"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
Is it considered copyright infringement to change all the dimensions on
the plans in order to enlarge the boat for personal use?


"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
The issue is not so much whether the finished boat matches the plans as
whether the same boat, whatever the final product looks like, could have
been built without access to the plans. If you used the plans as
guidance to build the boat, and have the warm, sly, feeling that you saved
their cost by changing a few things, it's copyright infringement.

If you paid for the plans and want to make it bigger or smaller few
architects are going to bother you unless there is something specific in
the sale agreement (if any) or on the plans prohibiting that.

Roger -- I am curious. Other than contract language in a sales agreement,
what could possibly bar the buyer of a set of plans from making any
modification he wants when he builds a boat? Certainly copyright law would
not have any bearing; that simply bars the duplication of the plans
(typically for profit or for use by someone else; making a backup of a set
of plans on CD for yourself would normally be considered "fair use.")

If I buy plans for a 14-foot skiff and decide to make it 18 feet long, add
an outrigger and carve a mermaid on the bow, it may be ugly and unseaworthy,
but to my knowledge all the original designer could do is grimace or grin.
Of course, I probably couldn't call it a "14-foot Bolger" or whoever
designed it, but that's a different matter.

Your thoughts?

Alex

"Alex"

Roger -- I am curious. Other than contract language in a sales
agreement,

That's what I said, "other than contract language in a sales
agreement". This is virtually unheard of and I can think of a case.
For a very special boat that the architect wanted to be sure exactly
reflected his intent, a plans buyer could be asked to sign a separate
document binding him to make no unapproved changes. Without that, the
builder can do anything he wants.

I have heard of cases where the designer insisted that his name be
removed from the design for purposed of sales because it was so
*******ized.

If you get a set of plans from your buddy who built a boat, just
changing a few, or even a lot of, things does not relieve you of the
obligation to pay the designer for their use.

--

Roger Long

Roger, just asking a question here, but if I look at a set of plans a buddy
built from, then look at 3 or 4 other sets of plans, then using ideas from
ALL sources I've looked at, who do I pay for the use of plans?

There is no one single person whose plans I used completely, but took parts
of perhaps 4 different sets of plans - am I required to pay everyone?

Please understand Roger, I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just asking
for info.

Thanks,

Ken H

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Alex"

Roger -- I am curious. Other than contract language in a sales agreement,

That's what I said, "other than contract language in a sales agreement".
This is virtually unheard of and I can think of a case. For a very special
boat that the architect wanted to be sure exactly reflected his intent, a
plans buyer could be asked to sign a separate document binding him to make
no unapproved changes. Without that, the builder can do anything he
wants.

I have heard of cases where the designer insisted that his name be removed
from the design for purposed of sales because it was so *******ized.

If you get a set of plans from your buddy who built a boat, just changing
a few, or even a lot of, things does not relieve you of the obligation to
pay the designer for their use.

--

Roger Long

There are always gray areas where theory and practice diverge. In
theory, if you just look at a plan with a proprietary notice in the
title block, you should pay something for the use of anything in it is
incorporated in a boat. In practice, if you are just getting ideas
from the plans and then build a boat that is different from any of
them, nobody is going to ask you for money or be upset with you. Much
of what is on any set of plans came to the architect from other people
and other plans anyway.

However, if you clearly used the information in one or more of the
plans that is specific to what makes that boat unique and individual,
and it was clearly essential to your boat turning out the way that it
did, you should pay for the plans.

--

Roger Long



"BellSouth" wrote in message
.. .
Roger, just asking a question here, but if I look at a set of plans
a buddy built from, then look at 3 or 4 other sets of plans, then
using ideas from ALL sources I've looked at, who do I pay for the
use of plans?

There is no one single person whose plans I used completely, but
took parts of perhaps 4 different sets of plans - am I required to
pay everyone?

Please understand Roger, I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just
asking for info.

Thanks,

Ken H

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Alex"

Roger -- I am curious. Other than contract language in a sales
agreement,

That's what I said, "other than contract language in a sales
agreement". This is virtually unheard of and I can think of a case.
For a very special boat that the architect wanted to be sure
exactly reflected his intent, a plans buyer could be asked to sign
a separate document binding him to make no unapproved changes.
Without that, the builder can do anything he wants.

I have heard of cases where the designer insisted that his name be
removed from the design for purposed of sales because it was so
*******ized.

If you get a set of plans from your buddy who built a boat, just
changing a few, or even a lot of, things does not relieve you of
the obligation to pay the designer for their use.

--

Roger Long