Popular Woodworking 2009-02 № 174, страница 8
Letters •— lions and inviting them to contact you if they see a problem. Otherwise, prepare for the possibility that the author/inventor will consider you a threat and come afteryou. Of course, if you build the reproduction furniture for personal use only, the risk is quite low. (Just for the record - Mr. Moser, if you are reading this, please call before you drop by my house for a visit. There might be a few pieces I'll need to hide.) On the other hand, if I were counseling the author/inventor, I would advise him to place a notice in his book stating which furniture pieces are proprietary, that buying the book conveys no license, and that permission to sell a reproduction furniture design must be obtained from the author. Regardingyoursecond question, I will assume that the antique is more than 20years old and has no vestige of enforceable copyright or trademark elements. In that case, which would be typical of most antiques, neither the owner of the antique nor a museum displaying it can prohibityoufrom reproducing it. —Jon Shackelford Art vs. Utility in Copyright Laws; And Who Holds the Plan Rights? Jon Shackelford's intellectual property article was nicely written and long overdue. The question that I've heard most often from readers, though, is whether it's legal or illegal to make a production item from plans that have been published in a magazine. 1 couldn't connect the dots on that one, based on the article as written. I don't know how Popular Woodworking handles copyright issues on pieces designed by outside authors. Who keeps the rights to the design? Is it understood that, by publishing his plans, the author is undermining or relinquishing his copyright somehow? Is the reader entitled to make knockoffs for profit? As you know, nuances abound, but I would have been interested to hear Shackelford's take on these questions. There isalso a long-runningdispute among some of the well-known turners regarding plagiarism of bowl designs and decorative techniques. I've never understood whether copyright protection extends to a shape or a technique, such as pyrography, especially when the innovator teaches his techniques and style sensibilities to students. James Krenov has tread on similarly shaky ground, spawning a generation of imitators. Ellis Wallentine, owner ofWoodCentral.com From the magazine's point of view, once we publish plans that have been developed by our employees, we think they'refair game from which to build no matter what the purpose. In fact, we know that Vietnamese companies have copied some of our published designs and offered the results for sale. — Christopher Schwarz, editor To my knowledge, unless the plan designer is an employee, a magazine that prints plans for a furniture piece does not typically acquire ownership of the underlying copyright in the plans, nor in any other intellectual properly rights the author may possess in the actualfurniture design. The mere act of publishing discoveries does not undermine proprietary rights. If that were the case, research universities would not routinely encourage professors to publish theirfindings in scholarly journals. Regarding bowl designs and decorative techniques ... yours is a tricky legal question because a bowl is more than a purely artistic object -rather, if is a utilitarian object like a lamp base or a vase. In copyright law, there is a prohibition against grantingcopy right registrationsfor things that are useful (like bowls and chairs). However, purely artistic decorations on the bowl, such as an original engraving or paint scheme, would be copyrightable as a stand-alone work of art. Although the shape of a bowl is almost certainly not copyrightable, the originator could turn (pun intended) to design patent laws for protection. When you speak of "style sensibilities" and Krenov, keep in mind also that identifiable features that are characteristic to a person or group could in theory be protectedas trademarks, provided there is a continuous effort to prevent unauthorized use. Unfortunately, once those "style sensibilities"become ubiquitous, it will be too late for the originator to establish trademark rights. —Jon Shackelford Clarification: 'Greene & Greene: Details and Joinery' We omitted photo credits for two pieces in the "Greene & Greene: Details and Joinery" article in the October 2008 issue (#171). The Blacker living room armchair and the Culbertson sisters' bookcase are in the permanent collection at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The credit lines should have read: "Blacker armchair: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Gift ofMax Palevsky and Jodie Evans" and "Culbertson bookcase: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Gift of Linda and James Ries in memory of Dorothy and Harold Shrier." To see many more pieces in the collection at LACM A visit its web site at collections online.lacma.org. Correction: Colonial-era Plate Rack In the November 2008 issue (#172), the length of the "long shelves" in Kerry Pierce's "Colonial-era Plate Rack" article are incorrect in the cutlist. The length should be 37 Vs", not 50V4". PW Question? Comment? We want to hear from you. Popular Woodworking welcomes comments from readers about the magazine or woodworking in general, as well as questions on all areas of woodworking. We are more than happy to share our woodworking experience with you by answering your questions or adding some clarity to whatever aspect of the craft you are unsure about, and if you have a complaint, we want to address it whenever possible. Though we receive a good deal of mail, we try to respond to all correspondence in a prompt manner. Published correspondence may be edited for length or style. All correspondence becomes the property of Popular Woodworking. Send your questions and comments via e-mail to popwood@fwmedia.com, or by mail to: Popular Woodworking 4700 E. Calbraith Road Cincinnati, OH 45236 14 ■ Popular Woodworking February 2009 |
