Thread: Copyright Issues - Selling Designs From A Pattern Book?

Originally Posted by codeMunk3y

That to me is still ambiguous, I read that to mean you can't copy the designs for commercial reproduction, but you could make the widget that's described and sell that...

I also think it is ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so. My take on it is that you cannot reproduce designs (read drawings etc) except for personal use, however, you are free to produce items from the designs, otherwise why publish them??

A technicality, perhaps, but in Australia at any rate, while the plans themselves would be protected by copyright, the design would need to be registered to protect it. If that was done, the designer could legally prevent you from making the same design for commercial purposes, whether you made it from his plans or arrived at it independently.

I suspect that several lawyers could retire after you'd argued in court whether your design was the same as his.

Perhaps you should consider the case with boat plans. It is usual for them to be sold with the condition that they may only be used to build one boat. If you wish to build a second boat, you are required to either buy a second set of plans, or pay for the rights to build a 2nd boat from the 1st set of plans.

Interesting, there is the practical angle which goes "what are my chances of getting caught?" and "would it be worth pursuing me for the damage I have done by not paying a proper royalty" vs the moral angle "I declare this design to be mine so dont go stealing my intellectual property for a profit" and "its wrong, think up your own idea". I suspect the intent of the statement is to prevent a windfall profit to some entity that could make a shedload of money from the design.

That said we all stand on the shoulders of someones creativity and real money is make in marketing and execution of great ideas. Last nights Law Report on RN had a great segment on Patent Trolling. The best example we have in Aust is the recent Men at Work "Land Down Under" copyright case. At least it brought Colin Hayes out of retirement.

I would take the great bits, add a few refinements and attribute with "inspired by...." Then if the trolls come.... delete this thread

I would take the great bits, add a few refinements and attribute with "inspired by...." Then if the trolls come.... delete this thread

...and that is really all it takes. Most, if not all, designs draw on something done previously. I've seen a number of small jewellery chests which drew on one of mine, and the makers have freely admitted this. I don't have any problems with this (too bad if I did), because my design was inspired by one of Andrew Crawford's. The point is, none of us have directly copied. I've also had a member here ask me if he could copy the design. Again, no problems because 1. he asked, 2. he was not making it for sale and 3. I'd moved on.

There are laws around derivative works as well, and how much a design can change before it's seen as a design in it's own right.

I used to work for a software company who build 'Home Visualiser' sites for companies. For those they needed images of houses, but were too cheap to buy stock images or get someone to photograph an actual house, so they just got pics off the net and had the graphic designer change them by more than 10%. Under law, they were 'new pictures' and therefore not copied.

I know of an Australian company that sells military gear; not only do they completely copy designs, but there's been talk of them changing existing designs by however much is needed to pass the copyright designs and then filling tenders for the ADF cheaper than the original designers because they don't have to reclaim the R&D costs. Unfortunately one of those design changes was to a rain coat hood and the change allowed water to run into the coat instead of being directed away from it.

In both these cases, I see issues, there is clear intent to take a design and exploit it for money. In the case of the OP, he's making the widgets by hand themselves and is not churning out many, there are also a number of other widgets out there, from whomever else has the widget book.

The difference with the two examples above is that despite the 10% change they are both ripping off the original designer who doesn't get anything for their work. There are a number of threads already covering producing widgets from photographs of a finished product, perhaps something the original designer had not intended as they didn't release plans.

Unlike the cases above this is about producing a widget where the designer has sold the plans and been paid for the work. The real question is does the purchaser of the plans obtain the rights to sell the finished widgets or just produce them for personal use. The wording of the copyright in the book is vague however I am starting to think that the plans are only for personal use.

"The intent of this book is to instruct the reader in the reproduction of these designs for personal use. Reproduction of these designs for profit violates copyright laws."

Doesn't "the intent of this book to instruct" make it clear that "reproduction of these designs" means to make the item; the book isn't about photocopying.