Copyright questions

[Rocker]

There is a discussion going on in another thread - http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...656#post199656 - on the issue of copyright and patents.

I am interested to know if any legally-learned member can answer a few questions that I have on this topic. In another thread - http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=21448 - I am describing a chair that I am building that has some strong similarities to the Rietveld zigzag chair. On the other hand, my chair is very different, in that its joinery is bridle joints and M&T, and it has an upholstered seat. I wonder whether I could be sued by Rietveld's estate for breach of his patent or copyright, if I wrote an article on my chair and got it published, or if I sold my chair. Would Boban, or some other legal eagle, care to comment?

Rocker

[echnidna]

Derek said the chair was designed in 1918.
I may be incorrect but I think copyright expires in 70(?) years

Yoiu should be able to find the info here
or possibly on this us site here

[javali]

I do not think you have a problem. It is hard to believe the zigzag chair is patented. (It is not an invention.) Rietveld's estate has all the rights to the design for about 70 years after his death, but copyright is limited. In particular, ideas or concepts cannot be copyrighted. the only similarity between your chair and Rietveld zigzag chair is that both are zigzag chairs. I, therefore, believe you are quite safe.

This is just my opinion. I am not qualified to provide legal advises, and this is definitely not a legal advise. If you act or fail to act based on my opinion, and the Rietveld estate, or any owner of whatever rights sues you, I will only admit to having been wrong. You will have my sympathy, but do not expect nothing else.

[corbs]

Lay it on its side and call it the "Uncomfortable N", No worries.

They call me Corbs... solver of problems

[bitingmidge]

As a qualified Mangrove Lawyer (that's a bush lawyer who lives on the mudflats) I think it's pretty cut and dried.

If the chair was an exact copy of the original, there may be some issue. The design copyright would cover dimensions, angles and form as well as any unique form of construction.

Since clearly this is a heavily modified version, it is probably better described as "inspired by" rather than "copied from", and therefore no issues can arise.

If the zigzag form had been so unique that it could have been patented, a different set of rules would apply, but again, because you are modifiying the structure significantly it would have been extremely difficult to register a patent covering all the potential modifications.

Cheers,

P

[boban]

Strictly hypothetically speaking.

Section 33 of the Copyright Act provides the lapsing details. Essentially 70 years from his death. Given the article in the recent AWR I guess it has not lapsed.

Now, I cannot see how a person could possibly get around the copyright on the zig zag chair design. Just too unique for a person not to substantially reproduce it. Section 38 would prevent a person from selling a copy.

This is not legal advice, just lay opinion.

Another thing you may consider is the fact that it appears that the recent AWR article was written without infringing copyright. See if section 41 of the Copyright Act applies to what you want to do.

This is not legal advice, just lay opinion.

Im sorry but I cannot give you any additional help WRT your particular concerns as I have insurance related constraints I cant get around nothwithstanding any advice being without consideration.

If you need any advice regarding your legal rights then you need to consult a lawyer with sufficient proficiency in Copyright Act matters and provide him/her with a thorough brief. That is, full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Do not rely on any of the above comments to make a decision with respect to any future action you may institute.

This is a link to the Copyright Act.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...act/ca1968133/

[boban]

Also for some light reading try this case

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/di.../1998/863.html

About two of Australia's biggest builders and some plans slightly varied

[Rocker]

Bitingmidge and Boban,
Thanks for your thoughts and advice, conflicting as they are. I tend to agree with Midge that the zigzag idea is too general to be copyrightable. If I am wrong, then surely Rietveld could have sued George Nakashima, whose 'Conoid' chair has a cantilevered seat. On the other hand, my chair's profile is almost an exact copy of the profile of Rietveld's, so, although the construction details are very different, I imagine I could be in legal jeopardy, if I tried to sell the chair.

I think probably an article written about building my chair would come within the scope of the fair dealing clause of the Copyright Act, if I acknowledged Rietveld in the article. Perhaps the writer of the AWR article got permission to publish, since his chair is almost an exact copy of Rietveld's.

I wonder where an architect would stand, if he designed a building with the same profile as the Rietveld chair. How about it, Midge? The Sunshine Coast could demonstrate its growing sophistication by having the Big Rietveld as well as the Big Pineapple.

Rocker

[kiwigeo]

Rocker,

An alternatve option...

If the copyright owner is stilll alive then you could try writing to him and asking permission to publish your article. You may find that just the fact youve shown the courtesy to ask first will smooth the way to you being able to do your article. Include the appropriate acknowledgements and I dont think youll have too many problems.

Cheers

Martin

[Rocker]

Martin,

Rietveld died in 1964, and I do not know who owns the copyright now; however, according to the AWR article, a comany in Italy owns the licemce to make his furniture. I doubt if they would be agreeable to my selling my chair even here in Australia.

The approach you suggest does not always work, anyway. A few years ago I wrote to Sam Maloof, asking his permission to describe my rocker as "Maloof-style". I had thought of this just as a courtesy. However, he refused. I don't think, in fact, that legally he could stop me, at least in Australia. But I have refrained from referring to his name when advertising my rocker CD. I was pretty disappointed at his refusal, since I can't see that it would have been any skin off his nose to agree, seeing that we are aiming at totally different segments of the market.

Rocker

[boban]

While I would like to debate the issue, the relevant principles from the case I mentioned previously were summarised as follows:

The relevant principles in relation to infringement of copyright in architectural plans, which were not really in dispute, were helpfully discussed by Branson J in Eagle Homes v Austec at 570 and 573-575. For present purposes it is sufficient to summarise those principles as follows.

1. The question of reproduction for the purposes of copyright law involves the two elements of resemblance to, and actual use of, the copyright work. These elements have been described as "a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the two works" and "some causal connection between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' work": see Willmer LJ in Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 at 614; see also S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466 at 472 and Eagle Homes at 570.

2. There is no reproduction for the purposes of the Act where two persons produce substantially similar works through independent effort: see Ladbroke (Football) Ltd at 276; S W Hart at 472 and Eagle Homes at 570.

3. In determining whether "a substantial part of the work" has been reproduced, for the purposes of s 14(1) of the Act, greater weight must be given to the quality of what is copied than to its quantity: see S W Hart at 474 per Gibbs CJ, 481 per Wilson J and 503 per Deane J. When considering the quality of the part of the architectural drawing which is said to have been reproduced the simpler and more common place the drawing the more closely must the alleged infringer adhere to it for liability to exist: see Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall (1990) 18 IPR 481 at 483 and Eagle Homes at 574.

4. A number of cases suggest that the degree of protection under copyright law of an architectural plan may be limited by reason of the significant proportion of features which are common to all plans, with the result that the remaining portion of a plan in which copyright will subsist is consequently limited : see Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd [1964-1965] NSWR 229 at 232; Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigul Homes Pty Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 265 at 269; Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd at 283. However these authorities do not indicate that different principles should be applied to cases involving allegations of breach of copyright in architectural plans than are applied to cases involving other kinds of artistic work. The difficulties referred to in the authorities concerning architectural plans are difficulties of proof (that is, evidentiary difficulties): see Eagle Homes at 574.

5. Whether the alleged infringing work is sufficiently similar to the work in which copyright subsists to amount to a reproduction of a substantial part of that work is for the Court to determine. However, in determining that question the Court will be assisted by expert evidence which "is of value in exposing the facets of the ultimate question to which the expert opinion evidence is directed": see Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd at 286 per Street J and Eagle Homes at 575.

[Caliban]

Bloody Hell Mitch
No wonder they pay you guys so much. Does that actually make sense to you? You seem like such a nice boy too!
Personally I like Midge's pun about something being cut and dried-on a mudflat!
Yours, confused,
Jim

[boban]

I can paraphrase in plain english, but where is the fun in that .

The problem with the law is that its rarely simple. Copyright Law is no different.

I've seen some suggestions in another thread that you can change it a little and voila, no breach. Thats not right. Many people get confused because they see copies of products and assume that its OK. Most cases involve an undisclosed licence.

If you improve an idea it doesn't make it your idea. See where the judge said "quality not quantity". Ask yourself this, what is the quality of the zig zag chair? For mine its not the joining method.

Copyright Law is about preventing people from profiting from others ideas, not Joe Bloggs making a copy in his garage. Still confused

[RETIRED]

While I would like to debate the issue, the relevant principles from the case I mentioned previously were summarised as follows:

The relevant principles in relation to infringement of copyright in architectural plans, which were not really in dispute, were helpfully discussed by Branson J in Eagle Homes v Austec at 570 and 573-575. For present purposes it is sufficient to summarise those principles as follows.

1. The question of reproduction for the purposes of copyright law involves the two elements of resemblance to, and actual use of, the copyright work. These elements have been described as "a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the two works" and "some causal connection between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' work": see Willmer LJ in Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 at 614; see also S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 159 CLR 466 at 472 and Eagle Homes at 570.

2. There is no reproduction for the purposes of the Act where two persons produce substantially similar works through independent effort: see Ladbroke (Football) Ltd at 276; S W Hart at 472 and Eagle Homes at 570.

3. In determining whether "a substantial part of the work" has been reproduced, for the purposes of s 14(1) of the Act, greater weight must be given to the quality of what is copied than to its quantity: see S W Hart at 474 per Gibbs CJ, 481 per Wilson J and 503 per Deane J. When considering the quality of the part of the architectural drawing which is said to have been reproduced the simpler and more common place the drawing the more closely must the alleged infringer adhere to it for liability to exist: see Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall (1990) 18 IPR 481 at 483 and Eagle Homes at 574.

4. A number of cases suggest that the degree of protection under copyright law of an architectural plan may be limited by reason of the significant proportion of features which are common to all plans, with the result that the remaining portion of a plan in which copyright will subsist is consequently limited : see Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd [1964-1965] NSWR 229 at 232; Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigul Homes Pty Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 265 at 269; Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd at 283. However these authorities do not indicate that different principles should be applied to cases involving allegations of breach of copyright in architectural plans than are applied to cases involving other kinds of artistic work. The difficulties referred to in the authorities concerning architectural plans are difficulties of proof (that is, evidentiary difficulties): see Eagle Homes at 574.

5. Whether the alleged infringing work is sufficiently similar to the work in which copyright subsists to amount to a reproduction of a substantial part of that work is for the Court to determine. However, in determining that question the Court will be assisted by expert evidence which "is of value in exposing the facets of the ultimate question to which the expert opinion evidence is directed": see Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd at 286 per Street J and Eagle Homes at 575.

I think Outback had a hand in this. It also explains why I can't understand my daughter at times, she is training to be a patent attorny.

[Dion N]

I was under the inpression that you could copy another's work for the purposes of artistic impression - specifically satire. I recall a case where some artist used some big companies' logos in an art exhibition. They tried to sue, but the judge ruled that the copying was for artistic purposes rather than commercial and so was ok.

If that is the case, perhaps Rocker could market a CD of "Maloof-Spoof Rocker Plans"...