Legal Question

[Allen Grimes]

Would original designs posted on this website count as copyrighted material?

Im pretty sure that they would, but not positive.

[Cecil Arnold]

Allen, do a search, as I recall a long discussion on this subject. While I'm sure someone will contradict this, it is my understanding that you can not copyright an idea. Most copyrights are for written work including film, plays, etc. A design is something else and is easily "worked around" by changing a detail or two. While I am not in agreement with this, should I choose to use someone's design I would feel obligated to give credit by stating somewhere "Inspired by the designs of _____". Think about the Hula Hoop, Frisbee, and other easily copied items and the imitators who benefited without ever paying any form of royalty.

[Allen Grimes]

Cecil drawn up designs can be copyrighted just like a poem or a novel. As soon as you put an original IP on paper, it counts as copyrighted material. Therefore I could print my designs and they would be copyrighted, which now that I mentioned it that is what I am going to do.

But still, I think that by simply posting them to this site, it should count because it is dated and the poster's real name is on it. I'm just not positive about that so I'm not taking any chances until I got some real copyrights on my work.

[Cecil Arnold]

Allen, that's true. However by making small changes (and I'm talking about a wood product like a table or chair) the product can be easily pirated. That is my understanding of what happened to the items I mentioned earlier--Hula Hoop, etc. By the time any court action could be taken the fad was over and the copier was gone, out of business and there was nothing left to collect. I certainly don't want to discourage you, and getting a copyright is not that difficult (my master's thesis is copyright protected) however IMHO only those with the political clout like the pharmicutials can impose the kind of protection you seem to be seeking. Oh yes, another good design idea comes to mind that was ripped off. The Weed Eater was invented by a local fellow who managed to sell his start up before everyone got in on the act. He was lucky, made a bundle of money, and today B&D, Sthil, Roybe, et al all make string trimmers.

[Allen Grimes]

Good point, I guess I will just be careful of what I post. Im not worried about any creekers, but you never know who else could be monitoring this site.

[Earl Kelly]

Allen,
From my limited knowledge, your drawings and designs can be copyrighted. And they are automatically, when they're published. Here's the rub, someone can look at your drawing, without copying it and produce a piece of furniture, without violating your copyright. But if they reproduce your drawing, as in , duplicate, they violate the copyright. Now if it is considered Art, it cannot be reproduced in any way without your consent. But with Furniture being utilitarian, it can be duplicated, unless there is a patent on some technique or joint used to create the work.

It's really convoluted, but basically, Art, has total protection, and Furniture has very little. You can label your furniture as Art, but it must be unique. I would never post any Drawings with dimensions in a public forum, but, posting pics of your work, is one of the few ways to get noticed.

[Wes Bischel]

Maybe I'm missing something here, if so, please explain - if something is just printed on a piece of paper, it is not automatically copyrighted. If it is marked with the circle c and/or "copyrighted" then, it is marked, but still not "copyrighted". You can mark your item and if someone copies it then you have a limited time in which you need to file for the copyright.
I think the copyright law changed to incorporate designs and patterns in the early/mid 80's, significantly strengthening the copyright laws. (don't hold me on the time frame) In many ways it made the design patent obsolete since most of the same protections were afforded via copyright and a copyright is much easier and cheaper to obtain.
All of the designs we did for my former employer were marked copyright. If there was a high likelihood of infringement it would be filed right away and sometimes a design patent was applied for. We always preferred design patents - only because the company had a monetary reward for patents, but nothing for copyrights .
The points made concerning slight changes are very true. The reality is, very subtle changes can be made and the only way to enforce the copyright is by going to court - usually too expensive to be worth it since the outcome is not assured.

So to the original question - finally - no, just posting the designs would not be considered copyrighted. It would actually be considered public disclosure since SMC is open to the public at large. If the designs are marked copyrighted, then if copied, you have the ability to respond legally.

FWIW, Wes

[Cecil Arnold]

Wes, the creator of a written work owns the copyright the minute it is created. You can register your copyright for under $50 plus the cost of the acid free cotton paper. Other methods of protecting written work includes sending it to yourself through registered mail and maintaining the sealed copy, which establishes a date upon which the work existed. Other protections are available by sending copies to the Writers Guild of America (WGA) east or west, where it is dated and maintained for something like 5 years. If a legal conflict should arise, then WGA will provide evidence that the work was in existence and kept at their guarded facilities. Technical writers working for a company normally have an understanding that the employing company has "one time" rights to the work. That means that the company can use the work for the purpose for which it was originally intended on an ongoing basis, but should the writer choose to use all or part of the manuscript in another assignment for another employer he or she is free to do so. If the employer wants exclusive rights (or total ownership) then the contract would be higher.

As you said in your post, the designs were marked as copyrighted, which it was, and if there was a likelihood of infringement they filed the copyright. That established with the copyright office an origination date of an intellectual property. The design patent further protected whatever the gizmo was. I think it would be fair to say that a copyright is for intellectual property (ideas) while a patent is more for a working contraption. FWIW

[Earl Kelly]

When Wes, posted above I started doubting my info so I went to the Horses mouth, the Copyright office website. Lots of info in the FAQ's. Concerning securing a copyright, here's what they say.

HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.


Here's a link to the Copyright basics page:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Here is one final quote as it pertains to furniture:

Useful Articles

A “useful article” is an object having an intrinsic utilitar¡an 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, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.

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 further information, contact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or via the Internet at www.uspto.gov. The telephone number is 1-800-786-9199 and the TTY number is (571) 272-9950. The automated information line is (571) 272-1000.

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.

[Joe Pelonio]

As luck would have it today I just had a lawyer come in to get lettering for his boat, so I asked him. The info provided by Earl is true, but it's unlikely that you would ever know if someone did copy your design. Then if it did come to your attention and you had good evidence of your copyright, it would be up to a judge to decide whether you should be reimbursed and/or a cease order given to the copying party. He said the local case pending by famous glass artist Dale Chihuly is a good example.
Here's a link to a story on that:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hihuly16m.html

[Earl Kelly]

Joe,
Thanks for posting that link. Interesting article. I would love to see the works side by side to compare. Chihuly may have let his Ego get the better of him. Of course if it's a very similar copy or design, I say go for it. Problem is, even if the Artist being sued wins he still loses, no Gallery will want his work anymore.

[Wes Bischel]

Well, I guess with all things legal "it depends" . The printed copy making a publication automatically copyrighted is something I didn't know about. But there are other inconsistencies which show up when we talk print versus design. Since we were talking about drawings specifically, then this section applies:




Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and

2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Example: © 2002 John Doe

The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.



And if one were to take legal action, then this section would apply:




COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications.

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.





I suspect where the real confusion arises is when talking about the drawing being copyrighted versus the design being copyrighted. I was considering the content, not just the drawing. If Allen is only concerned about the drawing, then what Earl and Joe say looks to be correct. But if the design contained in the drawing (pattern object etc.) is to be covered additional steps must be taken.

With the addition of the visual arena to the published copyright arena, there are decencies as we can see. I was just going by what my former employer's legal department set as the procedure for introducing new products with reproducible patterns into the market. When I send drawings to clients or vendors, they are always marked "all designs copyright Floyd Enterprises 2006" (my company) It's part of the boiler plate title block. Of course this still doesn't really protect the work from being copied - it just allows me to take legal action without any ambiguities.

Sorry if I've confused the issues,

Wes

Wow, that got long, sorry.

[Joe Pelonio]

Any discussion of legalities is bound to get complicated. I include on proofs for sign designs a similar line, Wes, mainly to discourage if not prevent a customer from taking the design I did for him to another shop to have it made. Assuming the other shops to be ethical they would decline the job, though the customer could always cut that part off before taking it to another shop. I have run into this when a large sandblasted cedar sign job was out for quotes and designs, they liked my price and someone else's design and when they brought the design with the other shop's logo blacked out I refused to do the job. It's not likely that I or most other shops would take the time and money to pursue such a thing, so it's more of a preventative measure. It seems to me that if people share their work on a forum such as this the court might consider it to be implied permission to use the design. In the laser section we specifically help each other by posting actual design files, but if people have a furniture idea or something that they might make a lot of money on in the future it may not be a good idea to share it here. From what I've seen our members are very ethical and like a big family, but lurking guests we don't know about, and this is available all over the world.

[Allen Grimes]

I just got through reading all of your responses. First of all, I want to thank everybody for sharing their information with me.

What I want to protect are the designs themselves, not the pictures. I want to sell furniture and I have some pretty original designs that I havent seen in any of the bigger furniture stores or websites or anywhere else for that matter.

The reason why I wanted to know if my work would be protected here is because I dont want somebody to see my designs and use them for their own business before I get a chance to.

Either way, there are always ways for a snake to be a snake so, unfortunately, I wont put any of my original designs on this website.

As for posting pictures of my completed projects, I will only post pics of pieces that I dont plan on selling through my stores.

Thanks again for all of your help.

EDIT: Joe,

Like I said, Im not worried about Creekers. I wouldnt even mind if a Creeker built one of my designs for themselves. Actually I would be flattered.

I just dont want anybody using my designs to sell. I know that it is innevitable, that once I open up my first store, people are going to start copying my designs, but I want to be the first one to put them on the market. The thing is I just dont know who is looking at this website.

[Earl Kelly]

Wes & Joe,
Great discussion, good info from different sources and angles. The bottom line is, unless your willing to expend money on Lawyers, your protection, even under copyright, may offer no protection at all. I feel for the Jewelry Artists, I understand they are getting knocked off daily, by overseas manufacturers.