Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 03:34:10 -1000 From: dorf@iesd.auc.dk (Thomas Dorf Nielsen) Message-Id: Organization: Math & CS at Aalborg University Subject: Kite Copyrights [If this really *got* out there the first time, this is a repost and I am sorry :-)] There was a followup to my "What is a Synergy"-post that said something about copyright, because I had stated a wish for plans... First of all: I do *not* promote "no copyrights"!!! But: Compagnies don't really loose any money by my making a kite - because: I generally don't *buy* kites! I only fly selfmade. (If a compagny however still does not want their plans out in the public: That is perfectly understandable - and perfectly ok: There are loads of other wonderful plans to be tried out :-) My point is this: Is it 'bad' - or illegal - to make a kite for yourself only - perhaps after seeing a wonderful kite at a festival or in a shop? You go "WOW - I wanna make a kite like that!", then go home and make a kite - from memory or pictures or whatever. Is it bad morale? Any points of view out there? Are there others like me - people who likes their own kites the best? Or perhaps even some on-line copyright-owners or kite dealers who want to chip in? How do you feel about *your* kites beeing reproduced "illegally"? And just once more - for the *really* slow ones ;-) I do *not* promote "no copyrights"!!! Steady windz! /dorf -- Thomas Dorf Nielsen | dorf@iesd.auc.dk | "...and the rest - Amagergade 25, 1.TV | http://www.iesd.auc.dk/~dorf | is silence..." DK-9000 Aalborg | Aalborg University | oo DENMARK | Fr. Bajers Vej 7, E1-207 | . . . __/\_/\_/`' = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:24:55 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights dorf@iesd.auc.dk (Thomas Dorf Nielsen) writes: >But: Compagnies don't really loose any money by my making a kite - >because: > >I generally don't *buy* kites! I only fly selfmade. I'll keep this short. It's been discussed to death countless times. In general terms, the owner must defend his rights, or he loses them. If you *ask*, and the right-holder grants permission, then you can build the kite without damaging his ability to protect against comercial attack. I have yet to hear of a builder or designer turning down a reasonable request(*). It's easy, it's considerate, it's polite. Just ask. Andrew (*) If you do have trouble, drop me a line... -- New to rec.kites? START HERE! | To: www@kfs.org send an email message like this-> | Subject: service /-\ () >< () |\/| () >< () /-\ | http://www.kfs.org/kites/welcome Next time you visit KFS, download the bookmark file. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:05:03 -1000 From: clifpenn@airmail.net (CLIF PENN) Message-Id: <4a4m1c$as8@server.iadfw.net> Organization: Internet America Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights dorf@iesd.auc.dk (Thomas Dorf Nielsen) wrote: >[If this really *got* out there the first time, this is a repost and I >am sorry :-)] >There was a followup to my "What is a Synergy"-post that said >something about copyright, because I had stated a wish for plans... >First of all: I do *not* promote "no copyrights"!!! >But: Compagnies don't really loose any money by my making a kite - >because: >I generally don't *buy* kites! I only fly selfmade. >(If a compagny however still does not want their plans out in the >public: That is perfectly understandable - and perfectly ok: There are >loads of other wonderful plans to be tried out :-) >My point is this: Is it 'bad' - or illegal - to make a kite for >yourself only - perhaps after seeing a wonderful kite at a festival or >in a shop? You go "WOW - I wanna make a kite like that!", then go home >and make a kite - from memory or pictures or whatever. Is it bad >morale? >Any points of view out there? Are there others like me - people who >likes their own kites the best? >Or perhaps even some on-line copyright-owners or kite dealers who want >to chip in? How do you feel about *your* kites beeing reproduced >"illegally"? >And just once more - for the *really* slow ones ;-) >I do *not* promote "no copyrights"!!! >Steady windz! >/dorf >-- >Thomas Dorf Nielsen | dorf@iesd.auc.dk | "...and the rest - >Amagergade 25, 1.TV | http://www.iesd.auc.dk/~dorf | is silence..." >DK-9000 Aalborg | Aalborg University | oo >DENMARK | Fr. Bajers Vej 7, E1-207 | . . . __/\_/\_/`' My understanding of the current international copywrite laws are that you are free to copy anything for your on personal use, however, if you publish anything about your copy, the original copywrite is referenced (if no prior approval is required.) You are not supposed to sell or otherwise profit from your personal copy. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:58:33 -1000 From: Steve Batemn Message-Id: <4aa8tp$l3d@hole.sdsu.edu> Organization: San Diego State University Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights > >>But: Compagnies don't really loose any money by my making [their] kite - I think they lose about as much money as an author loses when his book is photocopied. Steve Bateman bateman@mail.sdsu.edu Flying along = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 06:21:26 -1000 From: John Ruggiero Message-Id: <4aka66$cfr@mail.techg.com> Organization: TechGnosis Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights clifpenn@airmail.net (CLIF PENN) wrote: > >My understanding of the current international copywrite laws are that >you are free to copy anything for your on personal use, however, if >you publish anything about your copy, the original copywrite is >referenced (if no prior approval is required.) You are not supposed to >sell or otherwise profit from your personal copy. > > > Kitelines published an article after Revolution protested the Quadriphant plans by a patent lawyer. Basically, at least in the US, it is illegal to copy a patented design, even for your own use, without the permission of the patent holder. Rev has been very open to giving permission to build their kites for a small fee ($5 US) and they even send you one of their dacron tabs. Rev, IMHO, is not out to prosocute anybody who builds for their own use. They do, however, need to protect their patents from rip off artists who could use the defense "you knew others were making your kites and didn't prosecute, why are you picking on me ?". - John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - John Ruggiero jruggiero@techg.com - - TechGnosis, Inc. - - Voice: 617-229-6100 Fax: 617-229-0557 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 19:24:26 -1000 From: griebeno@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai Griebenow) Message-Id: <4alo2a$3cp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights Hi, I think the copyright theme is actually a very difficult subject. Personally I know a lot of people who have rebuilt kites for their own use - I guess that no company will protest against that. A number of them even offer plans for a low fee - like John Ruggiero said, at around $5. I have such plans for e.g. the Jet, Hawaian and so on. I am designing and making my own creations. But, now my question, how do you protect a design??? Most dual line stunt kites are very similar - most times a delta. The dual line, quad line principle is not protected. So, you see a delta, you modify the shape slightly and the size, use different spars..... is that still the same kite? I really don't know the answer, but I guess there is only one way of getting your product on the market: have a better quality than others and be fast in doing something new. There is probably no way of really protecting your own interests other than that. I would really like to get some opinions about the point how far away one must be from a certain kite to not infringe copyright, patents? There are several kites on the market already (stunt kites) that are only slightly different. Just look in a catallog..... The other point is that also cases are known where common knowledge was patented _ I think about a case in France - forgot the exact details though... . I think, if I remember correctly, that US companies couldn't sell a product there. Is there any protection against that? To the point of rebuilds: They certaily can harm the reputation of the producer..... Unfortunately. That is why certain kite makers give their designs only to people who know how to build such a kite. I can understand that. Just a couple of questions Happy Kiting Kai = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 06:11:40 -1000 From: John Ruggiero Message-Id: <4amtvs$4o1@mail.techg.com> Organization: TechGnosis Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights griebeno@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai Griebenow) wrote: > >Hi, > >I think the copyright theme is actually a very difficult subject. >Personally I know a lot of people who have rebuilt kites for the= ir own >use - I guess that no company will protest against that. A number of >them even offer plans for a low fee - like John Ruggie= ro said, at around >$5. I have such plans for e.g. the Jet, Hawaian and so on. I am >designing and making my own creations. > >But, now my question, how do you protect a design??? Most dual >line stunt kites are very similar - most times a delta. The dual line, >quad line principle is not protected. So, you see a delta, = you modify >the shape slightly and the size, use different spars..... is that still >the same kite? > >I really don't know the answer, but I guess there is only one way of >getting your product on the market: have a better quality than others >and be fast in doing something new. There is probably no way of really >protecting your own interests other than that. > >I would really like to get some opinions about the point how far away >one must be from a certain kite to not infringe copyright, p= atents? >There are several kites on the market already (stunt kites) that are >only slightly different. Just look in a catallog.....= > >The other point is that also cases are known where common knowledge was >patented _ I think about a case in France - forgot the exact details >though... >. I think, if I remember correctly, >that US companies couldn't sell a product there. Is there any protection >against that? > >To the point of rebuilds: They certaily can harm the reputation of the >producer..... Unfortunately. That is why certain kite makers give their >designs only to people who know how to build such a kite. I can understand >that. > >Just a couple of questions > >Happy Kiting > >Kai Kai, Marty Sasaki posted a very good note regarding the subject. Maybe he could re-post it. If I remember correctly, Marty was saying that there are two ways to protect designs: Patent and Copyright. Patents protect the intellectual property of a new invention. At least that's how I understand it. Copyrights protect the appearance or content of a work. For example, the words in a book, the content of a news broadcast, or the graphics of a kite. Rev has, I have heard, six patents associated with their kites: Bridle, Spar system, screen, shape of the sail, handles, and something else I can't remember. The patent that was violated by the Quadriphant was the Spar system. It is not possible to patent the delta shape of most kites, the only protection a company really has is to copyright the appearance of the kite. Small changes in the design of a kite could get a person off a copyright infringement, but not a patent violation. For example, I could measure the sail of the R-KET and make it in a different pattern. I could probably even sell it and only get a nasty letter from the company's lawyer. I could not, however, start making and selling Rev handles with a longer shaft than the originals without being prepared for a patent violation. just my .02 worth. - John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - John Ruggiero jruggiero@techg.com - - TechGnosis, Inc. - - Voice: 617-229-6100 Fax: 617-229-0557 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 04:29:29 -1000 From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) Message-Id: Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights In article <4alo2a$3cp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> griebeno@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai Griebenow) writes: But, now my question, how do you protect a design??? Most dual line stunt kites are very similar - most times a delta. The dual line, quad line principle is not protected. So, you see a delta, you modify the shape slightly and the size, use different spars..... is that still the same kite? In order to obtain a patent, you are supposed to present and document an specific invention that is novel, useful, etc. So, if you have a patent that makes some patent claims on particular inventions, and then you see those inventions being used in a competitor's kite, you can attempt to persuade a court that they are violating your patent. Nobody should be able to get a patent on any of the basic ideas that are already incorporated into so many stunt kites today. Remember that "copyright" and "patent" are entirely different concepts in U.S. law and work completely differently. I'm only talking about patents. You cannot simply design a kite, and then file a patent on the detailed design of your kite. The patent must present a novel invention. If you read a few American patents, you can see how this works. Very likely, the patent held by Revolution refers to their actual design as a "preferred embodiment" of the invention that they are patenting, i.e. an example of a way that the invention can be used. The question of just how "far" someone has to get from your invention to avoid infringing on the patent is complicated. A patent generally contains a long list of "claims", each more specific than the next, so that if the more general claims are struck down, the more specific ones might still hold. The other point is that also cases are known where common knowledge was patented _ I think about a case in France - forgot the exact details though... . I think, if I remember correctly, that US companies couldn't sell a product there. Is there any protection against that? The patent office isn't supposed to do that, although it does seem to me that I've heard of cases where they have (with computer-related inventions). Yes, there is protection, or at least there is recourse: if someone sues you, you can claim that their patent is invalid because it was a patent on common knowledge that the Patent Office should never have granted. Unfortunately this all requires time and legal fees. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:24:07 -1000 From: hammer1@popcorn.llnl.gov (Derrol Hammer) Message-Id: <4ao1lm$2io@necco.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights >From what I am seeing on this thread it seems that some folks are equating patents with copyrights. They are two different things, covered by different laws, methods of establishment and term of enforcement. I do not claim to be an expert, but I can give you some ideas about distinguishing between the two: Patents must be applied for and granted. A private individual does not have the right to copy a patent for personal use. If you want to copy a patented item you must obtain permission from the patent holder, and pay a royalty fee if so requested. The patent only survives for a limited time (17 years?) and I think can be extended one time for an additional term. (I believe there is a current effort to repeal the right to extend a patent term.) I do not know what the labeling requirements are, but I don't think the patent holder must prove that a violator knew of the patent in order to enforce the patent, only that the patent was violated. However, the existence of a patent is not evidence of its validity, so the first thing a defendent does is challenge the validity of the patent which was supposedly violated. Copyrights are claimed, not applied for. Copyrights provide the originator with the right to profit from anyone's use of a copyright for profitable purpose. Consistent with this purpose, an individual is allowed to copy for noncommercial use in teaching, research, criticism, comment, or news reporting without consent. The law requires a specific type of labeling to be affixed to the product and generally applies to the unique form of a product, not the technology used to make it, write it, use it, etc. So, in order to enforce a copyright the author must prove that the copied item was clearly labeled. If willful infringement is proved the copier is liable for any damages the copyright owner can prove. There are some real fine lines here, so you are better off asking permission unless you clearly fall within the exemptions. A copyright lasts for the lifetime of the originator and then some (50 years?). Remember, with patents you MUST get permission, no matter what your purpose is. For copyrighted items you may have some rights to copy for personal or noncommercial use. Derrol J. Hammer Kiteaholic & Fiscal Wizard, Northern California Kite Club The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - A. Einstein OR - If u alweez does wat u alweez done, u'll alweez git wat u alweez got. Explore the aoxomoxoaticalilities. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:22:41 -1000 From: Steve Bateman Message-Id: <4ann81$psg@hole.sdsu.edu> Organization: San Diego State University Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights >Rev has, I have heard, six patents associated with their kites: Bridle, >Spar system, screen, shape of the sail, handles, and something else I >can't remember. The patent that was violated by the Quadriphant was the >Spar system. Could somebody please inform me of the patent for the handles. Is this patent due to the materials, placement of the foam, the angle of the bend, or what? Gosh, I would sure hate to violate the patent by making my own handles out of PVC. I can tell a lot of research went into those Rev handles... Steve Bateman bateman@mail.sdsu.edu Flying along. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:55:19 -1000 From: Richard Bettis Message-Id: <572027367wnr@fats.demon.co.uk> Organization: Health & Safety Lab Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights Surely the distinction between patent and copyright is this: Copyright: just what it says, only the owner of the copyright has the right to make a copy of the thing (kite) it covers. This means that *I* can't make a 'Stranger' just like Flexifoil's. Patent: this is a way of saying 'this is *my* idea'. You have to convince the patent granting authority that it is a new idea, and that it is not blindingly obvious. The glass kite from an earlier thread might fall into this category. This means that *I* can't make a Flexifoil that uses the ideas in the patent (i.e. an inflatable kite with a flexible spar in the leading edge so that the kite takes up a 'cone segment' shape in flight...) You infringe copyright by making a fake. You infringe patent by making something that uses the same idea. Moral: design and make your own kites; then show the unemployed lawyers how to fly when you see them in the park... -- +===========================================================================+ | Richard Bettis | "My lines and life are free; free as the | | | road, loose as the winde. | |Kite Fliers Quotes (maybe): | George Herbert (1593 - 1633) | +===========================================================================+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 06:58:08 -1000 From: hammer1@popcorn.llnl.gov (Derrol Hammer) Message-Id: <4apksc$cve@necco.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Kite Copyrights >From what I am seeing on this thread it seems that some folks are equating patents with copyrights. They are two different things, covered by different laws, methods of establishment and term of enforcement. I do not claim to be an expert, but I can give you some ideas about distinguishing between the two: Patents must be applied for and granted. A private individual does not have the right to copy a patent for personal use. If you want to copy a patented item you must obtain permission from the patent holder, and pay a royalty fee if so requested. The patent only survives for a limited time (17 years?) and I think can be extended one time for an additional term. (I believe there is a current effort to repeal the right to extend a patent term.) I do not know what the labeling requirements are, but I don't think the patent holder must prove that a violator knew of the patent in order to enforce the patent, only that the patent was violated. However, the existence of a patent is not evidence of its validity, so the first thing a defendent does is challenge the validity of the patent which was supposedly violated. Copyrights are claimed, not applied for. Copyrights provide the originator with the right to profit from anyone's use of a copyright for profitable purpose. Consistent with this purpose, an individual is allowed to copy for noncommercial use in teaching, research, criticism, comment, or news reporting without consent. The law requires a specific type of labeling to be affixed to the product and generally applies to the unique form of a product, not the technology used to make it, write it, use it, etc. So, in order to enforce a copyright the author must prove that the copied item was clearly labeled. If willful infringement is proved the copier is liable for any damages the copyright owner can prove. There are some real fine lines here, so you are better off asking permission unless you clearly fall within the exemptions. A copyright lasts for the lifetime of the originator and then some (50 years?). Remember, with patents you MUST get permission, no matter what your purpose is. For copyrighted items you may have some rights to copy for personal or noncommercial use. Derrol J. Hammer Kiteaholic & Fiscal Wizard, Northern California Kite Club The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - A. Einstein OR - If u alweez does wat u alweez done, u'll alweez git wat u alweez got. Explore the aoxomoxoaticalilities. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =