Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 21:54:45 -1000 From: malle0.000000uzi.uucp@germany.eu.net (Mitarbeiter von F3P) Message-Id: <9311220754.AA15721@fuzi.daimler> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Which plans are allowed or Copyright of kites Hi Kite-community, as a result of the announcement of the availability of the octopus plan, I have had some exchange of email concerning the topic: Is it allowed to publish a plan for a specific kite, that the one, who made the plan, did not invent himself? >From a email-exchange with Andrew, I have learned that there are at least two different versions of plans or designs: 1. a rip-off and 2. an original design. 1. a rip-off A rip-off is made if someone takes a production kite, takes every single measure >From it and afterwards makes a plan with all those details. 2. an original design An original design is a kite, which you have invented yourself. You may have been inspired by the work of someone else, but basically, the kite (or plan) is based on your own ideas. I think we can all agree, that it is not nice, if someone makes a rip-off, and then publishes it or even charges money for it. I think this is even prohibited by law. (remark: I have seen lots of plans of production kites, available in books or at your local dealer; sometimes you find a notice, that the plan is published with the permission of the "inventor", but very often, such a note is missing). I hope, that no one is against publishing plans of original designs. But where is the border between original designs and rip-offs? A friend of mine is thinking of enhancing plans, that he has found in kitebooks and publishing them on the net. If we think of "Kiteworks", there are lots of plans in this book with some errors. Is it allowed, to publish an enhanced and corrected version of those plans? ("publishing" in this case means sending it to rec.kites) Bernhard = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 23:46:05 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Which plans are allowed or Copyright of kites malle0.000000uzi.uucp@germany.eu.net (Mitarbeiter von F3P) writes: >[edited] >I hope, that no one is against publishing plans of original designs. >But where is the border between original designs and rip-offs? A friend >of mine is thinking of enhancing plans, that he has found in kitebooks >and publishing them on the net. >If we think of "Kiteworks", there are lots of plans in this book with some >errors. >Is it allowed, to publish an enhanced and corrected version of those plans? >("publishing" in this case means sending it to rec.kites) It is obvious that Bernard is good at heart. He wants to help his fellow kiters and doesn't want to damage those who make a living from selling the kites that they develop. May I make a simple suggestion? Ask! Tell Peter that you want to publish a plan based on his idea. If the plan says "This plan is based on Peter Lynn's idea, but is not a direct copy of his kite. We have obtained his kind [miss out the work "kind" if he charges any money!] permission to distribute it freely provided that it is only personal use" or some such, then the issue is no longer grey. Andrew -- Work: gaffer@rec.com Phone: +44 793 614 110 Fax: +44 793 614 297 Play: andrew@tug.com Phone: +44 256 464 912 Interested in kite traction? mail kites@tug.com = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 03:43:43 -1000 From: salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne) Message-Id: <1993Nov22.134343.14273@funet.fi> Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET Subject: Re: Which plans are allowed or Copyright of kites In <9311220754.AA15721@fuzi.daimler> malle0.000000uzi.uucp@germany.eu.net (Mitarbeiter von F3P) writes: >as a result of the announcement of the availability of the octopus plan, I have >had some exchange of email concerning the topic: Is it allowed to publish a plan >for a specific kite, that the one, who made the plan, did not invent himself? Copyright and model protection laws may change from country to country and it's hard to know which applies to "multinational net". The following quotation is from Usenet Cookbook, which was created by alt.gourmand newsgroup in 80s. The Cookbook is a collection of recipes submitted by netters. >From Usenet Cookbook: "It's important that you tell us where you got the recipe from. It's ok if you cribbed it from a book or magazine or newspaper, but if you copy the words that you found there, you probably violated a copyright. Copyright law is complex, and only a lawyer can reliably advise you whether or not you are violating it, but in general if you rewrite a recipe, in your own words, even if you don't change the formula, then you are not infringing the copyright by submitting that recipe to the network. The copyright is on the words that explain the recipe, and not the recipe itself." I understand this relates to kites as: 1. If I make a plan by 'documenting' an existing kite, it will not violate a COPYRIGHT. Doesn't matter who has 'designed' it. If I make such kite(s) for my own use, that's OK. If I start making this kite commercially, I probably violate some model protection law - at least it's considered wrong. 2. If I make a plan by redrawing and rewording a kite plan from a book or magazine or newspaper, it will not violate a COPYRIGHT. If I make such kite(s) for my own use, that's OK. If I start making this kite commercially? Difficult question. If it's A Rokkaku from Moulton's book, I think it's OK to make and sell it. If it's Hawaiian from Skyworks, I think it violates ToTL rights. 3. If I say the result of 1) or 2) is "my design", I am lying. A kite plan is like a formula or recipe; if it's visully different than another, published formula, then it will not violate a copyright and it's OK to submit to the net. (My opinion is that uuencoding does not make a scanned plan images visully different. They should be sent as private emails.) Giving credit where it belongs, will increase the value of the plan. Remember, I am not a lawyer... Smooth Winds Simo -- Simo.Salanne@csc.fi -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:21:27 -1000 From: vbjou00c@VAX.CSUN.EDU ("Ezra Shapiro") Message-Id: <1993Nov23.072127.12753@huey.csun.edu> Organization: Cal State Northridge Subject: Re: Which plans are allowed or Copyright of kites Sigh. Copyright law *is* complex, and the different ways in which a kite can be manifested make the whole situation that much more difficult. I suspect that the only *really* valid answer would be a legal precedent -- the determination of a case actually taken to trial and resolved. However, here are some points to consider: 1. A kite design could be *patented* -- which is a different form of protection that does not rely on visual representation. Documenting such a kite, by producing plans of it, would be fine. No problem. Building the same kite would be actionable. Unlike copyrights, patents can protect ideas. 2. A kite and a set of plans for a kite are not the same thing, i.e., the kite is a kite and the plans are plans. Both may be protected by copyright independently. The scenario that Simo Salanne suggests (rewriting plans in one's own words) would not violate the copyright *of the plans*. It probably also wouldn't violate the copyright of the kite, but this is a separate issue. 3. I don't know what a kite is, legally. If you wanted, you could conceivably argue that a kite is a work of art and that a reproduction of it is a copyright violation. This would have visual aspects, that is, the new kite would have to look like the old one. 4. You might be safe if you took the rewritten plans of an unpatented kite design, and built a kite that didn't look like the original. However, whether color and size differences would be enough to avoid copyright infringement would have to be determined in court; you might also have to modify the design, and again, the extent of modification is arguable. I hope this doesn't muddy the water too much further. . . . Ezra Shapiro = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 00:53:28 -1000 From: salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne) Message-Id: <1993Nov24.105328.28205@funet.fi> Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET Subject: Re: Which plans are allowed or Copyright of kites In <9311220754.AA15721@fuzi.daimler> malle0.000000uzi.uucp@germany.eu.net (Mitarbeiter von F3P) writes: (text deleted) >Is it allowed, to publish an enhanced and corrected version of those plans? >("publishing" in this case means sending it to rec.kites) Bernhard's question about copyrights related to posting something to rec.kites. I understand it has nothing to do with building a kite. Posting to rec.kites is a kind of publishing act, and in that sense publication copyrights are applicable? Patents are public documents, how somebody could avoid violating patents if they were secrets? In my news host there is a newsgroup describing new patents. Patented solutions can be described on net. I think unpatented solutions can be described, too. Smooth Winds Simo -- Simo.Salanne@csc.fi -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =