Copyright Infringement?

[Brandon Weiss]

Since I have started woodworking about a year ago, I've been collecting all kinds of plans, mags, ideas, etc. for future projects. Even though I don't build them all the time, I always download the free Wood Magazine plans because, a free plan is a free plan. I have a question about all of this material I have collected though. At some point, I plan to turn my hobby into a business. I would like to eventually sell my projects. If I were to build, say the Pine Cabinet that's in this month's Wood Mag, and somebody came up and said, I want to buy that. Can I sell it? I fabricated it, but it wasn't my plan. Do any of these places have rights to the plans they produce?

Mark me down for the "there are no stupid questions but yours is close" of the day if you want. I'd rather be safe then sorry.

[Brian Tymchak]

Hey Brandon,

There have been several threads over the last several years here on the Creek about this. Bottom line is that yes, you probably can sell the items since the copyrights are protecting the design, not the actual object. You should check the policy of each plan owner. Some magazines limit the number of pieces you can produce.

I suggest running a search here on SMC. I found one thread using "copyright plans" for search criteria. Here's the link to that thread:

http://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=4049&highlight=copyright+plan

Brian

[Blake-Kagen]

I think if you looked around in the internet you would see a lot of projects being for sale that came off copy right project plans. Most of the time in their copy right it may say these "plans" may not be reproduced without prior permission, it doesn't say anything about the project not being reproduced and sold without prior permission. Now if it says you can't build and sell a project from these plans without prior permission then that would bring on more talk especially if it was going to be massed produced.
I think if I was going to build and sell a project off someone else's plans and on my web site I would give recognition to the designer of the project.
It would also be very expensive for someone to take a person to court over a set of plans unless he found them being massed produced.
If you're in serious doubt then why not contact the party or parties and see what they have to tell you.

[Chuck Tringo]

I do something similar to you in collecting plans and pictures, however, I have never seen a plan or picture that I liked exactly the way it was. Mostly I use them for ideas and modify them to my need. Some may say this is a little on the fuzzy side, but I don't follow plans, I get ideas from pictures or magazines then make the project to my liking. I think if you follow this model and avoid mass producing something that is exactly from a magazine plan, you avoid this all together. I also find that it is more rewarding for me to design what is being built that to take something from a plan, that way I'm more invested in the 'art' of woodworking at the same time as building something and I get more from the experience......ok, my hippy rant is over now :p

[Lee Schierer]

I'm not an attorney and didn't sleep at a Holiday Express recently either.

It's more a matter of ethics than copyright. If you build something exactly per the plans for your own use. then that is what the plan designer intended. If you make one for you and a couple of friends that that is also considered fair use. If you set up a factory and start producing lots of them exactly to the plan then you are in a different world and need to reimburse the designer for his intellectual property. Once you cross that fine line from a few for family and friends to lots your ethics should cause you to reimburse the designer since you are making a financial gain from the plans.

However, if you see a set of plans and substantially change the way it is made then you are not under an obligation since the plans were substantially changed. We're not talking just changing wood types or colors here, but substantial design changes, like three doors instead of two, three different sized drawers instead of four equally sized drawers where you had to add your skill into making the design different and functional or Shaker style instead of Early American.

[Kyle Iwamoto]

I'm not an attorney either, and don't even know where a Holiday Express is.

IF the plan is "free" doesn't that mean that the originator intended it to be used by any and all? That would seem to me that he or she is not intended to make money on it. Further, if you paid for a plan, does that mean that you paid the originator for permission to use that plan and if you decided to make 50 of them to sell, your obligation to repay him/her was in the original purchase price?

I'm just curious on this too. Not that I am able to make more than 1 of anything...:o

[Frank Warta]

Since many pieces especially classically designed ones are heavily, sometimes almost identically, modeled after preexisting furniture does putting that information into CAD really give the author ownership of anything other then that CAD drawing. Is the design really theirs if they're basically copying it as well.

I wonder this often regarding many of the New Yankee Workshop pieces which are nearly exact reproductions of antiques that he finds. The measured drawing is obviously a tangible commodity that he has a right to sell at a fair price to compensate the time of himself and his staff but once that transaction occurs what level of rights could they reasonably expect to retain.

My point really being that I'm not sure the moral or ethical questions this raises are always so black and white. A certain amount of discretion would have to come into play. I guess the safest thing would always just be to ask whoever originally created the design documents, but I'm not sure them objecting to whatever use you may dream up always means that you're the one being unethical either.

[Richard Dragin]

If you copied and sold the plans you might have an issue. Building the piece and selling it is no problem for me morally and I doubt it is a legal issue either.

[Dave Lehnert]

It has been some time ago but remember WOOD magazine saying that if a design is theirs you could build all you wanted to sell but if it was a plan that belonged to another person, other than the WOOD staff, you needed permission from the designer.

If you think about it. You building a cabinet that was designed by someone else is no different than if you set up shop and started building Saw Stop table saws. And you know you would not get by with that.

In the end I don't think anyone is going to be concerned with Joe Woodworker making a handful to sell.

[Brad Wood]

It has been some time ago but remember WOOD magazine saying that if a design is theirs you could build all you wanted to sell but if it was a plan that belonged to another person, other than the WOOD staff, you needed permission from the designer.

If you think about it. You building a cabinet that was designed by someone else is no different than if you set up shop and started building Saw Stop table saws. And you know you would not get by with that.

In the end I don't think anyone is going to be concerned with Joe Woodworker making a handful to sell.

umm, the significant difference in your comparison is that the Sawstop is trademarked and patented.

unless the design itself is patented, it is free to copy. Any moral issues aside.

edit: I may be mixing "copy protected" and "patented", but the point remains the same

[Frank Warta]

Dave,

My exception with that would be that you could build a SawStop clone so long as it didn't infringe their patents or copyrights. So you'd have to use different colors, and it couldn't include the brake. Which of course would almost immediately eliminate the added value, but you could do it. Electronics manufactures have been doing it for years, and many tools seem to do the same. At that point is when it becomes more of an ethics question though. It's like the woodriver planes that had everyone worked up a year or so ago. I guess my point is that there are a lot of things you can do legally they may not be ethical, but that doesn't make all "copying" unethical either. It really would have to be judged on a case by case basis I think.

[Dave Lehnert]

Yes, I think it is a fine line for sure. All I know is this very question was asked of WOOD magazine and the response was NO! Only if you have the designer permission. Plans in the magazine was only to build for personal use and not for sale.

In the case of the saw stop- If you eliminated the break feature, It would not be a saw stop. The Delta design (patent) of the cabinet saw is long gone so yes, Anyone can make a cabinet saw.

[Ben Martin]

The plans I have for the Bow Arm Morris Chair from American Furniture Design, say right on them that the plans are to be used for personal reproduction and not profit.

Not sure what they would do to indict you though...

[Victor Robinson]

I'm only married to a lawyer - I don't know what I'm actually talking about.

But we chat about copyright quite a bit, particularly with respect to photography. My rudimentary understanding would be that when you, as a woodworker, make subtle but distinct artistic decisions/additions on a project you got from a plan, such as CHOICE of finish, CHOICE of size/proportions, etc., you have created what essentially amounts to a "derivative work," which is not copyright infringement.

This is separate and apart from if you copied a patented design, in which case the patent would protect not only the specifics of the design but possibly the general concepts as well...but that's less common in the woodworking world I imagine.

[Richard Dragin]

The plans I have for the Bow Arm Morris Chair from American Furniture Design, say right on them that the plans are to be used for personal reproduction and not profit.

Not sure what they would do to indict you though...

That means you can't sell copies of the plans, what you make from them isn't their property.

[Stephen Edwards]

Popular Woodworking magazine had a feature article on this topic within the past couple of years. Sorry, I don't remember the date offhand.

The article was written by an attorney who specializes in intellectual property issues. It was very informative with a brief description of several types of intellectual property as related to the woodworking world: design patents, utility patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. etc.

If you're considering turning your hobby into a business and if you have any doubt about the pieces that you'll be offering for sale, my advice would be to consult an attorney who specializes in this area of law.

[Tom Hargrove]

The following is a quote found on page 1 of Understanding Copyright Law, Third Edition by Marshall Leaffer, which I keep on the bookshelf in my law office:

Patent law provides a limited monopoly for new and inventive products, processes and designs. Trademark Law prohibits product imitators from passing off their goods or services as the products of others. Copyright law protects "original works of authorship."
Thus, if you try to sell a copy of a SawStop, you would probably violate the patent rights, trademark rights and copyright rights of the good people at SawStop. I presume they have taken the appropriate measures to protect all three types of rights, and would be real upset with you. Some people say that lawyers are often the real winners in situations like this. Who am I to disagree?

Derivative works also protected by federal copyright law, and are generally defined as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works." Derivative works are protectable even if the work in question contains "editorial revisions, annotations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship." This means that small changes to a copyrighted design may violate the copyright rights of the owner.

I don't work with copyright law on a frequent basis, so I should not become involved in a debate over the finer points in this area. However, my (free) advice is this: If you are going to charge for furniture made from copyrighted plans drawn by someone else, get the author's permission beforehand, or make radical changes to their design. Otherwise, you run the risk of helping someone like me make enough money to buy more tools. . ..

[Paul Steiner]

I remember reading in either wood or pop. wood. a guy wrote in and said that everyone loved a project he built from their plans and he had offers to buy one. Wood replied and said he can sell one and keep or give away as many as he wants. I wish I remembered which issue, I will try to find it. Maybe some other scmers remember the letter.

[Tony Bilello]

Unless you are a large manufacturer producing a gazillion of them, I wouldnt worry about it.
I build what I think are original designs. I dont copy from others.....intentionally. I may be copying without knowing it. Given that most tables have a flat top, 4 legs and an apron I think it would be literally impossible to design a table that has never been designed before. How many variations of a flat top, 4 legs and an apron can there possibly be?
10,000, a million?

[Mike Heidrick]

Just change the design to one of your own before selling the pieces.

[Richard Dragin]

Let's be realistic about this. Who here has sold enough of anything so as to attract any kind of legal action from a designer? If any woodworker becomes successful enough that it becomes a concern he should consider himself very fortunate indeed.

[Brandon Weiss]

Good to have all the lawyers respond as well. I don't see myself mass producing any of the projects I see in any of the mags. Mass production will likely not be a part of any business I might start. I think part of the problem with deciding if these reproduced items are protected by law lies in the fact that several people have indicated "radical" changes need to be made to the product. Define these radical changes. Does a radical change mean the material is different? The colors, the size, the number of features, the features themselves different? I can understand why, when inquired upon, magazines will tell people to sell 1 but give away the others. Who ever has had an item protected by law that says, "well, you can't make a lot of money on these, but you can sell one. Everybody deserves to sell one." If they have a protected item, you do not sell any. They don't let you sell one. I am not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. I know precisely jack squat about the law. I commend you lawyers for being able to read the books and the laws. When I attempt to read them, my eyes roll back....I don't understand any of it. I find it hard to believe that projects can be protected by law unless the are copyrighted, trademarked, or patented. Do the makers of tenoning jigs pay a royalty to the inventor of the tenoning jig? They all look strikingly the same. And they all operate very similar.

Now, I may be wrong, but I can't see any project I build and sell being challenged in court by the maker of the plan. Yes, if I were to market and sell the plans without permission, I can see why they would have a case. I think I could make some minor changes to any project (screws instead of biscuits, 35" tall instead of 36" tall) and feel pretty safe from anybody taking me to court. The table example is a good example. Many tables look the same, operate the same, have the same parts, etc. I doubt you could even patent a table. I remember from my courses in college that a patent had to be a unique way of doing something, or a unique invention.

If I started selling the "Wood Magazine Pine Country Cabinet" I think I might run into a little resistance....

[Ben Martin]

That means you can't sell copies of the plans, what you make from them isn't their property.

Nope, you are wrong...

It states "Furniture made from this plan is for private use and maybe not be otherwise labeled or re-sold"

Once, again, I have no clue how they would prove that. When in fact their plans are a copy of the Stickley chair...

[Michael Schwartz]

I am not a lawyer but much of this can be explained with common sense. I would strongly recommend seeking professional advice if you need an interpretation of a law and how it might apply to your work or a particular case.

Keep in mind that many authors, and furniture makers who have there work published are professional woodworkers who need to make a living at the end of the day. There work where protected is there intellectual property and they have the right to license it as they see fit, according to the law, and to seek any protections or recourse afforded by the law if an infringement occurs.

If a set of plans states that you can't use them commercially don't do it. If your a hobbyist and you want to build one to sell its probably ok, but if your a professional you really should seek permission, and be prepared to pay for licensing.

If there are no terms of use stated I would still contact the author or publisher for permission for anything more than a one off, and I would be careful about marketing or calming the design as your own, or attaching your brand name to it.

The copyright for the book, or magazine may only apply to the drawing, but the design and or likeness of the original piece is likely still the intellectual property of its creator unless they relinquished it to the publisher. This is likely the reason that magazines have stated you are free to use plans by their employees, but not others work without permission commercially.

Keep in mind that the design of the original piece may still be of value to the furniture maker who designed, and built it. He or she might not have a problem with somebody making a replica for there personal use from magazine plans, but for another professional to copy the piece, enter it into a competition, or potentially cut into there market might be a problem.

Imagine if you had a piece of furniture published with plans in a magazine and some "insert furniture manufacturing giant" decided to make it by the thousands and profit off your work without you ever seeing a cut. It would only be wise to assume both the magazine and author would seek appropriate protection reserve some rights to prevent this.

The bottom line is that if somebody else made something first, and they haven't stated, otherwise it is wise to ask there permission first, or seek legal advice if you plan to make it without permission.

[Darius Ferlas]

Furniture design is not covered by the copyright law but by patent law.
Design patents, such as those applicable to furniture, expire (usually) after 14 years.

[Michael Schwartz]

Furniture design is not covered by the copyright law but by patent law.
Design patents, such as those applicable to furniture, expire (usually) after 14 years.


From us copyright law

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.18"


Here is a PDF titled protection of furniture designs from a law firm that deals with intellectual property stating copyright does apply to furniture and states the difference between the requirements and protection of copyright, trademark, and design or utility patents in relation to a furniture design.


According to the article a patent might be needed if a piece of furniture is not deemed artistic or unique enough for a copyright.

http://www.grr.com/download/publications/final_articles/gg-copyr-trd-drs-ptent-cons.pdf

There are also some other cases and legal precedent that can be found with some digging around google.

[Vince Shriver]

I question how many woodworking designs carry a patent. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that obtaining a patent would be a rather involved, not to mention expensive, procedure. I just can't imagine somebody carrying a patent on a piece of furniture or a shop made jig. I may be wrong. I guess if I were concerned with this, I'd check with the orginator of the design and/or an attorney - pretty simple.

[Brandon Weiss]

I question how many woodworking designs carry a patent. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that obtaining a patent would be a rather involved, not to mention expensive, procedure. I just can't imagine somebody carrying a patent on a piece of furniture or a shop made jig.

Which is why I argue the "morally responsible" part. I am not morally responsible to go track somebody down and ask them if they want a cut when they didn't take the time and effort to protect their work. Sorry, if your work is unprotected, don't expect me to bang down your door with a fist full of money. If you have taken the time, effort, and expense to protect your work in accordance with what the law requires, however, you deserve everything your protection by law has entitled you. Again, this whole question of copyright infringement is what if and won't come into play if I read a copyright on a plan. But I don't think the inventor of the SS has gone banging on doors with a handful of money handing it to anybody whose thought about a blade stopping safety device before. If you want to be compensated, protect your work.

[Michael Schwartz]

Which is why I argue the "morally responsible" part. I am not morally responsible to go track somebody down and ask them if they want a cut when they didn't take the time and effort to protect their work. Sorry, if your work is unprotected, don't expect me to bang down your door with a fist full of money. If you have taken the time, effort, and expense to protect your work in accordance with what the law

Copyright law does not require work to be registered to be subject to protection, and copyright begins at creation but I don't think anybody would disagree that A registered copyright is of course very much necessary and important. However just because a work is not registered doesn't necessarily mean its up for grabs.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Just as a note I don't intend to be condescending in any way to any posters in this thread, and I don't claim any expertise in the area of copyright.

I am very much concerned myself not only with protecting my own work but, not violating anybody else's so I take a pretty cautious view on the entire subject.

[Dave Lehnert]

Just as an update to the original question.

I asked WOOD magazine about this subject.

"Copyrights cover the reproduction of our printed plans and information. All WOOD magazine published material is covered by this. Most plan designs have a design rights protection. You can make up to 25 of our plans (not those designed by someone not a WOOD magazine employee) for resale. "

They also said if you have any questions you should call them.

Hope this helps.

[Howard Acheson]

The Wood Magazine plans are copyrighted. They allow 25 copies to be built and sold.

There is a thread on the Wood Magazine site right not about their copyright rights and restrictions. Go to: woodmagazine.com/ then go to the General Woodworking forum and then the thread titled: Selling from Wood Magazine plans.

Don't assume you can personally benefit from all plans from all magazines.

Edit: Oops, see you already knew this................................

[Geoff Barry]

I'm a lawyer, but not your lawyer, and the following should not be relied upon as legal advice, but merely is academic commentary:

The Copyright Office website hosts a list of circulars that discuss a variety of aspects of copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/

Circular 40 (Visual Arts) contains a brief discussion of what could be protectable under copyright with respect to furniture, and what is not. Basically, under the Copyright Act, "useful articles" are not subject to copyright, but individual design elements can be, if they can be identified separately and exist separately from the utlilitarian aspects of the design, in what is known as the "conceptual separability test". And a compilation of design elements does not qualify separately as copyrightable - the design elements themselves must be copyrightable for a compilation to be copyrightable. There is a case that discussed these issues in brief, albeit on reviewing a denial of a preliminary injunction: Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc. (http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/061144.U.pdf) (No. 06-1144, 4th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006).

So, the above is along way of saying that a truly unique design or pattern may have copyrightable elements (the circular lists a floral pattern as one such possibility), but a Mission Chair, for example, most likely is not copyrightable.

Now, plans are clearly copyrightable, so there may be some sort of implied license with respect to use of plans (bootstrapping off of the shrinkwrap or clickwrap world) - e.g., we give you a license to use this plan in return for your promise not to make more than X copies - but there are a number of problems with that - first, by "using" a plan, you are not implicating any of the rights of copyright (copy, distribute, perform (and no, making the furniture most likely is not "performing" the plan), publicly display, or create derivative works), so you don't need a license to use the plan. Second, shrinkwraps and clickwraps are usually found to be enforceable because the user took some positive steps - i.e., opened the shrinkwrap package, clicked on the click-thru, etc. So you need protectable copyrighted material and some clear affirmative act indicating acceptance of explicit license terms, and you likely have neither.

It's an interesting copyright question, but with the exception of creative design features, furniture is not subject to copyright, and the bar for "creative design features" is pretty high (and not, for example, a claim that one used 4 spindles instead of 3). Of course, if a piece of furniture was copyrightable, merely changing one or two minor or insignificant features (like using dowels instead of biscuits) would not get you out of an infringement claim. And even if a piece of furniture is not copyrightable, it might have design patent protection (rather unlikely if it is not copyrightable, but possible), or could even have some sort of trademark protection (once again, the less distinctive the design, the less likely, and there would have to be a LOT of other factors, but still possible).

Good stuff :)

[Stephen Edwards]

From us copyright law

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.18"


Here is a PDF titled protection of furniture designs from a law firm that deals with intellectual property stating copyright does apply to furniture and states the difference between the requirements and protection of copyright, trademark, and design or utility patents in relation to a furniture design.


According to the article a patent might be needed if a piece of furniture is not deemed artistic or unique enough for a copyright.

http://www.grr.com/download/publications/final_articles/gg-copyr-trd-drs-ptent-cons.pdf

There are also some other cases and legal precedent that can be found with some digging around google.

This is a very interesting thread to me. A someone else has pointed out already, a copyright exists from the moment of creation, even if you don't register it. You need only claim it as yours when you create it. Of course, one's intellectual property is more apt to be clearly subject to protection if they do register it.

The whole intellectual property issue can be very complex in regards to things made of wood. As Michael has quoted above from the US Copyright office:

"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article".

As I understand it, and I'm not an attorney, this would be an example of something that could be subject to a copyright:

You build a ladder back chair. You create a sculpted graphic, carving, whatever you wanna call it, and you apply (glue, screw, whatever) that to one of the rungs on the ladder back chair, that portion of the chair could be copyrighted.

However, if you carved the same design directly into the rung on the ladder back chair, you could not copyright that work of art because it's actually part of the overall structural design of the chair. It would then fall under the realm of design patents.

The folks who issue patents and copyrights are sticklers about not overlapping each others' area of intellectual property protection. So, the rules can be hard to grasp for regular folks like myself. Nevertheless, it's interesting to read about it, IMO.

Of the various types of intellectual property, copyrights seem to last longer than design patents and utility patents. According to: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html) of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html), Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html), Copyright Basics.

Makes my head hurt to try and sort it all out!

[Megan Fitzpatrick]

Popular Woodworking magazine had a feature article on this topic within the past couple of years. Sorry, I don't remember the date offhand.

Stephen, that article was in the Nov. 2008 issue (#172); it was written by Jon Shackelford, an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law. In short, he defines four types of protection that may legally preclude copying and selling pieces: Design Patents, Utility Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.

In a question spurred by that article, a reader asked about producing for sale pieces from a published plan (e.g. in one of Thos. Moser's books). Jon responded that a printed plan does not implicitly license the reader to make and sell propriertay designs.

Another reader asked about Popular Woodworking's policy on the same. Our response: If a staff member designed the piece (or copied an historic plan no longer protected by patent, copyright or trademark), it's fair game for our readers to do with as they will. We do not, however, own the underlying intellectual property rights to articles by freelance writers or columnists, so the making and selling of, say, Mario Rodriguez' Providence Desk from the April 2009 issue might result in legal redress.

Megan Fitzpatrick
managing editor
Popular Woodworking Magazine

[Stephen Edwards]

Stephen, that article was in the Nov. 2008 issue (#172); it was written by Jon Shackelford, an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law. In short, he defines four types of protection that may legally preclude copying and selling pieces: Design Patents, Utility Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.

In a question spurred by that article, a reader asked about producing for sale pieces from a published plan (e.g. in one of Thos. Moser's books). Jon responded that a printed plan does not implicitly license the reader to make and sell propriertay designs.

Another reader asked about Popular Woodworking's policy on the same. Our response: If a staff member designed the piece (or copied an historic plan no longer protected by patent, copyright or trademark), it's fair game for our readers to do with as they will. We do not, however, own the underlying intellectual property rights to articles by freelance writers or columnists, so the making and selling of, say, Mario Rodriguez' Providence Desk from the April 2009 issue might result in legal redress.

Megan Fitzpatrick
managing editor
Popular Woodworking Magazine

Thanks, Megan. That was a very interesting and informative article by Mr. Shackelford.

As an aside, Popular Woodworking published an article that I wrote in the May 1999 issue (#108) that featured several pieces of my wall art. A couple of years ago a gentleman wrote to me asking for my permission to make one of the pieces, "View From A Hoboken Apartment", shown in that article.

He wanted to make one piece as a gift for a friend. This gentleman did the right thing and I gave him permission to make one non-commercial piece, as a gift for his friend, based on my copyrighted design.

Thank you for chiming in and letting us know the policy of Popular Woodworking in regards to published designs featured in your magazine. Much appreciated.