# Intellectual Property? Woodworking Plans and Selling



## Paul

I'm curious about something. And I'm not questioning anybody, because even as a hobbyist I've done it, too. But maybe someday, it will be at least a part-time business.

I'm not sure where I read it, but I believe it may have been a footnote that came along with some plans I ordered from a woodworking magazine. The note indicated that it was perfectly okay to build the project for my own use and enjoyment. But it was not okay to build the project in multiples and sell it. It struck me as a copyright issue similar to buying a musical CD for your own enjoyment, but it not being okay to copy it and sell it. Or better, a musical artist that can't record another's copyright song without paying a fee. The plans were copyright protected so I can't build it and sell it without permission (and a fee?).? I assume all plans published in a magazine are copyright protected.

I rarely build a project exactly the way the plans say to do it. I'll substitute dowels or a tenon for biscuits - change a dimension slightly to fit the lumber I have on hand- leave out a detail I don't like. So, technically I'm not building the piece in the copyright plan . . . . sooooooo where's the line?

What's the law? And even though I'm sure "the law" isn't likely to track down ordinary Joe/Sue making a meager living in anytown, USA, (I haven't lost any sleep over it), what's the correct practice?


----------



## bbrooks

I wonder if any of our Lumberjocks are also lawyers. I believe you can copyright the plans itself, but it would be hard to say you can not build it to sell. If you made some changes, then is this the same thing or not? Good questions.


----------



## Chip

Paul,

You are getting into murky territory here. I owned a marketing firm for 25 years and we dealt with infringement concerning intelectual property quite a bit as pertains to photography, copywriting, illustrations and the such, all the time. The bottom line is always - how MUCH did you change it from the original? And sadly, that is always in the eyes of the beholder - in extreme cases generally a judge.

Also, I don't think there is an issue for woodworkers here unless you take a plan and ramp up your shop to start producing a couple hundred of the items a week (you aren't going in that direction are you? - laughs). Like in the music and stock photography business, many large companies have whole law firms out there checking for infringement on a full time basis. They are looking for the copiers trying to make a full time living out of infringement. I just don't think even the Sam Maloofs in the world care or have the financial interest/assets if you make 5 of his rockers and sell them. Just don't go into business making and selling his rockers full time.

One last point. As you mentioned, changing the original plan as you go along is an integral part of the woodworking process.

I would like to hear from others on this though.


----------



## SteveV

This is an excellent question. Most people that come to me for work bring pictures from a magazine and say "build that". Where is the line? How many people out there produce furniture in the Frank Lloyd Wright style for resale - lots?

I love wood working but unfortunately I lack a lot of artistic ability so I do rely on others for design inspiration. Is this a bad thing?? I always give credit to the original designer where I can.


----------



## BassBully

I'm no lawyer but I don't know how they can officially hold you to the agreement unless they had a patent on the design process which is very unlikely. Copyrights protect "intellectual" property which would protect the plan itself from duplication and the reselling of the plan, not the item you produced from the plan. If that could be upheld, then you could never measure any piece of woodwork and duplicate it which I'm confident is legally o.k.

If it was illegal, I would think all of the major cabinet makers would be suing each other right and left because their work is so similar.

It's my long time theory that the verbiage is there as a deterrence to lessen the amount of competition by instilling fear in the reader. My wife makes crafts from plans and sometimes they'll have similar wording stating that she may only make five or so replicas. How would they enforce this?


----------



## Chip

After reading it over a couple of hours after writing it, I don't think I was clear in my first post. I am in no way shape or form condoning making even 5 exact replicas of a Sam Maloof chair and selling them off as your own.

My points were made in the context of how subtle or drastic the changes are that you make to the original piece before calling it your own and selling it for profit.

I also just assumed that an "influenced by" reference would always go along with the new piece.


----------



## rtwpsom2

Now you are getting into my territory. As a designer, my designs are my livelyhood. I make a living drawing up those plans for people. If those people don't pay for them, I don't eat. It's not like music file sharing where the artist will still be rich even if people share some of his songs on Kazaa. Designers don't circulate anywhere near the volume to do that. If I draw up some house plans for an contractor, I have the right to be paid every time he builds one of those houses. I would also retain the right to sell those plans to anyone else who wants to buy them. If I didn't I would have to continually come up with new plans and the price of the plans would go up enormously. Now in the case of furniture plans, no one would ever say you have to buy two sets of plans to make matching end tables. It's not going to be the same as houses. But if you take my ideas and then make money off of them, you should pay for the ideas just like if I leased a patent to you. Either that, or come up with your own ideas.


----------



## Chip

Rob,

I guess my question would be let's say I take your plans and I move the garage over to the other side of the house off of the familyroom instead of the way you had it off of the kitchen. And let's say I make the kitchen 2 feet longer and maybe raise the ceiling a foot. Not a whole lot of changes from your original layout but at what point do you feel it isn't your home design anymore?

Bill Gates and MicroSoft are masters at this with software. They change the program "just enough" to say it's their own. And guess what, they still spend billions on an army of suits every year to fend off the original creator's lawsuit.

This is a very interesting discussion but I kind of think I have gotten it away from Paul's original question of making lots of furniture, for sale, from plans we buy from companies and other people. Sorry Paul.


----------



## scottb

This came up in a forum or elsewhere at one point. I do recall an editorial comment in Wood magazine, that did allow readers to build up to 20 copies of a project from their magazine (for sale) provided it was designed/built by a staffer. If the plans came from a reader, then you had to contact them.

There is a big (although, often fine line) difference between something that is inspired by, (but still recognizable as it's own thing) and a very close copy. Merely changing a few details doesn't make something yours. Think back to grade school and copying an entry out of an encyclopedia, and changing all the adjectives is still plagarism.


----------



## Obi

This also is something to consider… Whoever the staffer is, or the reader… they have to find the pieces for sale, find the craftsman, find the buyer… for crying out loud… they're gonna be awful busy.


----------



## scottb

Just don't open up a website, or franchise a store exclusively selling one (questionable) item. That will eventually get attention.


----------



## BassBully

I'm still not convinced that using a design to build a woodworking project is infringing on a copyright. Again, copyrights deal with intellectual property. More importantly, published works.

Rob, you mentioned architectural design is copyrighted. That is true only if it's an original because according to the copyright.gov site, it states that a building's design is copyrighted or intellectual property. However, they specifically define a building as a habitable space. Thus, creating a table or chair would not be a habitable space but a gazebo would. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything regarding inhabitable designs.

I find it hard to believe that any claim against someone who uses a design from a magazine could stand. Mainly for the reason that the magazine's design usually isn't all that original. If you think about it, a magazine may publish a design on Shaker chairs. Where did they get their design from? The Shakers of course. Mission tables, the same thing. What about European Workbenches? What about Americana chest of drawers?


----------



## rtwpsom2

Okay to address what I can;

Chip, You are getting into a grey area that only you can define. You have to go with your comfort level. Do you feel in your heart of hearts that the design has changed enough that you can reasonably claim it as your own? What kind of agreement did you acknowledge when you purchased the design. And most importantly do you feel you can reasonably defend your choice in court. BassBully has a point in that a shaker design or a mission design would more than likely be seen as a common enough design that it would not be seen as intellectual property. There is a limited lifespan on copyrights. After 50 years (I think) a copyright has to be renewed or it passes into the common knowledge realm. On the flip side of that, if a designer could prove you actually used his drawings, even once, to build a mass produced article, he stands a good chance of winning a lawsuit.

BassBully, the copyrights that protect a drawing are not ones that cover designs, like in architecture, but the physical written (or drawn) page. The same way an artist owns the copyright to his paintings, a designer owns the copyrights to his drawings. If you go to http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html and click on the EXAMPLES link, you will see the second to last example is "Technical drawings, architectural drawings or plans, blueprints, diagrams, mechanical drawings." In order to win a lawsuit concerning the infringement of a visual art copyright, you have to prove there is some part or parcel of the interlopers produced part, house, machine, furniture, whatever, that would not exist if you hadn't produced the copyrighted material.

Am I making sense? Now like I said, no designer in the world would fault you for making matching end tables for yourself, or even making some as presents for your whole family. Designers are more conscerned when you make money from their work.


----------



## Paul

Forgive me. I guessed that I was probably opening a can of worms when I posted my query. I thought that while there were perhaps some strong opinions, there probably wasn't a definitive answer because there are several angles from which to view it.

For example:

1. Are we talking strictly about law?
2. Are we talking about what can realistically be enforced?
3. Are we talking about a copyright on the plans or what's built from those plans?
4. Someone once said, "That might be correct, but it ain't right!" Does that apply here?
5. There may be no reprecussions, but is it right?
6. Is there such a thing as "public domain" with historic furniture styles? (Public domain applies to many old songs where no one owns a copyright)
7. etc. etc. etc.

Most people know that a singer cannot record a copyrighted song without paying a fee to the copyright owner. Recording someone's copyrighted song to sell without permission and a fee would be similar to building a chair to sell from someone's copyrighted plans wouldn't it?

We can let this go if you want. See my profile. Sometimes I think about these kind of things.


----------



## scottb

Good point, and that's where it could get a little murky. B

ut I suppose for any one person wondering if they should sell a particular project, there are a score making and trying to sell them anyway, without regard to such issues. Karma will come back to bite them, or at least give little meaning to the life of the counterfeiter.

For me, I'll do the best I can, with what I've got with a clear conscience. But, I am an artist. I'll get inspired by something, and will create a new interpretation of it, or find a new way to apply it. I don't find as much satisfaction in reproducing something, as creating something. There are so many great ideas out there, and so many more to discover and/or remember.

Will I make projects from a magazine? Sure. Will I sell them? Maybe. Will I set up a shop to mindlessly churn out such things, without finding a way to make them my own? Of course not.

We're finding new ways to liberate information, the web is doing what moveable type did in the 15th century…. Sure we could argue that the internet is killing spelling and good grammar, but we're sharing ideas and evolving faster than ever. In some countries there isn't an understanding of copyright, information is freely shared, if not hoarded.

There is a copy-left movement (free and fair use, but please credit the source), not to mention open-source - take it, improve it, share it.

If we all help each other, we all win. And I think we, as lumberjocks, really understand that!


----------



## MsDebbieP

Thi has been a GREAT discussioin. It is important for people to think about this whenever they use someone's ideas/plans etc.

This topic became a heated debate at my previous place of employment, as they tried (and actually are still) using the name (and process) of an anger management program that my friend had created - on his own time.

I also know that one of our local figure skating clubs was fined for having a Disney theme for their year-end carnival.

And underneath it all: someone's brilliance created this idea and is a source of income for them so that they can create more brilliant ideas. I, for one, want to support them on their journey so that I can benefit from whatever they create in the future as well as what I am trying to copy in the present. Hopefully I will get good enough to make my own designs soon.


----------



## rentman

I agree with obi,the have better things to dr if your still not sure make it a little taller or shorter and make saw dust.Thinking that much makes my head hurt!!!!


----------



## Chip

It all comes down to integrity. Which sadly is in short commodity these days. An interesting discussion though.

I agree with Paul… I agree with Scott… and I REALLY agree with Phil. Have a great day!


----------



## Chip

Oh, and I agree with Rob too!


----------



## bbrooks

I doubt there is a clear definition of where is the cut off point. I guess one alternative is to write to the designer and ask permission to build them as production. They might consent without any further requirements. Maybe you could offer some compensation, such as $1 from the sale of each item.

It does bring up an interesting point for those plans in a magazine. If the magazine says you can make 20 copies from a plan, what happens if I buy the magazine twice? Does that allow me 40 copies since I bought two magazines, or am I still limited to the original 20? I did provide compensation in the form of another magazine purchase, so does that give me the use of another set of copies?

Alas, this is why there is so much congestion in our courts today. Everything has to be decided by them.


----------



## Obi

So what's to stop the Green & Green next of kin from suing Popular Woodworking and Lumberjocks for promoting a Thorsen House Table and all of the Lumberjocks involved in copyright infringements?

This:
It's a table, they didn't create it, they altered it.

Same thing with a house. Rob didn't invent the house, his plans show how he altered it.

I altered it.


----------



## bbrooks

Let's hope that is not in the future. I bet PW has already discussed the topic among the parties.

I wonder if there is an open source for project plans? Maybe someone has done more research online and found something. I could see creating plans and contributing if I had some interesting item, but probably not a money maker (least not at first).


----------



## Woodwayze

This is one reason I always try to design my own work.

But when I make a table, am I not just making another table, which might have a virtual twin somewhere?

I believe if you alter details, then you are not infringing copyright. But then that is in the UK..
So design thine own I say!

Hope this helps.

John (UK)


----------



## rtwpsom2

Altering the design is in no way infringing on a copyright, I don't think anyone here believes that. The infringement comes when a person makes money off of my ideas, ones that are truly unique to me, and I don't see a dime of that profit.


----------



## MsDebbieP

I had this discussion with someone recently (about making copies of stuff) and I related it to music: you love a band and you want to hear more of them. If everyone scammed their CD's they wouldn't have a profit from them and would probably not produce them .. then you wouldn't be able to listen to them. If you enjoy the band, thank them by buying their CD. 
If you love a woodworking plan, thank them by buying the plan. And if you can't afford to do that - make your own plan.


----------



## bbrooks

I would like to design my own stuff, but right now I need to see plans to learn more of how it is done. What joints are best to use on a table, how to make aprons for the table, how to assemble a box that allows for wood movement, etc. One day I hope to be designing my own items. Right now I am working on an artist stand that a customer wanted. They found a picture of what they wanted it to look like. I have had to build it from the ground up. It does look like their stand, but I had nothing but a picture to work from. It may not be my design, but it is my work.

I do not mind buying plans for something. But if I were to make and sell the items, do I have to buy a set of plans for each one I make to compensate the designer? A small royalty may be in order for something unique.


----------



## MsDebbieP

when you buy the plans, it probably says what you can /can't do.


----------



## rtwpsom2

Bill, when you want to use a designers plans commercially he will usually just sell one set of plans to you at a higher price. Some might want to lease you the copyrights (i.e. you pay a small royalty for each item you produce), but that is kind of a rip-off because someone else will just sell it to you once.


----------



## Kaleo

I think that Rob M. has hit it on the head. I think that if you are going to make something that I designed for a profit then that is wrong. Also there is a hugh difference between being inspired by Frank Loyd wright or Same Maloof and simply just ripping off an idea or design. I think Mr. Maloofs rockers have to be one of the most copied designs out there. There are some many woodworkers out there that are just making his rocker and putting there names on them. I think that is wrong. If you give the credit where it is due, then that is a different story.

I think the biggest problem is for one person to prove that any certain design is completly theirs. And then trying to foght that in court would cost more money than it is worth.

Half the fun of making furniture for me at least is designing it myself. There's nothing better than seeing your own ideas come to life. Designing is not that hard, believe me if I can do it anyone can.


----------



## Obi

Maybe that's why I don't use very many plans. I look at a picture and get an idea in my head and go fromthere. I have a few things on my website that I got from somebody else, but I didn't alter it and call it mine, I simply posted it inthe same format in which I got it. I left their name on it if their name was on it in the first place.

When I saw the plans for the Greene& Greene Side Table, none of it was the same as I had in my head, except for the breadboard thingies on the side. My legs were thicker, longer and a different type of wood. My aprons were thinner. It did have a simular look to it, so it could be recognised as a Greene & Greene replica.


----------



## Woodwayze

Agree with Obi… 
End of story
John


----------



## MsDebbieP

I made my table EXACTLY as in the picture. HA


----------



## RayW

I work in the software business, talk about intellectual capital law suits …. I think these things were invented to two purposes, to give simple people like me headaches and to make sure there is always something to keep our courts busy. What we need here is a simple solution …

How about this, if I'm going to make a pair of tables for my self then we are all pretty much agreed that it's ok. If I make a pair to sell or 10 to sell, and I plan to do to make money, simply buy a copy of the plans for each table I sell and include that as a part of the cost of the uint.

I'm a firm believer in "you reap what you sow." For me, I wouldn't dream of chaeting someone out of their rightful income. But at the same time you have to ask … who invented the box? I think it's up to each of us to do what we feel is right, and I hope that the best in human nature will prevail, I do what I can to see that it does.

Just a few thoughts. More than that gives me a headache 
-Ray


----------



## MsDebbieP

sounds good to me.
I hope that no one gets a heachache over this topic!
I think that we each know what is right and we each make our own choices based on our beliefs.


----------



## Paul

Boy, did I open a can of worms!


----------



## dennis

Can of worms…might even have some bugs and a few slugs in that can.


----------



## MsDebbieP

"cans of worms" make people think and clarify what they believe in.
it may be messy but it's an important process. 
Hopefully people can share their opinions without being offended by others who also have their own opinions. 
And then there are those who just read the discussion and gain new insight into a topic


----------



## roundabout22

Just to add a little more to this whole thing. A reader asked a question similiar to this, "Can I make something from plans in your magazine and sell it for profit." The editors response was basically if you can sell it go for it, but you can't download and sell the actual plans as they are copywrited.

While the magizine didn't give a limit on the number you could make and sell, which wasn't the question anyway, I have order plans that do put limits on how many I could sell. One plan I ordered said that I could make up to 120 and if I planned on making more contact them for royalty pricing. Another plan said I could only make 5.

Because of the huge differences I try to come up with my own plans using pictures for inspiration. The only time I'll order a plan is if it is EXACTLY what I want to build.


----------



## cajunpen

It's times like this when I can really appreciate my "level" of work. I can build something and feel confident that the Designer will never recognize it OR want to claim Designer rights. Someday maybe - but not just yet ).


----------



## VTWoody

Roundabout22,

I think that your response really does hit the nail on the head. While there have been many thoughts on the legality of this or the legality of that, or even the business ethics of a great many situations, it all boils down to one simple issue. It boils down to how the actual designer reads the letter of the law, and how much they believe in the fair use of their own design plans, and how much they feel that a table is a table is a table.

If we take this back to the music industry analogy, you can easil find bands that are very specific about the fact that they will under no circumstances allow people to copy and distribute their music without some complensation to the original band. Metallica is one of those bands, as they were one of the original bands suing Napster. On the other hand, The Dave Matthews Band will allow people to record concerts with professional recording equipment, sometimes even in the venue sound booth, and freely distribute the concert material. There are even bands who don't give a care whether someone makes money off their music or not.

If the designer takes the trouble to limit the number of copies that can be made for profit, then the copier should ethically and legally respect that decision and pay the designer their requested price.

Being a teacher, I have to deal with this issue in many ways. I particularly liked the encyclopedia analogy mentioned earlier.

Peace and Happy Sawdust Making to all


----------



## Karson

I purchased a plan that had the make 5 of them and then pay us a royalty. But what is strange is their bench is different from the original made in the late 1800's. So I'm making mine like the original version and not using their plans.

What was even stranger the picture on the cover of the plans was like the original and the detail plans on the inside didn't match the picture on the outside. I called them and their response if you don't want the plan then send it back.

It looks like the changes were to track who made the bench from their plans. Some of them were real dumb.


----------



## bogmer

Here's the way I understand it.

You can sell a finished project but not a "do it yourself kit".

The reason for this is that when you bye a plan you get drawings of individual pieces and instructions on how to build it. If you make the individual pieces from wood with instructions to build it then you are in fact copying the plan. If you build the project it is no longer the plan it is now a something else than the plan.

Here I'll put it in other terms.

If you read a book on a audio tape it's still the same words but if you take every word from that book and change the order then it's not the same book. Same goes to music if you play a song on a different instrument it's still the same song but if you change the notes around it's something different.

Even better take a poster and cut it into a hundred pieces and glue them in a mosaic. It's not the poster.


----------



## MikeGager

couildnt a person just change the finished product slightly so it doesnt exactly copy the plans?

IMHO if you make and sell plans you better realize somebody is going to build and try to sell whatever the plans show. dont want someone to sell your intellectual property? dont release plans for anyone to purchase

basically unless you have a patent on the final product i think its free for anyone to copy. unethical? probably, but certainly legal


----------



## Jeff28078

I hope I'm understanding your argument correctly but, by the same (in my opinion false) analogy then, if you took all the pieces of the chair and put them together in a different way it would be something different wouldn't be a chair anymore. And just as if you put all the words of a book together in a different order then it might be a collection of words but it wouldn't be a book. Nor would a re-arrangement of the notes be a song (assuming any random re-arrangement doesn't happen to make a viable song). Who'd want to make or for that matter buy any of these different things anyway?


----------



## HorizontalMike

Straight from the Government…

*United States Copyright Office:*

"...Useful Articles
A "useful article" is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian
function that is not merely to portray the appearance of
the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing,
furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An
article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a
useful article-an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle, for
example.
Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian
aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however,
protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that
can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of
an object. Thus a useful article may have both copyrightable
and uncopyrightable features. *For example, a carving on
the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware
could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair
or flatware itself could not.*
Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection
under the federal patent law. For information, visit the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office website at www.uspto.gov or call
(800) 786-9199.
Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends
only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design
of the article that is portrayed. *For example, a drawing or
photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted,
but that does not give the artist or photographer the
exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same
design…."*


----------



## bogmer

What I understand form HorizontalMike's post.

You can use a pattern to make the chair and sale it but if the pattern has a flower or a leaf on it then that part of it should be left out.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yep, I think that is it. You can't put a Stickley Emblem on that Stickley piece of furniture that you just built and want to sell. But you can build and sell as many as you want.


----------



## intelligen

I'm pretty sure if you consulted a lawyer, they would advise you to err on the side of caution, and would probably recommend that you make enough changes to the design that it could not be mistaken for a reproduction of that magazine's plans.

Copyright law would protect the plans themselves from reproduction, and patent law would protect the invention if there's something novel about it (i.e., not obvious to someone with average skill in the art). Until recently, I would have suspected your question was more an issue of trademark law, which boils down to likelihood of brand confusion. Maybe a woodworking company produced the plans with the intent of manufacturing the items themselves, so they want to claim sole right to build and sell that particular product design. It could be that they donated the plans to the magazine in hopes that they could foster demand for the product. Or maybe the person who drew up the plans wants them to be his/her gift to the world, and he/she doesn't want a mega corporation to copy the product and profit enormously without giving the original author even an acknowledgement for the design.

Unfortunately, with the advent of 3D scanners, modeling software, and affordable 3D printers, the issue is being muddied even further. There are actually companies springing up to produce DRM (Digital Rights Management) solutions for physical objects so you can't use a 3D scanner and 3D printer to replicate the object. For example, a ruggedized cellphone case might sell for $40, but suppose you can print it for $10. The obvious next step is to start selling yours online for twice what they cost you and half what the original manufacturer charges. But maybe yours is of inferior quality. If the company offers any sort of warranty, but you've flooded the market with your cheap knock-offs and people are sending yours into the original manufacturer for warranty replacement, it could bankrupt the company, or at least hurt their bottom line until they figure out what's going on. (In terms of woodworking projects, yours might be higher-quality than the mass-produced versions, so this example doesn't translate perfectly-but you probably get the point.)

Getting back to the example, the original producer might have sunk tens of thousands of dollars into testing, certification, materials research, market research including focus groups, and advertising. And thanks to all their hard work, you can make a clone with one or two days' lunch money. The case's design would be fingerprinted such that the major 3D scanning or printing software will identify it as a DRMed item and refuse to reproduce it. The same logic that someone might use to argue in favor of DRMing 3D-printed objects could be applied to woodworking, as well.

If it's a pretty standard design that isn't much different than anything else on the market, or if you're building just a few to sell to local customers, I would think you're unlikely to run into problems, but an attorney is the only person who can assess your actual risk. If it's something really unique and someone might confuse your creation with something from a particular high-end furniture store or a particular toy maker, then the other producer of those products could claim that you're stealing their invention and trying to profit off of their R&D and marketing dollars. If you have a small shop, then in the end it will just boil down to whether you want to spend $10,000+ in court for a 50/50 chance at getting permission to continue selling the product, but as a lawyer might tell you, they could also potentially sue you for any real or imagined damages.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Rob,
My post in #44 is a direct quote taken from the:

*U.S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress · 101 Independence Avenue, SE · Washington, DC 20559 · www.copyright.gov

circular 40 reviewed: 09 ⁄ 2012 Printed on recycled paper-u.s. government printing office: 2012-xxx-xxx ⁄ xx,xxx*

I have not attempted to interpret nor change anything. And furniture is specifically listed as a "useful article" upon which copyright does not apply. "...Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian
aspects of such works of craftsmanship…."

I am not sure it can get much clearer than that. Build all the furniture you want.

Again, the entire U.S. Copyright Office article is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf


----------



## intelligen

HorizontalMike, that is a correct statement about copyright law, but copyright is only one branch of IP law. Even then, there's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law to consider. According to the letter of the law, you're violating someone's copyright every time you load a web page, because your computer is creating a local copy of the page that resides on a server (or at least, that's how it used to be…but now with content dynamically generated on the client-side, perhaps the page on your computer would be considered a derivative work). I don't think anyone would object to the interpretation that the content was put on the web server specifically so it could be copied to your computer solely for the purpose of your personal consumption, in which case you're still honoring the spirit of the law (as long as you don't then repost the content on your own web server or-shudder-print it on paper without getting permission from the copyright owner).

Unfortunately, this ambiguity is what opens everything up to interpretation. I speak from personal experience when I say that intellectual property attorneys can bend the rules or present an interpretation of the law such that it seems like they're downright abusing both the letter and the spirit of the law.

When it comes to IP law-and I'm sure other types of law-anyone with enough money can sue you for anything, without even proving you've done anything wrong. If you decide to fight it, you pretty much have to have $10k on hand just to go through the motions in the court system-in some places, it costs even more. Sometimes the sole purpose is simply to squash you as a competitor or drive you into the ground so they can acquire your unique business assets on the cheap.

For example, my family's small business came under attack for its name, even though any reasonable person should be able to tell the difference. Suppose there were two companies that sell cardboard boxes, *Big Boxes* and *Biggie's Box Superstore*. You'd think most people would be smart enough to tell the difference, right? Even though the other company only had trademarked their logo because they probably didn't qualify for a word mark (you generally cannot trademark a descriptive name), they claimed that our company name was similar enough to the name in their logo to cause confusion. If we hadn't had a website, maybe it never would have come to their attention. But they claimed our markets overlapped because we both have websites and someone in our small town could potentially order one of their products online and have it shipped to an apartment across the street from our storefront, so they argued that someone could confuse our company for theirs, or vice-versa. We tried to fight it for a little while and even sought advice from one of the top law firms in our state, as well as from another business owner who did try to fight and lost, and both said if we had $10k to throw away, we could try to keep our name, but it would still essentially come down to the flip of a coin whether or not we would get to keep the name. So we changed one word in our name.

In another story, my employer recently emerged triumphant in a nasty 6-year-long court case in which a much larger company with practically bottomless pockets accused us of stealing their invention. Nevermind that the invention they filed with the patent office didn't work because it was not only incomplete, but would have been impractical to use even if someone could come up with the missing parts (patent law requires you to submit enough information for someone to reproduce the fully-functional invention).

Anyway, the lawsuit was very expensive and lasted long enough to open up the market to multiple lower-end competitors who could pursue some of our larger customers while we couldn't (some customers have a blanket policy of not purchasing from a vendor that's under litigation). And at no point did the other company specifically state which part or parts of our product infringed their patents (which were bogus anyway, but that's another story), even after we provided their counsel with all the details of how our product works.

So if you're going to build and sell stuff exactly as documented in the plans which specifically prohibit that, either get a lawyer's opinion (if possible, in writing if you think you'll be selling a lot of these); or don't ask the question, keep a low profile, and don't produce enough of these things that anyone would ever notice, much less feel inclined to send you a cease & desist order.


----------



## intelligen

"You can't put a Stickley Emblem on that Stickley piece of furniture that you just built and want to sell…"

I'm assuming since you "just built" it, it isn't actually a piece of Stickley furniture-in which case, it would be a Stickley look-alike, but not a real Stickley.

Now, applying the Stickley example to the excerpts of copyright law that HorizontalMike shared earlier:

"For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not."

This means the Stickley emblem is copyrighted and you may not reproduce the emblem. Although the design of the chair or flatware cannot be protected by copyright law, it can be protected by a patent if it meets certain criteria, such as being non-obvious to someone with average skill in the art of furniture or flatware design.

"For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design…."

To be honest, I'm too ignorant (or deprived, take your pick) to know what those pictures and graphical designs are in the Stickley emblem (maybe yokes?), but let's say they're medieval torture devices. In that case, this is saying that the Stickley emblem which contains these medieval torture devices is copyrighted, but you may freely depict these types of torture devices in your own original pictures. It is an independent example, and is not in any way referencing the previous example of a carving in the back of a chair or floral relief design on silverware.

Assuming both the Stickley emblem's copyright has not expired and the Stickley brand's trademark has not been abandoned, you would be violating the copyright if you reproduce your own copies of the emblem, and you would be violating the trademark if you put a Stickley emblem on a non-genuine "Stickley" product.

On the other hand, if you're performing restoration work on an original Stickley, or the copyright has expired and nobody who owned the trademark is using it in commerce, you'll be fine…unless your lawyer tells you otherwise.


----------



## splinterking

Hi, I've worked in multimedia and graphic design for about a decade and deal with these issues quite a bit.

Here's is my brief 2 cents. If it has © symbol on it (or the words copyright) play it safe and leave it alone. For whatever reason you want stated above. You can get in trouble and it can be stiff. Changing stuff esp. just little mechanical things will probably not hold up. Although if I were to guess most plans copyright is a publishing copyright.

But what you can do is find a couple pictures and come up with your own idea. The first step in the design process most designers never talk about is research. Whenever I'm stumped on something I go google whatever it is and start looking at examples. That doesn't mean I copy it, I just use it as an idea well. If you can't draw(or even if you can) get some pics from magazines and cut them up and try different things together. It's not like every good idea just comes to people out of the ether. Then you probably know what to do from there.

Anyway you could do that and then not only can you have the warm and fuzzy feeling of I built that, but also that you created it. Plus it can be a fun process.


----------



## PRGDesigns

So to those of you who don't agree/understand HM's post, do we go back to the first person whoever made the first chair, table, or other "useful article" and seek their permission? Or do we go back even further to the first person who sat down on a rock and decided sitting was a pretty good idea? Does Mr. Rob McCune believe he is the first person to ever draw up house plans? If not, what does he owe the first person who did? Or do we go back to first humanoid who inhabited a cave and give him the "intellectual property rights"? What if two cavemen came up with the idea simultaneously? Who gets the credit? This is the concept of taking something to the ridiculous extreme to see if it holds water.

I believe Mr. Sam Maloof was under the impression that by copying his designs, or more accurately mimicking his concepts, you were providing him with the most sincere form of flattery. Mr. Maloof always referred to himself as a "woodworker" because it was an "honest term". Is anyone aware of Mr. Maloof using the legal system to go after a woodworker for copying his chair, or more accurately making a chair similar to Mr. Maloofs?

There was a lot more to a Maloof chair than just the dimensions, angles, radii, etc. that might be contained in a detailed scaled plan of his design. The figure of the wood, the balance of color in the materials, etc. were also an integral part of an original Maloof chair. Does anyone believe that making an exact duplicate of a Maloof chair out of stud grade studs is the exact same thing as an original Maloof chair? The same goes for Greene and Greene - their ideas were driven by concepts of function, color, symbolism, etc. Please note, I believe most people who make something inspired by Maloof or Greene and Greene, typically credit the original designer in some shape or form if nothing else but to add a "name brand" to their product that consumers associate with a concept they are interested in acquiring.

As far as anyone enforcing their suggestion you can only make 5 of any given item made from purchase plans, blah, blah, blah, good luck with that. It is my understanding there is a legal concept known as arbitrary and capricious they would have to overcome to prove that by any given woodworker making more than 5 items from said plans somehow damaged them to the point of a compensatory judgment. Where did the number 5 come from? Arbitrary? Capricious? There could very well be a legal precedent out there on a copyright infringement and the number 5 was the tipping point for that particular case, but I believe even that could be subject to challenge based upon the scale of the original case and the particulars in any other case - i.e. 5 nuclear reactors versus 5 toothpicks. That being said, there is another scale factor you might consider - if you end up making a million of those items from the one set of plans you bought, you better expect company in the courtroom. Not that it changes the legal concept of the original argument, but the plan makers will be looking for a piece of the pie and the larger the pie the more people who will be looking for a bite through a settlement.

In my opinion, you can always bluff your way on any limits you may want to put on a set of plans, but I believe enforcing it is a whole different matter. You can also bluff about your plans only being for your preferred method of fabrication such as a scroll saw, etc. but once a consumer purchases the plans, you are pretty much out of the loop on what is done with those plans. You can limit their usefulness by refusing to provide vector drawings to a potential purchaser, but if they buy the plans in the format you sell them, then they can do what they want with them, no matter what your personal feelings about them may be.

Ask the Winkelvoss twins how their intellectual property lawsuit(s) worked out. Can we say settlements all around and no one got exactly what they wanted out of the law? Continuing to pursue the ultimate decision in your favor reaches a point of diminishing returns and the risk of a decision going the other way. Please consider a different "useful article"; the guy who invented the intermittent wiper blades won his lawsuit against Ford as it became obvious they had ripped him off. Although intermittent wiper blades are indeed a "useful article" to have, they are not the same "useful article" represented by a chair, table, stool, rocker, etc., which concepts have been around since humans first roamed the earth.

Anyone turned over your dining room chairs or table? See any kind of a copyright or trademark symbol on them? How about your couch? You might see a copyright or trademark on the name of the Company that built them, but not the actual "useful article" itself. Now if you see some type of trademark or copyright on a mechanical recliner, I believe it covers the mechanism and not the actual chair itself. The mechanism can actually be tracked back to the original inventor, but not the chair, or the concept of a chair, itself.

The lawyers will always tell you there are several shades of grey in the law and bad decisions on both sides of the argument have been made under the impression they were made using the best of intentions. What scares most people is the outliers in the legal system that makes it seem like you can't do anything right. Press on, do what you think is right , and thank the first guy who thought of the chair every time you enjoy that "useful article". Please note, if you make a million copies of something I inspired, we may meet again under less than ideal conditions.


----------



## HorizontalMike

PRG,
EXACTLY.

"...I hold the patent on all 3 and 4 legged chairs. Now I do not want you folks building my invention. Build all the 1 and 2 legged chairs you want, but leave MY concept alone!..." ROLMAO!


----------



## wormil

I read up on this subject a year or two ago, the details have somewhat faded but basically what HM has written is correct. You cannot copyright or trademark a piece of furniture, only a unique embellishment. There have been a number of court cases over the years where one furniture company has copied another and been taken to court, in every case I found, the courts ruled in favor of the company who copied the other's design.


----------



## followyourheart

There is a current case (involving Restoration Hardware copying furniture) that some of you may be interested to read:
New York Times article

Please let me know if the link is broken.


----------



## PRGDesigns

~Julie~ thanks for the spot on article - the link was perfect.

I believe if you read the article carefully, you will note Emeco is suing RH because RH is trying to push their knockoffs as the same as Emeco with the same proprietary processes used to make the Emeco chair - not solely based upon the fact they are making a similar chair. There is obviously enough money involved and RH has enough of the market to make it worthwhile to pursue this proprietary process legal angle of the copyright / trade mark / trade dress, etc. The other examples of litigation also involved the legal angle of the proprietary processes used in the construction of any given article, not the similar article itself. To me, this is similar to the Stickley subject discussed above and in my opinion, validates HM's comment as the best answer to this inquiry.


----------



## HorizontalMike

BS! Look at the knock off chair. The cross members are curved (u-shaped), while the original is straight. Be ticked off all you want the actual product is is not the same and does NOT have design emblems from the original.

Just because you are right, does not mean some A-hole will not sue you.


----------



## intelligen

HorizontalMike, it doesn't have to be a design *emblem*; it can be a design *element*. It must be distinctive, and in the case of the Naval chair, the argument would have been that the chair was so recognizable that people looking at the Restoration Hardware chair may assume it's actually an Emeco chair. Both chairs' backs have 3 vertical bars spanning across the top frame and a horizontal bar. Both have horizontal bars spanning from each front to rear leg, with 2 horizontal bars spanning those first 2 bars. And both are the same color, have the same depressions for your family inheritance and your legs, and all the dimensions and spacing look similar. It's unfortunate for consumers who don't expect the replica to be of the same quality as the original. If the advertising removed all doubt-say, by stating in all the catalogs, "This Restoration Hardware chair is a modern replica of the Emeco Navy chair. It is not an original Naval chair," if they hired a good attorney, and if they got lucky, they may have been able to continue selling their chair.

HM's earlier post is correct as it pertains to copyright law, but what I'm trying to point out is that there are other segments of intellectual property law that do potentially support the notion that woodworking plans can claim restrictions on the manufacture and sale of said chair, and the original designer of that chair could try to enforce those restrictions. Whether the argument holds up in court is something that will be determined by precedent, the amount of money involved, and the recognizability of the design. By participating in this discussion, we're all opening ourselves up to potential charges of willful infringement if we do decide to build and sell something exactly to spec if its plans claim restrictions on those rights.

"do we go back to the first person whoever made the first chair, table, or other "useful article" and seek their permission? Or do we go back even further to the first person who sat down on a rock and decided sitting was a pretty good idea? Does Mr. Rob McCune believe he is the first person to ever draw up house plans? If not, what does he owe the first person who did? Or do we go back to first humanoid who inhabited a cave and give him the "intellectual property rights"?

It depends what you're asking about…

First chair or table?

patent: no, because those ideas were not patented, and even if they were, those patents would have long since expired, making the inventions free for anyone to use
copyright: no, because a chair or table cannot be copyrighted
trademark or trade dress: possibly, if the first person to create a product with those particular aesthetic elements has maintained and enforced their claim on the trademarked element(s)

Other useful item?

patent: depends-was it patented? Has the patent expired?
copyright: no, the item itself cannot be copyrighted
trademark or trade dress: possibly, if the first person to create a product with those particular aesthetic elements has maintained and enforced their claim on the trademarked element(s)

The point of IP law is to give creative people a temporary monopoly in exchange for sharing their creations with future generations. As an example, take Fein's oscillating multi-tool, whose patent expired in October 2008. Since then, practically every power tool manufacturer has released their own version. Prior to that, the Multi-Master was the only such oscillating tool available on the market.

"What if two cavemen came up with the idea simultaneously? Who gets the credit? This is the concept of taking something to the ridiculous extreme to see if it holds water."

It would be very difficult to prove simultaneous invention. One of them almost certainly has to be the first to produce and document their invention. The first to to file for the patent gets it, and they must file within a certain period after producing the invention. But if someone can definitively prove prior art (i.e., that the invention already existed before) , then the patent will not be issued (or will be canceled if it has already been issued).

"Anyone turned over your dining room chairs or table? See any kind of a copyright or trademark symbol on them? How about your couch? You might see a copyright or trademark on the name of the Company that built them, but not the actual "useful article" itself. Now if you see some type of trademark or copyright on a mechanical recliner, I believe it covers the mechanism and not the actual chair itself. The mechanism can actually be tracked back to the original inventor, but not the chair, or the concept of a chair, itself."

Do not confuse copyrights, trademarks, and patents. A couch cannot be copyrighted. It also cannot be trademarked, though certain elements of a product that distinguish it from other similar products on the market can be trademarked. Harley Davidson owns a trademark on the sound of their motorcycles. The mechanism for your recliner cannot be copyrighted, and it probably wouldn't be trademarked unless it prominently and uniquely identifies that brand of recliner from other brands (for example, maybe the reclining mechanism is normally visible, and it has a very particular shape and color). But if the mechanism is a fairly recent invention, it could be covered by one or more patents.

But, as has been pointed out a few times already, what it all really comes down to is whether there's potentially a lot of money at stake. If you have a large company with tons of money trying to maintain market dominance, they will try to squash anyone else using whatever segment of IP law suits their needs. At the other end of the spectrum are the ideas which are patented and not enforced until a company like Intellectual Ventures snaps them up and starts trying to collect royalties from anyone who has been using the ideas.

Julie, great article; thanks for sharing.


----------



## Grandpa

I worked as a technologist for a major oil field service company for 30 years. When we changed a part, we always asked ourselves this question; Does this change the fit form or function? If the answer is yes then a new number was assigned and it was a new part. If the answer is no then it was an updated change for the old part. I feel that some of that logic would apply here. Does my new piece of furniture or toy or whatever change the fit so only it can be used, or the form so that again only this part can be used or the function so that in reality this makes a new piece of equipment that does a job differently than the original. Fit, form and function. That would apply more to patents. Copyright is similiar but different. It covers the design of a part or piece of furniture. Once that piece of equipment has been built in quantity all bets are off if there was nothing there in the begining to protect it. If that chair Mike spoke of had no patent on it when it was first built in 5000 BC then time goes on and we cannot patent it. 
I have friends that have worked for major companies doing as specific job such as a welding engineer. This friend was laid off then the company wanted him to hire on as a contract employee and do his old job. He asked for his file cabinets to be delivered to his house and placed in his home office. They did this and he started his new job doing his old job. He also has access to all the specifications he had written in the past so he didn't have to rewrite them to work for other companies doing the same job. It has been going on for years now.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Just QUIT making my 3 and 4-legged chairs! YOU do not own the copyright NOR the patent to my chairs.

QUIT MAKING MY 3 AND 4-LEGGED CHAIRS!!!!.... I will "the boy named Sue!" YEW!...

Look, this IS NOT in question and is specifically excluded. Make all the furniture you want. PERIOD. The only ones who want to scare you are the ones who stand to profit from it!


----------



## Grandpa

I agree with you Mike. If they can't profit by making you back out they won't bother you. Those guys need to pull out the papers and show you if they really want you to cease.


----------



## Christophret

Nice thread on a sticky subject.
I've done some research in the past and I'd like to add the fact that there is a legal loophole to all this. 
Statute of Limitations.

Not saying it is right or wrong, but it appears the intellectual copyright holder has to remain dilligent.

There is also an age limitation to copyrights, I do believe it is 50 or 75 years where if intellectual rights have not been renewed, they become "public domain".

Correct me if i'm wrong or my post seems missguided, I'm just trying to understand it all as well.
I have a vested interest on the matter.
Chris


----------



## Vrtigo1

I'm glad someone brought this old thread back to life so I had a chance to see it. This is a very interesting topic and I found the discussion thoroughly interesting as I enjoy reading about patent/copyright stuff.

It was addressed already as to what was being discussed, i.e. strict legality or enforceability (as those are often very different things), but as I always say when I talk about this sort of stuff with people, the key determing factor is:

Do you have sufficient resources to undergo a long and arduous legal battle with someone that wants to make your life miserable?

I work in the technology sector where the mega-companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, etc all maintain patent portfolios to be used defensively against the other companies to discourage them from filing suits against them. Frankly, I think our patent system is broken when you can get a patent for something as simple as linking from one website to another website, or the process of clicking a checkout button on a website to "check out".

But at the end of the day our legal system says anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason and the defendant is obligated to show up in court and defend themself. Often there are huge costs associated with this so it's cheaper to simply settle EVEN if you know the plaintiff has no case just because if the plaintiff has deep pockets, they can keep appealing and dragging things out to the point that you'll bankrupt yourself trying to defend the case.

This was a common tactic used by the recording industry when people started downloading music from the Internet. They would send out letters to people claiming that they downloaded music illegaly and would offer them the opportunity to settle for a few thousand dollars or face a long drawn out legal battle. There are not many private citizens that have the means to go up against a multi-billion dollar industry in court and survive.

So, the short version of what I am trying to say is:
1) I doubt you would be bothered for selling something built from a copyrighted plan unless you were doing so on a massive scale
2) Even if you were doing it on a massive scale, it would have to somehow be profitable for the plaintiff to sue you (i.e. you would have to be directly competing with their business model)
3) Even if you're right, they can still rain on your parade if they have more money and better lawyers than you do (a sad but true fact of our legal system)


----------

