A new question

[Iceboy]

Okay, I deleted the "bad deal" post because some questioned whether it belonged here. I still believe it was a valid question even though it was perhaps poorly worded. So here is another question. Say I have a set of plans that I purchased from the designer. I have NOT built this boat or done anything with the plans besides remove them from the envelope and looked them over. Is it in your opinion legal/ethical to sell these plans to another party?
I see it this way. I have not built the boat or in any way deprived the designer of any income therefore the plans are my property as if I purchased a book or magazine. I have not published or reproduced the plans in any way.
Well what do you think?

[Ross M]

I think this was covered somewhat comprehensively a few years back; as I recall the consensus was that UNBUILT plans could ethically be transferred but the designer should be notified so he can correct his records.

Ross

[Scott Rosen]

Now that you've considered that the accuser may be a thief himself, you are starting to ask the right questions.

When you buy plans, what you are buying is a license to use the plans for a specific purpose, i.e., to build one boat, and only one boat, from those plans. You don't buy the rights to the design, and you don't become the owner of it. You are simply a licensee. In most cases, that license is non-transferable and does not include the right to resell the plans.

If you decide not to build the boat, that's your tough luck, not the designer's. That means you're stuck with the cost of the plans. If someone else wants to build the boat, that someone else needs to buy his own license from the designer. Any other course of action would be illegal and is taking money out of the designer's pocket.

It's not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of law.

The creep who "bought" the plans from you can only acquire the rights that you can legally sell. In other words, he/she does not have the right to build from the plans, and probably doesn't have the right to own the license. There's absolutely no reason he should pay you for them, although he should return the plans to you.

The terms of any license may differ from one designer to the next. The only way you can safely sell plans is to receive a written statement from the owner of the design.

It's really something when a Forumite who is willing to publicly accuse another Forumite of theft turns out to be a thief himself. Talk about your throwing stones in glass houses.

[Iceboy]

Well thank you Scott for that information. I will contact the designer and inform him of the transaction and see what he thinks. By the way, I never called anyone a thief or meant to imply they were a thief. I asked a simple question. In my ignorance I did not consider the license to build issue. We are not all attorneys you know. I never intended to deny the designer his due payment or the rights to his design. Once again I will be contacting him. Is there some personal issue you have with me? If so please contact me in a pm and we can discuss it.

[Ross M]

"It's not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of law."

Well said, Mr. Rosen. I stand corrected smile.gif

Ross

[Scott Rosen]

My "personal issues" are satisfactorily resolved by your promise to notify the designer. I imagine the designer will greatly appreciate your efforts and will approach it in a spirit of cooperation.

The question of whether you can resell plans is a valid one and a good one for this Forum.

Designers and owners of designs would be well served by providing more information to the buyers of their plans.

The public airing of a private debt collection dispute between forumites with regard to the misuse (even if innocent) of a designer's plans, angered me. You led with your chin. Forgive me for taking a swing at an easy target in anger.

[Donn]

I'm not sure about that, Scott. Unless there is express language in the contract, or documents describing terms of sale, that prohibits the resale of the plans, it seems to me that if the license has not been exercized (the boat built), the plans are the property of the buyer, who should be free to resell them.

[Iceboy]

Forgiven Scott. I do tend to make an easy target.
No hard feelings.

[Scott Rosen]

Originally posted by Hwyl:
Could someone give me Mick Jagger's email: I have to tell him about that copy of "Beggar's Banquet" that I sold in 1975.Look at what's happening now with internet sharing of music files. The number of files shared is in the billions, and the record companies and artists think that they are losing a lot of money because of it. They took it to court and determined that the unauthorized sale of music over the internet is illegal. I don't know if selling a used album in 1975 at a tag sale would violate any copyright. It all depends on what you rights you bought when you bought the album. Not all IP is the same in that regard. For example, with books there's a fair use doctrine which might allow you to quote a few words here and there.

WoodenBoat no longer sells its CD of back issues, but you can still buy back issues in print form. You can also buy used issues of WoodenBoat at any number of second-hand book stores.

The point is that when you buy plans, you are buying a license for a specific use. You do not become the owner of the design, and you only acquire those specific rights granted to you by the license.

[NormMessinger]

Would that be Federal law, Scott or State law.

Boats may be different that airplanes but the way Burt Rutan handled the passing on of plans is he would support the person to whom he sold the plans. If that person did not build and sold his plans to someone else,that was between the 2nd seller and the 2nd buyer. I think it was more a question of record keeping as a guess. So if the current owner of the plans, now the builder, gets stuck and has a question of how to proceed Burt figures the guy he bought the plans from has the obligation to assist. Burt will continue to assist the person to whom he sold the plans should he want to ask the builders question of him.

[Ken Buck]

I object the blanket assumption that the original poster is a thief and that he is violating the terms of the plans that he originally bought. It's well and good to make people aware that some plans may be restricted in this way; not everyone is aware of this, even if they should be. We don't know what plans are being discussed or what the terms are for the use and resale of these specific plans, so why make assumptions? It's clear that the original poster is concerned about the ethics of the situation; that's why he asked the question. There's no need to accuse him and call him names.

[Iceboy]

All, thank you for the discussion. I have contacted the designer's office and they will get back to me. I will post the reply here when I receive it. I am also in the process of contacting the designers of all the plans I currently possess (some 30 sets) and asking the same question. Are there any designer forumites who would like to offer thier view on this?

[Venchka]

My conscience places me on Scott's side of this debate. That and a $5'er will get me a cup of Starbuck's so called coffee. :cool:

Wayne
In the Swamp. :D

[ 08-31-2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Venchka ]

[Donn]

Originally posted by Ken Buck:
..We don't know what plans are being discussed or what the terms are for the use and resale of these specific plans, so why make assumptions?..Bingo. When I bought my dog, I signed an agreement that I would not resell her or breed her without written permission from her breeder. It was a part of the terms of sale.

I don't think the file sharing issue is at all the same thing. Most music copyrights are like book copyrights, designed to prevent concurrent use of the property by multiple parties, with only one purchase/license.

[Dave Fleming]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more...

I have been going around with WGBH in Boston about my right to make a copy of a video tape purchased from them.

In my elementary reading of the Digital Copyright Law there is something called Fair Use. A proviso that the owner of a legally purchased copy of a DVD, CD, Video Tape, can make a backup copy for their own use.

Unfortunately there is ***Copy Protection*** on most all such items which prevents even the Fair Use provision to be exercised!
I have gone around with some names back in Boston about this with the final comment from them.

This is NOT a direct quote but, words to the effect, well yes you can make a copy but then you must destroy the original one purchased from us!
Make a copy hell, I cannot get past the bloody copy protection. I even offered to pay to have them make a copy on DVD with copy protection of the Video Tape. There was no reply to that one at all.

Now to the real world. It is very easy over the internet to find programs that defeat all known copy protections and for DVDs the Region limitations and convert PAL to NSCT and visa versa. THAT is clearly breaking the law and does deprive the original rights holder of their due.

Video Tapes have a finite life even commercial ones. I know from first hand experience. My purchased copy of 'Coaster' began to disentegrate and is useless. If I had the ability to make my 'Fair Use' copy on DVD for backup I would still be able to see what I paid for.
Is a person forced to break the law to exercise their rights as I, in my elemetary way see them?

How about making copies of plans? Usually when a set is bought it is just one set. Now a person homebuilding or even a boat shop is going to need more than one set to work from. Lofting will take a set of general constructions, and the Table of Offsets and use them. They will get written on, erased, handled many times and by the time Lofting and Layout are done, they almost fall apart. That means a yard or homebuilder will take the original set to his friendly neighborhood copy shop or if lucky a Blueprint shop and have several sets made.
Is the original seller/designer due a fee for each set made? Even though at least one set is going to be worthless by the time the boat is launched? And what person who puts in all the hours building a boat does not think of having a nice set framed for the wall in shop or den? What about that?

[ 08-31-2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Dave Fleming ]

[Scott Rosen]

To follow up on Donn's thought . . .

Different kind of IP gets different kinds of protection. For example, you can resell a book, but you can't copy it and resell the copy. There are certain mandatory licenses that allow certain uses of certain IP with or without the owner's consent. For example, you can take a photo of a building and sell the photo, even though you don't own the architectural plans. It may be that the sale of the Stone's album, without copying or reproducing it, was okay. File sharing, on the other hand, is a form of copying and is not okay.

I'm not an IP expert, so my understanding gets a bit fuzzy as we get closer to the edges of the debate. It is possible (but I'm not sure) that a person who buys boat plans can legally sell the actual paper plans, but not the right to build from them. I think that's an exclusive right of the designer that is protected by law. For that you would need the designer's consent.

Interesting, though, I think you could take the lines off of a hull built to someone's plans and then legally build your own hull from those lines--as long as you didn't use the designer's written plans. Here my understanding gets fuzzy, because I'm aware of a federal statute that protects vessel hull designs, but I'm not sure what the limits of the protection are.

Anyway, interesting subject. Checking with the designer is the way to go before transferring plans.

[paladin]

It has always been my understanding that the plans were merely there to assist you.....
Aperson is purchasing a license to build one boat and the plans are tools to be used with that license and are not to be resold.
However....I called Jay Benford who lives across the pond from me.....
His comment....It varies from designer to designer. Some designers sell the license and that's it....no transfer, no resale....other designers will work with ONE builder...to mean..if no boat is built the plans may be transferred with the approval and knowledge of the designer. ...and assistance will be provided to ONE BUILDER PER SET OF PLANS. If you izzint on his list, you don't technically have the plans...so don't waste his time with your problems..Mr. Benford will work with ONE approved set of prints.

[Iceboy]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more...

Boy, I didn't realize what I was starting.
I look forward to the answers to this one.

Thanks for expanding the subject Dave.

Jim.....

[Dave Fleming]

That business of taking the lines to build copies from is not just done with small craft.

Last employer, Campbell Industries, was a premier builder of Tuna Seiners. We are talking vessels of 250 feet overall length, hold capacity of 1500 tons and powered by Electro Motive Diesel engines.

We built several of the last series for a ***Pacific Rim*** outfit. Within a year they were in production of exact copies of the Super Pacific Class vessels. It was moot at that time because the yard closed down under pressure from the city and port authority of 'insane Diego'. The waterfront property was needed to extend the tourista hotel region almost adjacent to the new ball park.

[Scott Rosen]

Dave, I'll bet that you can copy plans for your own personal use, if the copy is necessary or appropriate for contruction of the vessel. Say the plans have full size templates--you want to make a working copy in stiff paper so you don't get holes and tape and glue all over you orignals. You keep the originals in good shape to hang on your wall when you're done.

It's kind of easy to see how it would work, as long as you're working from paper plans. But if you buy your plans in a digital format, you will need to print them. How many copies can you print? To what extent can you expand and edit the software? Beats me.

As to your video cassette problem, it seems to me as if the copy protection installed by the manucturer prevents authorized copies as well as unauthorized copies. (To state the obvious) I guess it's not that easy designing a program for a cassette that can tell the difference betwenn authorized and unauthorized. Unless you've got the patience of a saint, and the free time to match, there's not a whole lot you can do about it if the manufacturer doesn't cooperate.

[Dave Fleming]

That is just the problem Scott. I DO have rights just as we all do. They are depriving me of my Fair Use right to protect the material I legally purchased.

If they can design and impliment a copy protection scheme to prevent all copying then they certainly should be able to modify it to allow one reproduction/copy.

As I said there are software programs out there that do just that now. They are illegal to use but you and I well know that it is being done en mass.

If some one or groups can write software to defeat copy protection cannot the original software writers of copy protection software modify the code to pemit that ONE repro?

[imported_Steven Bauer]

I bought my Eun Mara plans from another forumite(who didn't build a boat from them), but not until we checked with Iain Oughtred who said it was OK.

Steven

[Donn]

I think part of your video tape question, Dave, is that you you think you've purchased something that has an unlimited life. Is the publisher required to provide you with lifetime use?

[Dave Wright]

Anyone read page 173 of Thomas Firth Jones" book "Low Resistance Boats" (1992 copyright), the section entitled "Designers Rights?"

It's worth a read. I don't know they accuracy of Jones comments, but here's a sample:

"Probably the rights of a yacht designer should be as well protected by law as an inventor's or a writer's; but in fact they aren't. Some designers sell plans with the stipulation that only one boat be built, or that the plans are rented, not sold to the builder. This is nonsense and has no basis in law."

Iceboy, I see know reason to doubt your intentions or your account of the incident. You apparently had a friendly interchange with someone, made a gentleman's agreement, and the other guy didn't follow through for some reason. I can see why you'd be upset. Send him a self addressed stamped envelope asking him to follow through, and then forget the whole damn thing.

Dave Wright

[Dave Fleming]

Nay Donn, I as I mentioned in a prior post to this thread,I now know that video tapes do have a finite life.
I am only asking for the ability to exercise, as I see it, my right to make a fair use copy of the video tape in question. I would prefer to tranfer it to DVD,yes.

That Coaster tape had perhaps 8 or so playings. It was kept in a reasonably temperate location away from electrical interference and magnets.
It must have died of old video tape age.

There are many video tapes that will not be transferred to new mediums such as DVDs. Some reports I have read talk about DVDs having a life of over 20 years! Wouldn't it be nice to be able to convert all those old videos to DVD?
I have about 50 movies that I am bettin' will never be made available on DVD simply because there is not enough demand for them.
I just have to sit back and watch them slowly break down until they are useless?
Something doesn't seem right about this to me.

[Iceboy]

Dave Wright, thank you. I beleive that this is the way I am going to proceed.

Jim...

[Donn]

It would be nice to convert all at risk intellectual properties to longer-lived formats, but, in the case of a video tape, isn't it the publisher's right to benefit from putting out a new media format of his property?

Music publishers fought cassette tapes, because of 2 reasons. One, it interefered with their sales of replacement vinyl for worn out records, and two, because it made it possible for more than one end user to own and use a copy of the music with only one purchase. The question because "whose right is greater?" In the days of record albums, I used to play an LP 1 or 2 times only, recording them to, first reel-to-reel, and finally to cassette. My records stayed pristine, and I could enjoy my music as much as I wanted. The music publishers didn't like that. They wanted me to wear out my vinyl and buy a new copy. They also were afraid that I'd sell or give taped copies to other potential customers.

It's not an easy issue.

[Dave Fleming]

It would be nice to convert all at risk intellectual properties to longer-lived formats, but, in the case of a video tape, isn't it the publisher's right to benefit from putting out a new media format of his property?
Absolutely!

IF the videos in my library will be converted.
The Horses Mouth
The Fountainhead
Cannery Row
Riddle of the Sands
Terrible Joe Moran
Captains Courageous ( Spencer Tracy Version )
For example

[dmede]

The question arises here Dave, although it is your right under fair use to make a personal copy of that tape, is it the companies responsibility to make that tape copyable?

It would be nice, but it may not be required of them. In which case they are not willfully or illegaly depriving you of your rights. There is simply no avenue for them to both protect the the tape from mass copying and insure it's open to single copies for backup purposes only.

[mmd]

As said above, different designers have different ideas on the subject. FWIW, here’s mine:

1. I have an idea for a boat and the education/skills to design it.
2. You like my boat idea.
3. You pay me money for permission to build the boat for yourself.
4. I get your name and address and put them on a list.
5. You want to make nine copies of the drawings, one for each workstation in your shop, one for framing, one for on-board, one for the office to show to colleagues, etc. Fine, go to it! It’s only (expensive) paper – make as many as you need – the paper is just the documentation of the idea. The only codicil is that you cannot sell or give away any of the copies – they are your copies and you are legally responsible for the restrictions placed upon their possession.
6. You decide to not build the boat. Too bad for both of us.
7. You sell the plans to your buddy to get your money back, Bad move – the plans are marked as non-transferable. If I find out I may consider suing you and your buddy for the cost of the plans plus court costs. Bad on you, and now your buddy’s pissed at you, too.
8. Your buddy runs into difficulties and wants to talk to the designer. He calls me and I ask him for the drawing copy number and notice that his name isn’t in my list. He doesn’t get help until he pays for the use of my idea. Bad on him, and now he’s pissed at you, too. Now that I know that you broke our contract and sold my idea, see the paragraph above. Bad on you.
9. The other buddy that you sold my design to builds his boat without incident. He decides to insure the boat and the insurer isn’t familiar with the design, so contacts the designer to check on the design’s safety record. I’ll check the history of the boat on my list and find that your buddy ripped me off. I’ll tell the insurer that the boat is about to have a lien placed on it for non-payment of fees. Bad on your buddy, and now he’s pissed at you, too. Now that I know that you broke our contract and sold my idea, I may consider suing you for the cost of the plans plus court costs. Bad on you.
10. Well, maybe his insurer isn’t that diligent. The boat gets built, insured, used, and is now to be sold. The listing broker wants to get some information for marketing & registration, so he calls me. I once again check my list and discover no records of that boat by that builder. Guess what? I’ll check the history of the boat on my list and find that your buddy ripped me off. I’ll tell the broker that the boat is about to have a lien placed on it for non-payment of fees. The broker will drop the boat listing like a hot potato. Bad on your buddy, and now he’s pissed at you, too. Now that I know that you broke our contract and sold my idea, I may consider suing you for the cost of the plans plus court costs. Bad on you.

I’m sure that Alan or your own lawyer can explain the above in much better legalistic jargon, but the bottom line remains unaltered – you have paid a royalty fee to me to use my idea, you haven’t bought a set of drawings free and clear. The drawings are merely the supporting documents for the idea. Should I catch you in trying to sell or give away my ideas without asking my permission first, I shall do everything in my power to show you as an example of what can happen to others who might consider such acts of intellectual theft.

Tough words. I’d gladly recant them if I could trust that there weren’t so many folks out there with less-than-complete sets of morals who are perfectly happy to justify their theft by some hackneyed turn-of-phrase. Unfortunately, expecting all purchasers of designs to be honest is much like expecting all posts in the Bilge to be from reasoned, calm, and moderate Forumites….

[John Bell]

mmd,

As long as you make clear what the terms of sale of the plans are, I've no problem with how you operate. I'll observe that all the plans I've purchased don't come with a statement of license. I've always assumed, possibly incorrectly, that with the purchase of plans I have the right to build exactly one boat from them. Any further boats built built from them by me or someone else requires me (or that someone else) to pay the designer a royalty for their use.

I recently sold a set of plans for a boat that I never intend to build without notifying the designer. Now I'm wondering if I should... Problem is I've no record of who I sold them too.

One question: What if I contacted you and informed you of my desire not to go forward with the project and asked permission to recoup some of my costs by selling them to my buddy? How would (do) you handle that situation?

JB

[Iceboy]

Thank you MMD. That is exactly what I was looking for. I am currently attempting to resolve my faux pas as per the above posts. I will also gladly pay the designer in the original case for another set of plans and the building rights if that is what he desires. I am still awaiting his reply. This clears up a lot from the designers point of view. Thank you once again.
P.S. I don't have any of your plans.

Jim...

[mmd]

What if I contacted you and informed you of my desire not to go forward with the project and asked permission to recoup some of my costs by selling them to my buddy? How would (do) you handle that situation? - John Bell
Since you were so gracious as to contact me to explain your situation, I would most likely ask you to provide me with the name & address of your buddy whom you are selling to, and grant permission. I'd also like you to inform me of how many (if any) copies of the drawings you made, and their whereabouts.

[paladin]

There are some designers/designers reps that once they sell you plans you are on your own...lose ordestroy a sheet and you are forced to pay the full fee for an extra sheet/complete set of plans...
Jim Brown states on his plans it is advisable to make two extra sets of plans....one to store away, one to work with, and one to make notes on or supply to builder for quote...and it is probably cheeeeper that way because making an extra set just takes time from the designer and he very probably is not making any money on them after shipping...

[Jon Etheredge]

It seems like there are 3 issues at play here:

1) The protection of an "idea." I thought that a patent was the only legal means of protecting an idea. If a patent holder discovers someone using an idea without having been granted that right, the infringer can be prosecuted. Assuming, of course, that the infringer lives in a country that honors the patent laws where the patent was granted.

2) The protection against reproduction and/or distribution of copyrighted drawings. I thought that a copyright only provided protection of the physical document. The document represents an idea but the copyright does not protect the idea.

3) The protection against a buyer building more than one boat to a specific design. I thought the only protection available here would be a contractual agreement between the designer and the buyer. It seems that this contract would only be enforcable if both parties were explicitly aware of and agreed to the contract before the purchase.

I'm not a lawyer though. There are moral/ethical issues involved too, but would someone care to straighten out my naive understanding of the legal issues?

[Donn]

Copyright is more complicated than simply "rights over copies." It varies from one type of intellectual property to another, and from one owner of intellectual property to another.

I use to buy very highly specific licenses to books; things like North American hardcover promotional reprint rights. The publisher, owner of the IP, had a standard 20 page contract which spelled out in excruciating detail, his requirements and definitions of my rights under the license. These frequently included quality of binding and paper used, number of copies printed, marketplace restrictions, SRP restrictions and requirements, and various promises to hold them free of any responsibility if a Barnes & Noble employee dropped a case on his toe.

In most cases, I was more than willing to comply with all their restrictions and requirements. When I wasn't, I would sit down with the publisher's editorial or rights department, or both, and we would hash out the changes, in English. Then my lawyer and the publisher's legal department would spend months going back and forth in some other language.

The point here, I guess, is that everything expected of both the buyer of the license and the owner of the IP should be spelled out in advance of money changing hands.

[Arthur Averitt]

Here is some interesting information from Ted Moores regarding his canoe/kayak designs that may pertain to the discussion. In my case, I didn't order plans but worked from the table of offsets published in his book Canoecraft. Yet it still appears, that if I build another identical boat, I would owe the royalty.

http://www.bearmountainboats.com/CopyrightInformation.htm

[Ken Buck]

Just to add one more variation - music composers sometimes put varying restrictions on the performance of their work. There's the usual issue of licensing fees for performances and recordings, administered by a central authority. Generally the fee is charge per performance, similar to charging a boatbuilder for each boat they may build from a given set of plans as they bring the "boat composition" to life.

However, in some cases, the composer has set specific conditions that require prior approval before a public performance. While relatively rare, I can understand the point of view. A composer might want to ensure that their work is presented to the public in a way that meets their original intent.

Boat designs (or at least, small boat designs) seem to be sold more freely, but just think if you had to demonstrate a certain level of boatbuilding skill before the designer would sell you the plans. smile.gif

[mmd]

There are the immoral few who scrutinize the laws and rules for loopholes through which they can surreptitiously escape any personal moral delemma.

There are the ammoral many who look to rules and regulations and laws to adjust their wandering moral compass so that they can maintain a true course of regulated honesty and integrity.

There are the rare few who have a moral certainty of fair play and honesty that guides them well enough that they need only look to laws for confirmation of what they already inherently know.

We so often deal with the first two that we often fail to recognize the latter few, and insult them with our mistrust. I had a wonderful experience working on back-to-back large projects spanning a total of fourteen months, based solely on a handshake agreement. I paid for that euphoria by being screwed over by several small clients (with signed contracts) within the next two years. Now I have a stock contract for custom design services that is intimidating enough that I have lost contracts because I am too careful about covering my butt. Where's the happy medium? How many good guys must I insult to protect me from the bad guys? How many bad guys must I give stuff away to just to practice my faith in the inherant goodness of my fellow man?

[Scott Rosen]

Ken,

The rules for musical compositions and design plans are different. A composer of music is not allowed to restrict the performance of the piece. If you hear a song on the radio, you are free to learn it by ear and play it to your heart's content. I think you can even perform it live for money and not have to pay a royalty, as long as you don't make a recording of it for sale.

However, if you sell a version of your performance, or broadcast a version, you will have to pay royalties.

Anyway, there's a huge body of law on this, which as Dave pointed out, is not at all easy to understand out of context. There's some understandable confusion. For example, some people don't see the difference between buying a magazine and a set of plans. The law treats creative/artistic material differently from designs for practical objects. An idea that is intended to result in an object gets a different kind of protection than a musical composition.

And not all material gets copyright protection. A person can create a design, or a story, or song, and put it in the public domain without any restrictions. It then becomes "public" property. For example, John Smith's wonderful stories that he posted on the Forum are not copyright protected. WoodenBoat Magazine would be free to publish them without restriction and without having to pay royalties. That's because John did not take the steps necessary to create a copyright in the material. Another example would be Bruce Taylor's dinghy design, which he posted on the Forum.

[Buddy]

OK, tell me what's moral, above whats legal- letter and intent of law.

Guy wants to build himself a boat, spends time looking at plans,not studing marine architecture or associated law. Buys a copy of stock plans from Wooden boat Store that clearly state that they may be used to build only one boat.He buys the needed quantity of Shelmarine plywood from Boulter, paint from Kirby, tools from Home Depot, and rents a building for his shop.

His will fades and he decides on to start. He's out his rent, he puts the paint on the garage and in a yard sale, decides to return unused tools with receipt to Home Depot. They don't holler, they have a money back guarantee policy. Sells the plywood for what he's offered by another home builder.

He knows he's not entitled to his money back on the unused plans just because he changed his plans.. After all, Wooden boat made the blueprints and did their part.

Turns out the plywood is defective. He has the receipt and goes back to Boulter with the other guy returning the plywood. Bet Boulter would make it good, they are maintaining a name in the trade. Bet Shelmarine wouldn't balk either for the same reason. Bet noby's name is even on the receipt if he originally paid cash.

Another forumite offers to buy his unused plans for what he's got in them, maybe a "what will you offer me" price.

Now remember Woodenboat didn't ask anything but a creditcard number and shipping address on his plans order. Not if he was qualified, motivated, could he afford to build a boat, would his wife be put out.

Sadly, I know this to be a reasonably common end to a boat dream. And may people buy three and four sets of plans before thay finally get started.

I know an architect can be concerned when people change the plans to suit themselves, degrade performance, and then the Joe Blow 33's reputation suffers.

But whether the original plan purchaser home builds the boat, gives up subsequently and hires a builder, his brother or son picks up the dream and the tools, or a third party builds the boat for himself, since if and when a boat is built, only one is built, how could the designer feel cheated or misused?

And if he protested, wouldn't that build for himself a reputation that would disincline potential stock plans dealers and boat builders from trading with him?

A custom design where the designer has spent professional time and worry to make sure the guy's realistic about his needs, his financing, and his skills... sure, I can see why his reputation even liabilty might come into grief.

But copies of stock plans advertised and offered for purchase by anybody?

Where have they been hurt?

[imported_Steven Bauer]

Wow, this is a good one! I'm glad I checked with Iain first. smile.gif
Micheal, in view of your stated position here what did you do about the Elly replica situation. It looks like on their website they removed all mention of the boat being a replica of Elly. They call her a replica of a regional type. But in this latest issue of Woodenboat they are calling her a replica of Elly again. Since no one else took her lines they must have used yours, no? Have you persued this? By the way, I do still plan on buying a set of those Elly study plans from you. Maybe at the Mahone Bay Show next summer. :D

Steven

[ 08-31-2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Steven Bauer ]

[mmd]

Re: the Elly replica...

To my knowledge they do not have a set of my drawings of the real Elly. They have not contacted Elly's owner nor the shipwright who maintains her for any dimensional data or illustrations of her. Their claims to be building a regional type similar to Elly seem to be true. Elly's owner has no concerns that I know of about them using Elly's name in the context that they do, and they don't seem to be using information from my drawings other than what they may have gleaned from the WB magazine article, so neither do I. More power to them.

I'd personally rather see such efforts at creating traditional working craft replicas be focused on indigenous craft, such as the Nova Scotia Sea School's Sable Island Surf Boat, but if one must digress, Elly is a good a candidate as any.

I'll look forward to meeting you at the MBWBF - let's plan to tip a pint of Propeller at the Mug 'n' Anchor.

[Big Red]

What if I buy plans and build a boat. Somehow it gets desroyed. I still have the molds, still have the plans, perhaps can salvage some of the original boat. Can I build a new one, or how about rebuild the old one? I payed so I could have a boat, no? Do I still have the right?

I don't understand why a designer would be upset if I resold his plans after deciding not to build. He got payed for the plans, only one boat is going to be built. Just a different guy is going to build it. Does the designer want first right of refusal to buy the plans back?

If in buying the plans I am buying the right to build, then surely I can sell my rights? You think the designer would be happy to have his boat built. And feel sorry that the original person couldn't follow through.

The difference between people who buy boat plans and those that rip off music (for example) is this: the people who buy boat plans are trying to create something. The person who onsells boat plans is still trying to see something created. I think if I was a designer it would feel like a bigger kick in the teeth if I new a set of my plans got thrown in the bin cause a client couldn't build.

Just my $0.02

[ 08-31-2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Big Red ]

[BRYAN LEE]

I would say we have one of the best forums on the internet and outside of the bildge we have some of the nicest and most honest postings that ive seen on the internet. I think some of us prefer to live in the past and I have chosen myself to live without electric in a arctic environment for years at a time because I like the old ways of doing things. Now here is the point. With great respect for designers and the work they do the current system of buy one plan and if you dont use it dont sell it or only sell it once and dont give it away is over. There are already lots of boat plans floating all over the internet. Do you actualy believe you can haul somebody into court outside of your own city over a 500 dollar set of boat plans even if you could prove they sold 10 copys to others but you live in Massachusets and the unethical guy lives on the west coast. Today I can go to Bangkok and get you a copy of longhorn the new microsoft operating system for 3 dollars and every lawyer they have cant stop the reproduction of this operating system which isnt even due out until 2006 but we have it available and if you would like one thousands copys no problem. We have peoples grandkids trying to sell there grandfathers designs and well known designers telling you straight up that they copyied someones design in part yet still asking for 500 dollars for it and Ive even seen one designer offering another designers fineshed boats for sale along side his own plans And there is nothing in the advertisement that says he gives the grandkids of this designer 500 bucks everytime he sales a boat. How many boatplans should one sale before they come into the public domain or how many years should one wait before they are only worth the paper and ink it takes to copy them. I dont have the awnsers but I doubt the future of the current boatplan design and selling process.

[Meerkat]

On a tangent, none of the software that Microsoft, and most other publishers, is sold to the end user. What is sold is a license to use the software. Microsoft is not trying to move the market from a perpetual license (for the specific version, perhaps with updates, that you paid the license fee for) to a periodic one (ie. annual). Unless you pay the annual reliencsing fee, the software will stop working. And, with DRM (Digital Rights Management) built into the CPU chips (here in some cases, universal soon), it will have teeth.

I think it's similar with boat plans: you are not aquiring any rights to the design, you are being granted a license ("construction of 1..n boats") to use the design for a specific limited purpose.

[BRYAN LEE]

As far as microsoft and its teeth when one gets old the teeth tend to come out. The faster someone comes out with software the faster it is hacked and the faster it is hacked the faster it is shared. If you think countrys like China will include devices in chips that denie access to pirate software or wont just make a add on cracker I think you are wrong. If they thought there was a profit in making a disc with every boat plan of a single desighner that would plot out the plans to full size it would already be on the market. My point is where do you draw the line, If people can do they will do. I wonder how many people on this sight have a pirated disc of woodenboat magazine because they can no longer sale the disc and you just have a friend burn one for you.

[dan-marques]

You guys seem to be confusing the reselling of the original plan vs. selling multiple copies of the plan.

It is morally, and legally, wrong for me to make copies of something and resell them (or even give them away for free) without explicit permission. So if I buy a set of boat plans, of course it is wrong for me to make copies and offer them for sale, just as it is wrong for me to copy a CD and give it to my friend. In these cases, the original author is being denied payment for a 'sale' that took place, i.e, there are two copies of the CD out there, but the author was only paid for one.

It is NOT morally wrong for me to sell or give away something I originally bought. In most cases, this right is legally protected. If I sell my copy of a CD, there is only one copy of the CD out, so the author wasn't denied anything.

I don't see why the right to build a boat would be any different. If I built the boat and then sold the completed boat, there would be nothing wrong with that, why would the 'unbuilt' boat be any different. The author, the designer, got paid for the right to build one boat, and one was built.

[NormMessinger]

UNIX here I come.

Interesting discussion. When I bought plans from WoodenBoat Store for the first MacGregor they came with a piece of paper giving me liscense to build one boat. If that boat gets destroyed wouldn't one boat still mean one boat? I think so. When I decided to build a second MacGregor I asked what I need to do to get a license to build another. Buy another set of plans. Simple, eh.

I bought a set of plans for Stambaugh's Mist which I will never build. How would it be different if I sold or gave the plan to someone who built one from if I built the boat and sold it to him? (One only. Of course if several are built for sale the designer gets a cut.)

Mountains from mole hills. Be honest, be fair.

[Frank Wentzel]

I agree with Norm - be honest, be fair. It may be against the law but then the law often has little to do with honesty or fairness. I think it comes down to a comment I once heard - any system will work with people of integrity, no system will work without integrity

/// Frank ///

[Iceboy]

Well this is what the designer said...
Hi Jim:
Thanks for the note. Absolutely, you can do anything you wish with the plans, including to sell them. Please let the new owner know about my web site. Sorry to hear you won't be building it though.

This covers that designer and I'm getting some feedback from the others.(6 of them and 15 more to go) So far none has had any problems with my passing the plans on provided I have NOT built the boat from them. None has asked who I will sell them to and several said they would help the new builder if they referenced my name as the plans source.

Thank you all for your replies and the points brought up on this thread. I will continue to read it with interest. Jim....

[Scott Rosen]

Thanks for that post, Jim.

From an ethical standpoint, you did the right thing, and so did the builder. If only all business transactions worked like that . . . .

Certain rights are (or can be) personal to the initial recipient and not transferable. Say you ran a business and went to a bank for a loan. The bank issued you a commitment letter--a promise to lend you a certain amount of money on certain terms. You paid the bank a fee for the commitment, whether you close or not.

Next, your business hits bad times and you decide that taking the loan wouldn't be a good idea. Your neighbor has an identical business which hasn't come upon hard times, and he lets you know that he could make good use of just such a loan. You and he decide that if you sell your commitment (i.e., your bargained-for right to get a loan) to your neighbor for 50% of the fee, then you recoup some of your fee and your neighbor saves some money of his own.

In this case, the bank has the right to say that the commitment cannot be transferred. The choice belongs to the bank, not the customer. The bank has the right to charge your neighbor a brand new commitment fee, even though it didn't make the loan to you, and even though the new loan would be on identical terms.

Other examples of non-transferable rights: your driver's license. If you decide not to drive, you can't sell your license to your neighbor. Also, warranties for goods. Some manufactures don't allow the initial buyer of goods to transfer the remaining term of a warranty to a subsequent buyer, even if the goods were never used.

These are not perfect analogies, but they illustrate the point.

[Iceboy]

Thanks Scott. I have to admit that you motivated me somewhat in resolving this issue.

Jim....

[TomF]

OK - IP's crucial, in particular for living designers who pay their mortgages by drawing boats. But some things really are in the public domain, despite the byzantine arguments that could be made by IP lawyers ... in defiance of the wishes of the designers in question.

I got my dog-eared copy of American Small Sailing Craft at a yard sale for $7, and regularly borrow Gardner's books from the public library. If I have the temerity to build a Gunning Dory or Kingston Lobster Boat, am I obligated to send cheques off to their respective publishers, or to the Smithsonian for using Chapelle's drawings? Or to just honour Gardner's or Chapelle's intentions, build from their books, and get something on the water.

Tom.