Opinions - Is it Stealing?

[Shelley Bolster]

In Michael Staffords thread "Swivel lid Christmas boxes", after I asked him if he had ever taken them to jewelry stores and he replied that he had never sold them because they weren't his design. In no way do I disagree with his opinion but it really got me thinking about the "big picture" - what would you consider right or wrong in this matter. A long time ago, someone came up with the idea to build something to sit at to eat - a table with 4 legs. Someone else designed something that would hold clothing - a dresser. With every type and style of furniture, there was a first one. Does this mean that if we use ideas from pictures, stores or websites that we are in someway stealing. And what about reproduction furniture or the Mission/Arts and Crafts styles? If you take ideas from 4 different pieces and put them into one, are you guilty 4 times over? Anyways, it just got me wondering about where to draw the line and I would love to hear your opinions.

[Chris Padilla]

Whoever invented the wheel or discovered fire should be a quadruple gazillionaire, eh? :D

[Ian Barley]

I build and sell Adirondack chairs. The exact design and construction of the chair that I sell is mine because I worked it out by trial and error. it is my interpretation of an Adirondack style chair. The general features of the style are now generic and therefore belong to all of us.

If I take a plan or product sold by somebody else and make a copy which is substantially the same with the intention of competing with that person commercially then it is stealing. If somebody purchased one of my chairs and then used it as a template to make others I would consider him a thief. If somebody saw one of my chairs and was inspired to make his own, based on his own interpretation , that is none of my business.

It's pretty much a fine line but if it feels like stealing then it probably is and if it doesn't it probably isn't.

My opinion, valued at the price you paid for it.

[Dick Parr]

Ian, I couldn't have said it better! :D

[Michael Stafford]

I don't disagree with any of the arguments put forth. It is just my opinion reinforced by wife who is forever making sure that another's work is properly attributed ( she is a college professor) that published work is probably copyrighted and therefore belongs to someone. I just do not want to be accused of stealing someone's idea and profitting from it. I just believe in this particular instance since I don't know who designed the box (I did not) it would be wrong to profit from his/her work unless I knew it was in the public domain.





0

[Mac McAtee]

It is a very, very big country. Take that box. Someone somewhere may be selling the box at a local craft shop or on the net. There is plenty of room out there for others to make a box with the same idea of function and sell it without stepping on each other's toes.

Take pens. You buy a pen kit from Berea. I buy a pen kit from Berea. You make a pen using walnut burl. I make a pen using walnut burl. We both go out and sell it. Have I taken something from you, or you me? Has both of us taken something from Berea? After all they put the metal together and gave us both directions to make the pen.

[Chris Padilla]

Capitalism...dontcha love it?! :)

[Jim Becker]

All good points so far on this very interesting and necessary subject. I'll also add that if you work from plans (or products) you purchased you should check to see if there are any restrictions as to the number of the items you can make and/or if you can sell them. That said, I really agree with the theme of what Ian said...put something of yourself into a project if you intend to make it "yours" and for sale. Copy to learn from others, but expand upon that knowledge to make it your own. That's what artistry and craftsmanship is all about, especially in an ethical world.

[mike lucas]

The way that I understand the Law, is that anything without a patent can be copied by whom ever wants to. But if there is a patent, you have to wait until the patent runs out or risk copy right enfringment.

I almost always ask if I can take measuements to build a like piece. And most of the time that is enough. Many woodworkers (Myself included) get a natrual high when a piece they design gets the attention of someone that wants to copy it. That is a great complement when it gets copied.

The rest of the time I make a copy, it is from a picture without measuements. So it is not really a copy, it is more or less a like piece. Because without a detailed drawing and no measuements, the piece will indeed be different.

[Jack Wood]

If I purchase plans for something and build the item, and then sell that item, then I in no way feel that I am "stealing" from the maker of the plans. But if on the other hand I take those plans and copy them and then sell the copies to others then that would be "stealing" unless the maker implicitly ok'd the reproduction and public distribution of said plan. We all have to come up with ideas for projects, some of us can pull them out of the air, the rest of us need help. I have yet to see any plans that say that you can only build one of the widgets and no more or that you can't sell them. The one other point brought up was "reverse engineering" a thing. If you do so and make an exact copy of that and then go into production making them, then you probably are crossing the line. The flip side of this would be seeing something then taking elements of same and building my own thing, then I'm doing what people have done since time began. Happy woodworking:)

[Mark Singer]

This is a sensitive subject with me. I have had my architectural plans actually incorporated into another non licensed designers plans and used for the construction of various homes. It was brought to my attention by a contractor that was bidding his plans and thought they looked familiar. I contacted my E and O (Errors and omissions ) Insurance carrier and they sued him...It didn't do much good since he didn't have insurance or much money. It is hard to compete against people using your own plans that you worked hard to create and perfect over many years. When asked the young man...he said he new my details were very good since I had practiced for years and if he was going tocopy someone, it should be someone who knew what they were doing!
I certainly have gotten inspiration and design ideas from books and magazines of others work. There is little that is completely original today. There is the opportunity to take a design and work it until it is yours. Until it is in concert with other pieces in the room. It forces you to think out of the box and once you gain confidence as a designer you start to rely more on your own ability and less on just duplicating others work. Since we are doing this work from the heart, we owe it to ourselves and everyone else to express what is within each of us. Eames did not design the first chair...but each one he did design is destinctive and recognizable as Eames. We owe it to ourselves to find a personal beginning of design and persue it. It is truly as rewarding as the execution and the knowledge of knowing its source is a wonderful reward!

[Shelley Bolster]

Hey Michael, I sure hope you don't think this thread was directed at you personally. I think your decision not to sell your beautiful little boxes is above reproach and I applaud you for your ethics.
I still wonder though, if you allow a photo of your work in a magazine/forum for others to see, should you not be prepared to accept that others with enough talent might just want to copy your design in some way. I have only seen a few pieces that I would consider totally unique and those would be more along the lines of "wood art".
I think we all, as woodworkers, strive to design and make something we can call our own - but is it really? Has something similar never been made before? And what about how do we go about constructing it - if we use mortise and tenon joinery are we not, in some small way, stealing someone elses design. I sure didn't invent mortise and tenon but I use them all the time. Just something to ponder.

[Dale Thompson]

Shelley,
If a work has not been patented and/or registered under Title 17 of the United States Code and assigned a registration number under Section 410(a) of Title 17, it is fair game. This can apply to machines, recordings, poetry, etc.. In addition, the related patent/registration informtion must be a part of the product literature. :eek:

This may sound like a hard-core approach but it is factual. People who want to protect their "creations" must follow the appropriate rules for said protection. :(

As a side comment, very few patents are obtained to prevent others from duplicating the product of the inventor. Patents are just too easy to skirt (i.e. The three-legged table vs. the four-legged table). The vast majority of patents are filed to assure that the original inventor can continue to produce his/her invention. Fair? Maybe not - but true! :confused:

This is my read on the subject. If someone out there has a better read, please correct me. I'm NOT a lawyer and I am usually wrong! ;) :)

Dale T.

[Scott Coffelt]

Personally, I have seen that style of boxes at several high end art fairs in Kansas City. I doubt seriously they were the originator, but saw the design some where, made mental notes and went home and built some prototypes for which the now sell. I am OK with that, if someone has a plan for sale and says you can not copy for resell and you do to the exact plans and it is trademarked (not a lawyer so not sure the right one) then it is stealing, I've also seen plans that say you can reproduce X quantities.

I personally see pieces which spark creative thoughts of my own for which i design and sell. Mine are my own interpretation of the idea not the exact and therefore I have no issues with it.

Hell, builders do it all the time, they find a plan work with an archetect to make modifications and then reproduce, I doubt seriously it is legally binding as it is not the exact design. But Mark would have more feel for that then me. Heck, Norm does this stuff all the time, I never pay close enough attention, but I think he makes slight changes.

[Mark Singer]

I just looked at Michael Staffords boxes and they are beautiful! It sounds from his post that these have evolved over the years as he has made them. This is creativity and honesty. He expresses that it is another persons original design and he has modified it.
I think all architects and designers subscribe to publications and know what is going on in the world....it is important to know. Just as studying the classic designs through history. The evolving of designs is a process that leads to new ideas and is completley ethical.
Those are wonderful boxes and finely crafted.
Michael....nice work!

[Ian Barley]

I don't disagree with any of the arguments put forth. It is just my opinion reinforced by wife who is forever making sure that another's work is properly attributed ( she is a college professor) that published work is probably copyrighted .......

I think words are easier to deal with than physical things. I believe that as a general guide it is difficult to claim copyright for small sections of written work. There was, in the UK, a recent case where one comedian tried to claim against another for "stealing" a joke. Seriously. The legal opinion that I heard was that it would be unlikely to be successful because the work was too short.

A couple of years ago a competitor set up and when I looked at his website it was evident that he had taken the source of mine from the web and changed some words and pictures and used it to make his own web site. This was obvious because some of my errors and comments were still visible in the code to his site. I contacted him about it and he denied but several of my contacts asked me if I had done his site for him! He has since gone out of business because although it was easy for him to steal my website he didn't find it as easy to steal the ability to make good quality products at the right price because that is harder work.

In UK law it is not possible to copyright or patent an idea. As an example, the principle of stopping a blade on contact with flesh could not be patented but the Sawstop method of achieving this principle could be.

The guy who ripped off Mark's plans knew he was ripping Mark off. The problem sometimes is that people don't realise that intellectual property is still property. I suspect that the guy would have been less likely to come to Mark's property and take physical things that Mark had made.

I saw a magazine article showing a box made on a similar principle to Michaels (Wood magazine??). I don't know if that is where Michael got his inspiration or where the person who made the box that inspired Michael got his. Maybe the guy who wrote the article was inspired by Michael. I think that certain styles become vernacular and are therefore widely interpreted and this is one of them.

[Kent Cori]

I can't think of any woodworking projects that I have made that are exact duplicates of a prototype or exactly conform to a set of purchased plans. I am always adding "improvements" to customize the piece to my personal tastes or a customer's requirements. For me, that is the whole point of doing custom woodworking, each piece is essentially a one of a kind item. Even pens will be custom as no two will ever be exactly the same.

I often use the ideas or products of others as a starting point for my own designs. If we didn't do this, there wouldn't be any such thing as a ___ style of furniture. How many mission style coffee tables are out there?

I am a registered professional engineer in several states. Engineers and architects are forever looking at someone else's mousetrap and trying to figure out how to design a better one. It's just the way we're built. ;) This practice is why we consumers can enjoy continually evolving products.

However, occasionally, my firm has encountered copying practices by our competitors similar to what Mark related with regard to his architectural practice. This is both ethically and legally stealing and is subject to both criminal and civil prosecution. If convicted, a registered architect or engineer can lose his or her license to practice. Therefore, this is a very rare occurrence and obviously goes well beyond anything discussed here.

[Michael Stafford]

What an interesting discussion. I just wanted to share a few boxes that I like to make for gifts and not take credit for an interesting design. I appreciate all of the comments and think that my boxes are to be shared with family and friends and was flattered by Shelley's comment. I just don't like the idea of taking and profitting from someone's basic idea unless you substantially change it and make it your own. I think my boxes are more fluid and flowing than the ones I originally saw but are still recognizable as derived from that idea.

[Dan Gill]

Shelley,
If a work has not been patented and/or registered under Title 17 of the United States Code and assigned a registration number under Section 410(a) of Title 17, it is fair game. This can apply to machines, recordings, poetry, etc.. In addition, the related patent/registration informtion must be a part of the product literature.

Not quite accurate. The written/spoken/recorded word is covered by copyright law, not patent law. In general terms, something is copyrighted the moment you record it in some fashion. Plans typically have a notice that the item can be made for sale one time, a certain number of times, or without limit. Copying and distributing the PLANS is copyright infringement.

That said, reverse engineering an item is a little more sticky. However, something that is not unique, and does not have a demonstrable added value (for instance one type of wooden box vs. another type of wooden box) cannot be protected.

I'm no lawyer, either. I just have to take a refresher in intellectual property/copyright law every year at work.

[Donnie Raines]

When ever I see a project that I like...be it in a book, magazine or whatever...I will try to get in touch with author/artisan to see if they mind me making one like it. I have never been told no. In fact, most tell me they are flattered that I ask them.

That makes me feel good.....

[Ellen Benkin]

Copyrights and patents are entirely different under the law. There are lots of very expensive lawyers, and entire courses in law schools, dealing with these issues, so I doubt we'll resolve them here. That said, it is clearly illegal and immoral to directly copy someone else's work and sell it as your own.

[JOHN HANCOCK]

I am relatively new to this forum and will post an introduction later, but I wanted to reply to this thread now while on my lunch break. I saw a reply to a similar question in a woodworking magazine a while back. ( I believe it was WOOD although it may have been Woodsmith). I believe the editor said that in their magazine, if the project is attributed to a person who was not a member of the magazine staff, the project could be built for personal use or gift, but not to be sold, without permission. Often, they get projects from outside contributors, who are professional woodworkers. I believe he also said if the project was designed by a member of the staff from the magazine that the project could be made for sale. This is just from memory and may have only reflected that magazines policy so I will post the question to WOOD and WOODSMITH to see what their policies are and post their response later.


Also, I am not a lawyer either, but I believe that you don't have to copyright or patent everything in order for it to belong to you, as long as you can prove you had the idea first and the person using it had access to it. I believe that authors and artists automatically have copyrights on their work. If I paint a picture, I don't think anyone can make t-shirts from it without my permission. I'm not sure how that would apply to a plan or a piece of furniture. Selling copies of a published plan may be protected but protection from reproducing an object may require a patent. It will be interesting to see the response from the magazine staffs.

[Mike Keating]

I am not a lawyer, I am just married to one and surrounded by them at work. I work a great deal with summarizing medical literature for a pharmaceutical company (one of the nice ones. . . ;) ) and when we get requests for specific studies we usually refuse the request, unless we have bought the copyright to the article (and we wonder why the cost of drugs are so high :eek: ). We often state that due to copyright law we can not provide the requested reference yada yada yada. But here is the kicker, it has to deal with who actually has the subscription to the medical journal. Since the company owns the subscription anyone who works for the company can get the article, with no copyright worries. There are worries if someone then makes 3000 copies and hands them out saying "courteousy of company X".
So if someone owns the subscription he can make as many copies of the item described in the article for himself. When they leave his possession that is when trouble can start. I am not calling any magazines here.
But, a way around this to renew magazines under the "Smith Family".
As stated, I am not a lawyer, just married to one and surrounded by them at work.

Work safely and now . . . legally ?!?!?

[Dale Thompson]

[QUOTE=Dan Gill]Not quite accurate. The written/spoken/recorded word is covered by copyright law, not patent law. In general terms, something is copyrighted the moment you record it in some fashion. Plans typically have a notice that the item can be made for sale one time, a certain number of times, or without limit. Copying and distributing the PLANS is copyright infringement.

Dan,
Per above, I used the term registration as opposed to the correct term "Copyright". :o In fact, I think that there are even different copyright symbols for such things as recordings vs. written material, etc.

Again, you are absolutely correct in saying that, "Something is copyrighted the moment you record it in some fashion". The rub comes in when you don't "copyright" the work as required by the referenced federal law. It is then up to you to "prove" your authorship or whatever. That is where the cost can become prohibitive - expecially if you are fighting a large corporation with unlimited funds and lawyers. :(

As I recall from some years ago, the cost of a "copyright" is VERY small compared to the cost of a "patent" where you are well advised to get a patent attorney to "research" your position and file your claim. :confused:

Whatever, you've got to admit that I was on the right track. I just chose the wrong train. That's a LOT closer than I normally get. ;) Usually I'm in the wrong galaxy! :eek:

Thanks for the clarification! :)

Dale T.

[Keith Christopher]

Not to drag on a long conversation, I often see something one craftman/artisan has made and I think, I would love to make something like that. I make one which is similar in design, mostly for my own use but sometimes I sell it. I personally would LOVE to see everyone making one of my custom mirrors I make. I would love to see a book written on "The Christopher Mirror" I think the real stealing comes when you claim the design as your own. I have made several items from woodsmith, I charged for my time and materials, and never the design. I've built enough arts and craft style furniture looking at the work of the masters. Imitation is the sinceriest form of flattery and if you all (when I post them) want to make designs like mine, by all means. Just tell your customer where the inspiration came from. :)

I do not however take credit for someone elses design, in fact the boxes you showed, inspired me to try to incorporate that lid design into a humidor, not sure how to get a good seal yet, but I will.

"There is no new thing under the sun." if you get too nit picky here, we should all find the person's heir that developed the drawer and door and pay royalties. don't get me wrong I don't steal, I design my own 90% of the time the other 10% they're modifications of someone elses design.

[John Piwaron]

This might be a long winded thread, even so, the points contained in it are valuable.

I'm a mechanical designer. I've gotta say there's not much new under the sun. If I could only design truly absolutely totally new mechanisms, I'd be out of a job. Most often what happens is simply a refinement of something that's been done before, or a somewhat different execution of how to do a thing.

So it is with the wooden items we make. A box is a box. A drawer is a drawer. The details of construction - mortise & tenon, dovetails, etc., are pretty much standard. I don't think the basic stuff is at all patentable/copyrightable/whatever.

Even if I'm interested in making something from FWW for example, most often there's not quite enough information in the story to make a 100% equal copy. I had to deal with that last night with a piece from that mag that I'm interested in building. So my execution will be different. So it with any number of projects I've built. Inspiration from a magazine, a store display or word of mouth description. By the time I'm done, there's plenty of deviation from the "original", which itself may have someone else's work as it's inspiration.

The real test in IMHO is that it is different enough in look that a casual observer can tell that two seemly "identical" items are in fact different. As I said, there's not much new under the sun. A mission table is a mission table. How much can they vary and still be the mission style? And so on. So I won't be worrying too much if I should happen to make something for sale. Whatever I make is bound to be different enough.