Does anyone know the rules for selling wood items built from published plans?

[Edward Mitton]

Hi, All,
I am tossing around the idea of building wood toys and vehicle models to take around to craft fairs, etc. for the purpose of selling some of them. Maybe start a little part-time side business.
The most burning question I have concerns selling items built from published, copyrighted plans.
I contacted the folks at Toys&Joys about this, and they e-mailed back saying that, yes, I could sell models I build from their plans, I just couldn't copy and sell the plans themselves.
What I am not sure about is the projects published in all the woodworking magazines.
Realizing that all of these plans are all copyrighted, do the same rules pertain to building items for sale folowing these plans.
A little guidance would be much appreciated.

[Dave Cullen]

Copyrights only apply to the written word - the plans themselves. How you interpret them and what you make from them is your business.

[Keith Hankins]

I agree. There are plans out there that stipulate the rights to make a single copy not for resale. However I would never buy those plans. Even if you did unless you are going into global production, I don't see someone coming after you.

[Matt Kestenbaum]

I agree. There are plans out there that stipulate the rights to make a single copy not for resale. However I would never buy those plans. Even if you did unless you are going into global production, I don't see someone coming after you.

I am not an attorney but I have researched the issue and Trademark and patent law is thought to provide little to no protection of furniture design as intellectual property. Fabric patterns of upholstery is a different matter. From an ethical stand-point everybody influences everybody. when you see the Wharton Esherick House its pretty clear he influenced Sam Maloof and George Nakashima whether they knew it or not. Take a look at CustomMade.com (http://CustomMade.com) and their take on the issue.

Or..

Recently FWW (Asa Christiana) wrote this (i'm quoting here, not plagiarizinghttp://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/icons/icon6.png :

A reader recently e-mailed us at FWW to ask if he could sell a few garden benches based on Russell Jensen's beautiful piece on the cover of issue 198, with only a few minor design changes. I gave him my stock answer:
"Legally, he probably doesn’t have to ask, because it is hard to make these cases stand up in court. But ethically, he should ask, especially if his changes are only minor. The plans are in the public domain, but that is for hobbyists. For pros who want to make money off the design, it is a whole other matter. If he isn’t going to compete with Jensen directly, in his region for example, Jensen will probably say OK."
We also forwarded the question to Jensen, and sure enough he said it was fine, but I'm sure he appreciated being asked:
"I have no problem with him using the design to sell. If he was doing it in large quantities I would probably be upset about it, but if he's just building one here and there to sell that's fine by me. Can't say that certain Fine Woodworking articles haven't heavily influenced some of my work also, so for me to say that he can't use my design would be somewhat hypocritical I think : )."
I agree with Jensen that all designs are influenced by what has come before, but it's not too hard too see that some are pretty unique. Take Sam Maloof's rocker. He refined that design again and again, and so the design we all know and love represents any, many years of work, and a lot of money if you consider all the lean years a furniture maker accepts, hoping to find his or her voice and develop a signature line.
When I was interviewing Maloof, I asked him about the many knockoffs I had seen. He didn't mind hobbyists copying his chair. That's why he explained how to build his rocker in articles and videos in the early years of FWW. But the case that upset him was a guy who set up a whole business around the concept of: Come take a class with me and I'll show you how to build the Sam Maloof chair. Maloof said he had considered suing, but was advised it wouldn't be worth it in the end. It would have been nice if the guy had at least asked.
Recently, I have seen people selling plans for a "Sam Maloof-inspired chair." I appreciate them inserting the word "inspired" and not copying the Maloof rocker exactly. That seems like it falls on the right side of the line.

[Keith Outten]

I can't remember the details but a lot of people stopped making toys and other items for children when Congress passed a law requiring expensive testing of finished products after the Chinese shipped some toys into the USA that caused a big rukus. Someone here probably will be able to expand on the legal changes.
.

[Steve Baumgartner]

I can't remember the details but a lot of people stopped making toys and other items for children when Congress passed a law requiring expensive testing of finished products after the Chinese shipped some toys into the USA that caused a big rukus. Someone here probably will be able to expand on the legal changes.
.

They passed such a law, but with the unintended consequence that someone selling a few $25 toys would have to get certification that would cost thousands of dollars. They meant to stop sloppiness by the big import companies and had a much greater impact on the little guy. As a result, last time I checked, they were not enforcing the law for small quantities and were working on an amendment to make this change official.

[Tom Walz]

Woodcraft wants you to call them.

[Matt Meiser]

They passed such a law, but with the unintended consequence that someone selling a few $25 toys would have to get certification that would cost thousands of dollars. They meant to stop sloppiness by the big import companies and had a much greater impact on the little guy. As a result, last time I checked, they were not enforcing the law for small quantities and were working on an amendment to make this change official.

That would be great news. Our club abandoned our annual Toys For Tots project because of that change. Seems like the first year only finishes were covered (natural materials like wood were never covered IIRC) of 3 finish manufacturers I contacted, 1 responded with information, 1 responded that they couldn't certify officially, and one (a company who's WB finishing products are commonly discussed here) didn't even bother to respond to more than one email and voicemail. The next year anything manufactured--the glues, the fasteners, etc, etc. had to be certified and it wasn't worth our effort.

[Dan Hintz]

I can't remember the details but a lot of people stopped making toys and other items for children when Congress passed a law requiring expensive testing of finished products after the Chinese shipped some toys into the USA that caused a big rukus. Someone here probably will be able to expand on the legal changes.
.

Keith,

It falls under the RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) ruleset... things like lead/cadmium in paint, etc. I did not know there was an exemption being discussed, but I would think it's a dangerous road to go down without written authorization from the enforcement body... saying "we won't enforce it for small quantities" means little when they decide you made a "small quantity + 1" and decide to hang you out to dry. I'd wait for a (legal) rule change).

[Steve Baumgartner]

Following up, the relevant act controlling products made primarily for children is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which is enforced by the US Consumer Products Safety Commission. When it was first passed, there was a firestorm of criticism both from large importers and manufacturers (based mainly on not giving them a way to deal with product already in the distribution pipeline) and from small manufacturers (based on the potentially unaffordable cost of the required third-party testing and certification). These issues led the CPSC to stay enforcement of parts of the law while Congress considered. An amended version was passed in 2011 and as of 2012 the CPSC lifted the stay.

Today (Jan 18) the CPSC website is down, but you can find discussion of the act and the subsequent amendment in 2011 at other sites (for example http://www.bdlaw.com/news-1194.html). If you plan to make wooden toys or the like for children, you should read the requirements both to understand the rules you must follow and also because there are exemptions from third-party testing and certification for certain kinds of products and situations.

[Mark Patoka]

Back to the OP's original question, each magazine has their own rules and has been discussed here before. I don't recall the specifics but I believe that if the plan/article was by a magazine staff member you may make something like 25 or x number of pieces. If the plan is from a featured pro or non-staff member, then you may be limited to making a few for personal use.

It's best to contact the publisher of the plan you want to use and find out their rules.