Copyright question?

[Gabe Gat]

Not sure if anyone happens to be a laserhead/lawyer but I've got a question on copyright.

I'm sure i'm not the only one to troll the web looking for inspiration with the eye "I can do that on my laser" I've come across various different items that I'd love to product myself (for sale) but are covered under "copyright" that said can I modify the design and avoid any type of litigation? If so how much of a change is nessesary?

I don't want to rip off anyones hard for but, where's the line in the sand for this is copyright, this is something "new"?

[Chris Friesen]

Unfortunately that sort of question is up to the law to decide, and can vary depending on jurisdiction.

Generally the key is whether your work can be considered a "derivative work" of the original. If so, copyright law applies.

There are usually exceptions for things like parody and educational purposes, but they don't sound applicable in your case.

[Marc Myer]

If you just use the idea and redraw it yourself, and don't copy outright, that's a much safer route to go.
I've been involved in some copyright cases, and a big part of it is if the plaintiff can demonstrate that's it's a direct copy aka a tracing, etc.
Also, if there are various version of the same item available, chances are the copyright has been, in the eyes of the law, 'abandoned,' and it's now in the public domain.
Usually, if there's a violation, the copyright owner must first contact the violator and request they cease and desist using the design.
Regardless, you'll want to make it your own, anyway!

[Joe Pelonio]

Unfortunately that sort of question is up to the law to decide, and can vary depending on jurisdiction.

Generally the key is whether your work can be considered a "derivative work" of the original. If so, copyright law applies.

There are usually exceptions for things like parody and educational purposes, but they don't sound applicable in your case.

Yes, if the originator (copyright owner) discovers your product through your website it's up to him to hire a lawyer to sue you, and up to the judge to decide whether you might have copied him with changes or perhaps came up with a similar idea. Changing from round to square or from Oak to Birch may or may not be enough to avoid losing a suit.

[Daniel Berlin]

Yes, if the originator (copyright owner) discovers your product through your website it's up to him to hire a lawyer to sue you, and up to the judge to decide whether you might have copied him with changes or perhaps came up with a similar idea. Changing from round to square or from Oak to Birch may or may not be enough to avoid losing a suit.

Speaking as an intellectual property lawyer, it's going to cost you a lot of money to play this game.
Probably 50k+.
If you lose, and infringement was willful (as it would be in the case like above where you knew you copied it), you will end up paying the other side's legal fees, too

Your best bet, as the person a few posts up said, is to use the idea but redraw it yourself.
(Copyright protects particular expressions, not ideas)

[Darren Null]

Speaking as no kind of lawyer at all, there's 3 parts and another part to copyright, as applied to laser engraving:

1) Images. If you nick an image to burn you're on shaky ground. there's all sorts of proof that an image was made by a particular person, including hidden signatures embedded within the image and 'audit trail' of the image being made. If you like an image enough to create it from the ground up, then there's nothing to stop you doing that. A 'derivative work' is using -in part or in whole- somebody else's work in your work. If you start from scratch using your own material and other sources that you're allowed to use (http://www.sxc.hu/ et al)then you can't really be touched. The big exception to this is logos and other corporate specific images. Don't bother, except with the >written< permission of the copyright holder. If you're feeling like sailing close to the wind then keep a good audit trail. Original PSD files with all the layers. Original ingredient photographs with all the EXIF information intact. Written permission from anyone else's work you use. That sort of thing.
2) Design. Is a funny one. But there's plenty of wiggle room. Different materials/styling/added functions/etc. If you want to be safe though, I'd find ways to *improve* the design. Make it your own. Literally. You can have a design that is based on something else, but if your design is visibly superior then you win. Subject, of course, to how vindictive/loaded the other party is.
3) Process. How it's made. Same as above, really.

4) Who/what is it for? A one-off for a mate, I wouldn't worry about copyright too much. The more public, and the greater volume of units you intend to sell, the more careful you have to be.

[Daniel Berlin]

Speaking as no kind of lawyer at all, there's 3 parts and another part to copyright, as applied to laser engraving:

1) Images. If you nick an image to burn you're on shaky ground. there's all sorts of proof that an image was made by a particular person, including hidden signatures embedded within the image and 'audit trail' of the image being made. If you like an image enough to create it from the ground up, then there's nothing to stop you doing that. A 'derivative work' is using -in part or in whole- somebody else's work in your work. If you start from scratch using your own material and other sources that you're allowed to use (http://www.sxc.hu/ et al)then you can't really be touched. The big exception to this is logos and other corporate specific images. Don't bother, except with the >written< permission of the copyright holder. If you're feeling like sailing close to the wind then keep a good audit trail. Original PSD files with all the layers. Original ingredient photographs with all the EXIF information intact. Written permission from anyone else's work you use. That sort of thing.
2) Design. Is a funny one. But there's plenty of wiggle room. Different materials/styling/added functions/etc. If you want to be safe though, I'd find ways to *improve* the design. Make it your own. Literally. You can have a design that is based on something else, but if your design is visibly superior then you win. Subject, of course, to how vindictive/loaded the other party is.
3) Process. How it's made. Same as above, really.

4) Who/what is it for? A one-off for a mate, I wouldn't worry about copyright too much. The more public, and the greater volume of units you intend to sell, the more careful you have to be.

Neither #2 nor #3 are really worries unless there are design patents or process patents filed on the design/process, at least in theory.

#2 can become a worry if you are designing buildings based on other buildings, etc.

As for#3, it's explicitly not covered by copyright.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC 102(b)


#1 and #4 are good advice

[Joe Pelonio]

As for#3, it's explicitly not covered by copyright.

That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

[Scott Shepherd]

That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

That's what they say, but I've read the patent for their products and I can't find where they own any patent on the process. They own a patent on a device, but they do not own the patent on the sticking a ball in a hole like they would lead you to believe.

[Daniel Berlin]

That's true, the process is not covered by copyright, but it may well be covered by a patent, which is even worse trouble for the copy cat. The best example is the Grade II ADA braille process, where Accent Signage Systems Inc. holds the patent for not only the devices that the sell and license, but also for the method.

I had discussions with some people about these particular patents.
They very much cover only the device, regardless of what they are claiming.

[Joe Pelonio]

Maybe not such a good example then?? I'm not worried because I use a different process anyway to do braille. Still, a process can be patented regardless of whether that one actually is, this per the U.S. patent office:

"Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof."

[Tim Bateson]

Edison claimed he never invented anything, he just improved on the inventions of others.

[Keith Outten]

We really need to put this Access Signage thing to rest once and for all. The idea that they own a copyright on putting a ball in a hole is outrageous. I contacted them a long time ago and I was told this by someone who works there, you wouldn't believe what I was thinking when i hung up the phone.

Daniel, could you help us to resolve this by making a phone call and doing a little research on our behalf or could you recommend someone who would be willing to help?

I would like to have an official legal interpretation of their claim. Like Steve I believe their copyright is based only on their braille insertion tool and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone putting a ball in a hole.

.

[Darren Null]

Why not make the inserts bullet-shaped? They'd stay better and there's at least 3000 years of prior art of people inserting *cough* bullet-shaped items into holes.

It's almost worth patenting it...the court cases would be excellent.

[Daniel Berlin]

Maybe not such a good example then?? I'm not worried because I use a different process anyway to do braille. Still, a process can be patented regardless of whether that one actually is, this per the U.S. patent office:

"Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof."

Of course, but the cost of doing so is often prohibitive (10k a patent, usually more for complex patents).
Also, patent applications and results are published and easily searchable.