Is this really fair use?
When a license indicates that you may make a single craft from one set of plans, is it “fair use” to make 2 craft?
What is the ‘interest of society’? Can you argue that it’s within the interests of society to build 2 boats from a single set of plans? under what basis would this benefit society?
‘Fair use’, yes, is constantly evolving as new technologies come onto the market, but it has NOT changed in a significant amount of time (since the first generally available recording media).
Is it fair to copy a CD so you can play it at home and while driving to work? This can be deemed fair use. Is it fair to copy the same CD and give it to your friend? That isn’t fair use.
However, we start to tread into socially acceptable behavior (which IS constantly evolving). There are acts which are percieved as socially acceptable behaviour, but are certainly not ‘fair use’. Multiple recordings of CDs being given away, for example.
Not abiding to the terms of a license by building multiple derived boats from a set of plans when the agreement explicity states otherwise, is NOT fair use.
Now wait a minute
I just checked Uncle Johns website and did find a copyright notice of 2002. In fact his plans are freely downloadable via acrobat. (Though I assume they are for illustrative purposes, not to build.)
The free download does start with "Thanks for purchasing a set of my plans...".
You’re right
I could have made that clearer 
Not trying to…
"roil the waters" as you put it. Just giving an example on the issue. This thread is about "plans & copyrights", it does not stress the fact that it is for booats "ONLY". Would you rather I used the "handmade Tilly" example? Handmade my a$$...lol
And as you put it..... The Hennesey is worlds away from the G.I. hammock.... so it is all ok??? When he infact stated he "duplicated" his hammock from the G.I. model.
So, according to your own words, since my pirogue is worlds away from the Uncle John's plans. Then I don't owe him anything & I pirated nothing.
Thanks for the maral enlightenment... I feel much better & will be sure to sleep tonight.
Paddle easy,
Coffee
Can you please clarify
[snip]wkerriganoh wrote:
Copyright protections are not absolute. And the creator doesn’t have the right to define them as they see fit. Copyright laws are a negotiated compromise which try to serve the needs of the producers and the interests of society at large.[/snip]
Interesting. Can you provide some factual information to back this up?
Dan
http://www.westcoastpaddler.com
Hmmmmmmm?? Thanks.
Now you’ve got it.!
That's it. If a proviso of the plans is to only build one boat, then you must purchase an additional set of plans for each boat that you wish to build.
If the plans that you possess don't stipulate that they are limited to single use (such plans are available), then you've nothing to worry about and you've broken no laws -- build all the boats that you want from that single set of plans.
*****
No
When you purchased your first licence you most likely agreed to a contract to allow you to build one boat.
Licences to build additional boats typically cost less than the first licence.
But yes, you have to pay for the right to build additional boats.
Update:
Ok, we can see that Uncle John will let you build multiple boats from a single set of plans, but he acknowledges that his view is not typical.
No, we’re talking about boat plans
Apples and oranges.
The hammock manufacturer is selling a finished product – not plans to build the hammock.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with purchasing an already constructed hammock – which btw has been granted a patent by the US patent office (#6,865,757), thereby indicating that the product is unique. In fact, if you check, Hennessy has been awarded 8 separate patents for his hammock designs.
The issue that we’re discussing here is something completely different – we’re talking about a condition of the rights to use the plans. What you seem to fail to grasp is that there is a condition of the sale of certain specific plans that allow only one boat to be built. It’s very clear, and is the basis of this discussion.
Dan
http://www.westcoastpaddler.com
it’s for example purposes…
and I'm sure Uncle John wouldn't mind anyone linking or sharing that particular .pdf.
But sending around anything with dimensions is not acceptable.
Personal Opinion: Just because something isn't written in long legal-ese doesn't mean it's acceptable.
If there were a part of the plans that was unclear, you'd expect some tech support and not having Uncle John say "Well you bought the plans, just read them".
In a more extreme example, if you ever dump over bad and need a life line, no is obligated to save you. But we all hope that someone would.
On the business side of it, writing volume of disclaimers drives customers away. So you have to except the few unethical people that hide behind legal loopholes and hope they are few and far between.
In the 18th and 19th century
much of the copyright debate centered on balancing the rights of the creator to profit from his/her creation, and the interests of society in advancing art, knowledge, and technology. (Copyright laws in England and France represented opposite ends of the spectrum) Progress in art, literature, technoogy, etc. build on the progress of others. If one particular idea, design or innovation is protected absolutely and in perpetuity, progress is halted because no other “genius” is allowed to build on the works of others in creating his/her own new ideas and innovations.
By the 1840s, America was becoming notorious as a place where the rights of English authors were completely ignored. American publishers ran off huge runs of Charles Dickens works without his permission and without paying him a royalty. American authors, recognizing this tolerance of intellectual piracy served no one, began pressing Congress for copyright laws with teeth in them. And Congress responded. But neither then nor now has the law recognized intellectual property rights as absolute and lasting forever. Absolute and permanent copyright protections were seen as a form of monopoly.
Two issues
contract and copyright. Contracts sometimes include indefensible clauses, that will not hold up in court. In order for my son to go off to 6th grade camp, I had to sign a release that send I would not sue the school even if the teachers were “grossly negligent.” I’m not a litigious person–never sued anyone in my life. I understand people make mistakes. But if my son were severely injured and killed because a camp supervisor was “grossly negligent” I might sue. And my lawyer friends say that such a clause would not hold up in court. By the same token, it is possible that a boat-plan seller, or a birdhouse-plan seller, could put stipulations in a contract that would not stand up in court.
Is the “one boat per plans” rule legally legitimate? I’m still agnostic on the matter. Suppose some young kayak building genius buys the plans for the Queen Charlotte, and builds himself a boat. Then he begins designing his own. Whatever design he comes up with, it is likely to have been shaped a little or a lot by what he learned building that first boat. Is he bound to pay Pygmy for the rest of his life if he opens his own business, builds boats of his own design, which Pygmy asserts are “based” on their Queen Charlotte. Can you begin to see how making copyright too restrictive might hamstring innovation, and deny others the right to compete with Pygmy?
Why are posts disappearing?
I've now had two posts that I made, disappear -- can someone tell me why this is?
*****
I assumed you removed them yourself
But if the moderator thought they were over the line, and belonged on B&B, he might have done so. Have a nice day. We can disagree on the boundaries of copyright, but I bet we both agree we’d rather be paddling than bickering on pnet.
There are no dimensions on them…
Just a basic how too…
Paddle easy,
Coffee
They weren’t over the line
Asking for facts to back up your claim hardly seems ‘over the line’.
But yes, I agree with your last comment – I’d much rather be out paddling.
Pygmy sells very few “plans”
…and only on their oldest models and could probably care less. Their website shows plans are only available for three boats.
Some designers sell only plans and some also sell custom made to order boats. What is the policy of those that specialize in mostly selling plans?
I’m not an IP expert
but I was under the impression that copyright law protects only the plans themselves, not the hull design. I have a vague recollection that hull designs used to be unprotected and that there’s now something called the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act or something like that that creates intellectual property rights in the designs themselves. Does this ring any bells for anybody?
Having said that, nobody’s getting rich selling kayak plans, and I agree with those who’ve said that if you buy a set of plans on the condition that you’ll only use them to build one boat, you should only use them to build one boat.
dissappearing posts
if you post replying to another poster that poster can delete their post and yours goes also. If you respond to the original post (not subsequents) the only way your post will be deleted is if the original post is taken down OR the moderator does it.
your mis-information
is maddening. You go to great lengths to misinterpret information trying to mold it to your purposes.
From Hennessy Hammocks site:
The duplicate of the army hammock took less than a day to finish. As I was cutting and sewing, I began to see ways to overcome some of the army hammock’s shortcomings.
Over the next five years I made over fifty different prototypes for my ventures into the Everglades, Costa Rica and Mexico.
The rectangular army shape evolved into a sleek diamond shape; the cord assemblies at each end disappeared to create more int"erior space by attaching the hammock fabric directly to the suspending ropes. A ridge line was built into the hammock providing a support for the netting and weather-fly and, more importantly, ensuring that the hammock would set with exactly the same curve each time it was set up. "
http://www.hennessyhammock.com/Toms-story.htm
If you would take the time to read the whole article, instead of only part of it you would see that Tom H took five years and over fifty prototypes to reinvent the “jungle hammock” into his new and completely different Hennessy Hammock.