ever know whether they're holding a straight flush or a pair of deuces. (I'm betting deuces.)

I've done a fair amount of legal research and I'm persuaded that their position is nonsense, but I don't have time to follow up on this at any length right now. (I'm getting married, moving to a new house, trying to sell the old one, etc. etc.)

However, I am gathering information when I can, and thinking about how I might proceed when I have more time. I'm hoping to come up with a few surprises for them.

[ 05-27-2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[Bill Perkins]

I've made many a pilgrimage to the Small Boat Shed at Mystic and I agree the impulse is to want to free the wonderful boats preserved in such institutions .As a keel boat , I think Alerion needs to have a pit dug beneath her , or a scaffold provided so she can be properly viewed . She's been preserved , for which Mystic deserves credit ,but I don't think she's being properly displayed .

[George Roberts]

Steve Paskey ---

Ignoring the copyright issue ...

There is something wrong with reproducing someome else's plans.

[Bob Perkins]

At the boat builders show - there was a boat called the DoughDish (I believe).

Their boat is an exact copy of an H 12 1/2. They even reference that is a copy in their literature. I think that they can't call it a H 12 /12.

The Doughdish is a glass hull just like the present day H 12 1/2 from CapeCod ship building. So they are doing it somehow.

If fact, I seem to remember their lit stating the hull# they took the lines from to make their mold...

[ 05-28-2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Bob Perkins ]

[rbgarr]

The Cape Cod Shipbuilding folks will point out the differences between their fg H-12 and the Doughdish. For one thing the mold for the Doughdish has noticeable 'waves' (a defect) built into the flat transom. CCSB's boat has a slight tranverse arc to the transom.

[Charles Neuman]

You mean they purposely put a defect in so it wouldn't be the same boat? Would the makers of Doughdish sell THEIR plans? And Steve, could you sell your own plans of the 12 1/2 with a well-documented "defect" of your own?

Charles
Long Island

[imported_Conrad]

Dale and George- I'm just curious, what's your estimate of the economic value of the "damage" here, and who should it be payed to?

[JAX]

FWIW, copyright law (as amended to includes boat designs and such) gives copyright protection for 50 years (for a corporation or other such organization), and for life plus 50 years an individual. (US copyright law is based on international treaty, which makes copyright law the same for most of the world.)

Sounds like it is not possible that ANYbody owns the copyright for the design anymore.

In addition, it is a felony to claim copyright for something one does not own, a fact that might be cited in any correspondence with the museum.

I'm sure the lawyers from the museum know this (or at least would find out this), hence the reason they are so cagey about the "documents" they say they have.

Keep in mind, though, that copyright is different from a service mark or registered trademark. Marks last as long as proper legal care is taken. (Designs are not marks except in certain cases, such of the Coco-Cola bottle, and the rights to continue to use a mark must be vigorously defended. It is unlikely the 12-1/2 was represented as a mark, or fully and continuously defended as such over its entire history.)

Keep in mind as well that NO name may be copyrighted. Periord.

There is nothing uncertain here. If the design is over 50 years old, it is public domain unless orginally owned by an invidual, and then it becomes public domain 50 years after that individual's death.

[Keith Wilson]

As I understand it, the new boat design copyright provision requires that a design be specifically registered under the new law within two years of being made public. Old designs are definitely not protected, (unless they're patented, but that's another matter entirely). Here's the official copyright office web site. (http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/)

[ 06-14-2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George Roberts]

Conrad S. ---

The statute allows $150,000 in statutatory damages per infringment. No proof of lose/gain is needed.

Part of the charm of any boat is that it is are rare and you (or I) cannot have one.

[imported_Conrad]

You guys didn't answer the question. I know your position on the argument. ;)

[JAX]

^^^ You guys didn't answer the question. I know your position on the argument ^^^

I am sorry I was not clear enough in my response.

The 12-1/2 does not have copyright associated with it if the design is over 50 years old or under certain conditions if it is more than 50 years since the death of the individual holding the copyright.

I am under the impression that the design if far more than old enough for either condition to apply.

In either event, in the days long ago (before 1978) copyright protection was *only* afforded that intellectual property that was **registered** PRIOR to the first public appearance of said property.

What's more, it is a felony for anyone to claim that ownership if they do not under law (as set forth above) own the right.

If you are *serious* about this, spend an hour's time, on your nickle, with a patent attorney while he -- usually he -- explains this to you.

And if you are not serious about this, well then

[JAX]

^^^ Sorry Conrad, I can't answer your question because I don't have any data to base an answer. ^^^

dale? how often in your life have you been called a dummy?

You *DO* have data, for it has been given to you on a platter in its entirety. That you deny it, doubt it, belittle it, scoff at it, ignore it, or whatever in no means the data does not exist nor does it mean the data is in error. It means *ONLY* that you are out to lunch.

Special Ed students who rode a short yellow business to school for the entire seven years of their high school education sometimes doubt the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.

dale, you screwed up. From now on, and for months and years to come, everytime you post on this BB people will think of your seven years of high school education.

[imported_Conrad]

Hmmm, looks like Dale has done a disappearing act....

[Steve Paskey]

George: There is something wrong with taking a design that you don't own, falsely claiming that you own it, and threatening to sue anyone who expresses an intent to sell plans for the same design. CCSB's actions are made even more egregious by the fact that the design is a classic that should be built and sailed as it was originally designed and intended to be built, and not merely in some inferior fiberglass "reproduction."

For reasons outlined in the earlier thread, it's quite clear that CCSB doesn't own the design, and they can't legally prevent anyone from selling plans for the boat.

It remains to be seen how we get there, but in the end a court will decide the issue -- unless, of course, CCSB decides to do the right thing and give up their false claim of ownership.

[ 06-17-2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[Bruce Taylor]

JAX -- The Bono law has changed the rules in your country.

For a rough summary, see:

http://www.serve.com/marbeth/music_length_protection.html

Nathanael Herreshoff died in 1938.

[Keith Wilson]

The "Bono law" only applies to relatively recently published works. - from the link posted above:
Works created in 1922 or before are now public domain However, a boat hull design, as opposed to the plans themselves, as we discussed before, is not covered under any copyright law unless it is a new design registered under the new law . Copyright law is designed to protect artistic work such as books and music, not ideas for building useful things; that’s what patent law is for. Some boat designs are patented, but that's another thing altogether. An analogy - say I write a pamphlet on growing orchids, showing plans for tools, greenhouses, watering systems, etc. You cannot legally copy the pamphlet and sell copies, but you can legally grow all the orchids you want, using the techniques and plans in the book. I don’t have to sell copies of the pamphlet if I don’t want to, but if someone else is growing orchids based on the book, you can legally go in to their greenhouse (with their permission, of course), take measurements, build one yourself and go into the orchid business.

Oh, God, I realized I just opened the can of worms again - sorry, I'll shut up now. :rolleyes:

[ 06-17-2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George Roberts]

Steve Paskey ---

you wrote "For reasons outlined in the earlier thread, it's quite clear that CCSB doesn't own the design, and they can't legally prevent anyone from selling plans for the boat."

They seem to be doing a very good job of it. As you say the court's will decide.

[Bruce Taylor]

Thanks, Keith. I overlooked the fact that pub. date is taken into account in older materials (those created before 1922). Still, the old rule (death + 50-years) no longer applies in the U.S.

Leaving aside the moral complexities of the matter (which we discussed at length in the earlier thread) Steve's opinion that older hulls are not protected under copyright law seems sound to me. But I ain't no lawyer.

[JAX]

"JAX -- The Bono law has changed the rules in your country.

For a rough summary, see:

http://www.serve.com/marbeth/music_length_protection.html

Nathanael Herreshoff died in 1938. "

Boat designs were not copyrightable until recently (meaning I can't remember off the top of my head exactly the timeframe), sometime after the revised copyright act of 1978 and today. I *seem* to remember that boat design (and [enhanced] computer software copyrights) became specifically part of the law in the 1990's, though it could have been the later '80's. There were a couple of starts before the law became stable.