PDA

View Full Version : Copyright question?



Gabe Gat
01-13-2009, 12:30 PM
Not sure if anyone happens to be a laserhead/lawyer but I've got a question on copyright.

I'm sure i'm not the only one to troll the web looking for inspiration with the eye "I can do that on my laser" I've come across various different items that I'd love to product myself (for sale) but are covered under "copyright" that said can I modify the design and avoid any type of litigation? If so how much of a change is nessesary?

I don't want to rip off anyones hard for but, where's the line in the sand for this is copyright, this is something "new"?

Chris Friesen
01-13-2009, 12:41 PM
Unfortunately that sort of question is up to the law to decide, and can vary depending on jurisdiction.

Generally the key is whether your work can be considered a "derivative work" of the original. If so, copyright law applies.

There are usually exceptions for things like parody and educational purposes, but they don't sound applicable in your case.

Marc Myer
01-13-2009, 1:07 PM
If you just use the idea and redraw it yourself, and don't copy outright, that's a much safer route to go.
I've been involved in some copyright cases, and a big part of it is if the plaintiff can demonstrate that's it's a direct copy aka a tracing, etc.
Also, if there are various version of the same item available, chances are the copyright has been, in the eyes of the law, 'abandoned,' and it's now in the public domain.
Usually, if there's a violation, the copyright owner must first contact the violator and request they cease and desist using the design.
Regardless, you'll want to make it your own, anyway!

Joe Pelonio
01-13-2009, 6:01 PM
Unfortunately that sort of question is up to the law to decide, and can vary depending on jurisdiction.

Generally the key is whether your work can be considered a "derivative work" of the original. If so, copyright law applies.

There are usually exceptions for things like parody and educational purposes, but they don't sound applicable in your case.
Yes, if the originator (copyright owner) discovers your product through your website it's up to him to hire a lawyer to sue you, and up to the judge to decide whether you might have copied him with changes or perhaps came up with a similar idea. Changing from round to square or from Oak to Birch may or may not be enough to avoid losing a suit.

Daniel Berlin
01-13-2009, 6:38 PM
Yes, if the originator (copyright owner) discovers your product through your website it's up to him to hire a lawyer to sue you, and up to the judge to decide whether you might have copied him with changes or perhaps came up with a similar idea. Changing from round to square or from Oak to Birch may or may not be enough to avoid losing a suit.

Speaking as an intellectual property lawyer, it's going to cost you a lot of money to play this game.
Probably 50k+.
If you lose, and infringement was willful (as it would be in the case like above where you knew you copied it), you will end up paying the other side's legal fees, too :(

Your best bet, as the person a few posts up said, is to use the idea but redraw it yourself.
(Copyright protects particular expressions, not ideas)

Darren Null
01-13-2009, 7:24 PM
Speaking as no kind of lawyer at all, there's 3 parts and another part to copyright, as applied to laser engraving:

1) Images. If you nick an image to burn you're on shaky ground. there's all sorts of proof that an image was made by a particular person, including hidden signatures embedded within the image and 'audit trail' of the image being made. If you like an image enough to create it from the ground up, then there's nothing to stop you doing that. A 'derivative work' is using -in part or in whole- somebody else's work in your work. If you start from scratch using your own material and other sources that you're allowed to use (http://www.sxc.hu/ et al)then you can't really be touched. The big exception to this is logos and other corporate specific images. Don't bother, except with the >written< permission of the copyright holder. If you're feeling like sailing close to the wind then keep a good audit trail. Original PSD files with all the layers. Original ingredient photographs with all the EXIF information intact. Written permission from anyone else's work you use. That sort of thing.
2) Design. Is a funny one. But there's plenty of wiggle room. Different materials/styling/added functions/etc. If you want to be safe though, I'd find ways to *improve* the design. Make it your own. Literally. You can have a design that is based on something else, but if your design is visibly superior then you win. Subject, of course, to how vindictive/loaded the other party is.
3) Process. How it's made. Same as above, really.

4) Who/what is it for? A one-off for a mate, I wouldn't worry about copyright too much. The more public, and the greater volume of units you intend to sell, the more careful you have to be.

Daniel Berlin
01-14-2009, 1:22 PM
Speaking as no kind of lawyer at all, there's 3 parts and another part to copyright, as applied to laser engraving:

1) Images. If you nick an image to burn you're on shaky ground. there's all sorts of proof that an image was made by a particular person, including hidden signatures embedded within the image and 'audit trail' of the image being made. If you like an image enough to create it from the ground up, then there's nothing to stop you doing that. A 'derivative work' is using -in part or in whole- somebody else's work in your work. If you start from scratch using your own material and other sources that you're allowed to use (http://www.sxc.hu/ et al)then you can't really be touched. The big exception to this is logos and other corporate specific images. Don't bother, except with the >written< permission of the copyright holder. If you're feeling like sailing close to the wind then keep a good audit trail. Original PSD files with all the layers. Original ingredient photographs with all the EXIF information intact. Written permission from anyone else's work you use. That sort of thing.
2) Design. Is a funny one. But there's plenty of wiggle room. Different materials/styling/added functions/etc. If you want to be safe though, I'd find ways to *improve* the design. Make it your own. Literally. You can have a design that is based on something else, but if your design is visibly superior then you win. Subject, of course, to how vindictive/loaded the other party is.
3) Process. How it's made. Same as above, really.

4) Who/what is it for? A one-off for a mate, I wouldn't worry about copyright too much. The more public, and the greater volume of units you intend to sell, the more careful you have to be.

Neither #2 nor #3 are really worries unless there are design patents or process patents filed on the design/process, at least in theory.

#2 can become a worry if you are designing buildings based on other buildings, etc.

As for#3, it's explicitly not covered by copyright.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC 102(b)


#1 and #4 are good advice :)

Joe Pelonio
01-14-2009, 2:18 PM
As for#3, it's explicitly not covered by copyright.


That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

Scott Shepherd
01-14-2009, 2:58 PM
That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

That's what they say, but I've read the patent for their products and I can't find where they own any patent on the process. They own a patent on a device, but they do not own the patent on the sticking a ball in a hole like they would lead you to believe.

Daniel Berlin
01-14-2009, 3:14 PM
That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

I had discussions with some people about these particular patents.
They very much cover only the device, regardless of what they are claiming.

Joe Pelonio
01-14-2009, 4:49 PM
Maybe not such a good example then?? I'm not worried because I use a different process anyway to do braille. Still, a process can be patented regardless of whether that one actually is, this per the U.S. patent office:

"Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof."

Tim Bateson
01-14-2009, 5:02 PM
Edison claimed he never invented anything, he just improved on the inventions of others.

Keith Outten
01-14-2009, 5:33 PM
We really need to put this Access Signage thing to rest once and for all. The idea that they own a copyright on putting a ball in a hole is outrageous. I contacted them a long time ago and I was told this by someone who works there, you wouldn't believe what I was thinking when i hung up the phone.

Daniel, could you help us to resolve this by making a phone call and doing a little research on our behalf or could you recommend someone who would be willing to help?

I would like to have an official legal interpretation of their claim. Like Steve I believe their copyright is based only on their braille insertion tool and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone putting a ball in a hole.

.

Darren Null
01-14-2009, 7:36 PM
Why not make the inserts bullet-shaped? They'd stay better and there's at least 3000 years of prior art of people inserting *cough* bullet-shaped items into holes.

It's almost worth patenting it...the court cases would be excellent.

Daniel Berlin
01-14-2009, 8:09 PM
Maybe not such a good example then?? I'm not worried because I use a different process anyway to do braille. Still, a process can be patented regardless of whether that one actually is, this per the U.S. patent office:

"Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof."

Of course, but the cost of doing so is often prohibitive (10k a patent, usually more for complex patents).
Also, patent applications and results are published and easily searchable.

Dan Hintz
01-14-2009, 9:29 PM
Keith,

Lots of practice figuring out if patents are worth the paper their printed on... send me the patent # and I'll look it over for obvious holes.

Scott Shepherd
01-14-2009, 9:37 PM
Why not make the inserts bullet-shaped? They'd stay better and there's at least 3000 years of prior art of people inserting *cough* bullet-shaped items into holes.

It's almost worth patenting it...the court cases would be excellent.

Darren, to be honest, it's already patented for use in Braille. I found it when researching the previously mentioned items.

Scott Shepherd
01-14-2009, 9:41 PM
Dan, he has a very valid patent. The patent is clearly stated it's for "The apparatus to install the braille balls". However, the claim of the company is that if you create a hole and insert a ball to form braille, then you are violating their patent and he can sue you.

There is no question about the validity of his apparatus patent, but there is serious question about the claims the company makes about just how far their patent goes.

I've had some in depth conversations that make me clearly not want to take it any further. I'd also prefer not to discuss some of my knowledge about it in a public forum.

Jeffrey Levine
01-14-2009, 10:57 PM
Are you referring to US Pat#5,245,744 ("Method for placing braille letters on architectural signs")?

I can see where one might very reasonably argue the claim is overbroad:

Claim:
1. A method of placing braille letters on an architectural sign face comprising:
drilling blind holes of a given depth in a sign corresponding to the pattern of braille letters desired to be formed in said sign; and
fastening a separate member of a given height into each of said blind holes so that each separate member extends said given depth into each respective one of said blind holes and each separate member extends at least partially outwardly from said blind hole approximately the same distance as each of the other members extends at least partially outwardly from other respective blind holes in which they are disposed.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said fastening step includes forcing said members into said blind holes; wherein, the width of each of said members are slightly larger than the diameter said holes thereby frictionally holding said members in place with respect to said sign.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein said fastening step includes forcing a respective one of said members in the shape of a sphere into each respective one of said blind holes to an extent greater than the radius of said respective sphere whereby less than half of each of said respective spheres extends from each one of said respective holes and the widest portion of said sphere is in contact with interior walls forming each of said respective holes.

Scott Shepherd
01-15-2009, 8:09 AM
Jeffrey, that's not the patent in question.

It would be 6908009 and 6537071.

John Barton
01-15-2009, 8:39 AM
Copyright applies to artistic works and not to commercial products.

If someone makes boxes for sale in a production environment then those boxes are not covered by copyright.

A design patent is what is needed to cover the design of commercial products.

Most people do not get design patents on their work.

Just because you can do something does not make it right. I can copy my competitor's products easily because I know they have no design patents on their stuff. I don't do it because it's not right and I also don't want my stuff copied. I do however steal parts of their designs and modify them for my own use as they do to me. This is the essence of innovation, wherein we build on that which has come before.

If that which has come before is protected with copyright or patent then you have to obtain permission to use it - otherwise it's fair game legally. Morally? Well I think you will know.

It's ok to look for things to make. Very few people build something completely original.

As Picasso said, "bad artists copy, great artists steal"

Jeffrey Levine
01-15-2009, 12:23 PM
Thanks Scott, the 2 patents you referenced seem to apply to an apparatus, just as you've correctly pointed out. The patent I referenced seems to more closely apply to the claim of "putting a ball in a hole." Note 6,537,071 cites 5,245,744 (but not necessarily suggesting any specific conclusion to draw from that). If one were to make the claim that "putting a ball in a hole" would infringe their patent rights, a possibility could be they have some sort of license agreement for a patent that relates to "putting a ball in a hole." In other words certain infringement claims one might make may not necessarily be based solely on their own patents. Sounds like you have more specific knowledge of this situation you don't want to discuss, and I can respect that, but just thought I would throw that thought out there for others that might be concerned about this issue. Again, just suggesting it as a possibility and I have no specific knowledge of anything upon which anybody is making any claims.

Jeffrey Levine
01-15-2009, 12:25 PM
On a forum like this I don't think there is any reasonable way to cover all of the legal information one should be considering to make determinations of copyright infringement. It's not my intention to do that, but I did want to address the suggestion that copying a "design" is not infringement in the absence of an applicable design patent. A design patent is not the only form of IP that can successfully establish rights for design. Copyrights can apply to many 2 and 3 dimensional works (including sculpture, craft, graphic design, photography, etc.) and other creative nonfunctional design. The original design of a package, toy, implement or other product can qualify for copyright protection if it is created for expressive rather than functional purposes. Also note there are instances where trademark can apply to "design," for example the iconic shape of the coke bottle has trademark rights attached. Certainly not suggesting any posting here are wrong, just wanted to give a little more specific information to avoid any potential confusion.