[Marmot]

Originally Posted by AMG

When it comes to copying yacht designs, I wouldn´t bank on Marmot´s advice...

I don't recall offering any advice in this area.

What are you guys calling a "design?" Have you delivered a full set of engineering drawings and plans to someone or made them publically available somewhere they might be stolen?

Like I said before, a computer rendering of a boat is just that, it is a long way from a design, it is just a drawing, a piece of graphic artwork. Put a copyright mark on it and it's yours.

If somebody builds a boat without input from you, it seems to me they developed or paid for the construction drawings, got the plan approvals with their name on them and built the hardware. Unless they used your rendering to sell the concept and you can prove it, you don't have much to claim.

[BjornS]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Well, like music or a recipe, until someone experiences the product it doesn't exist and isn't worth anything so you have to put it out there and take the risk.

Marmot

True. But heart stopping dangerous - business wise - to put it out there before it has been made. Think Apple - never published or releasing anything until the product is shipping or has been protected in some form. Other companies let the product out of the bag sometimes months upon months in advance, and often get ripped off before they get to launch their own.

Remember the old saying, form follows function? As much as modern yacht design stretches the connection, it remains true. All boats have a bow and a stern or three, need lights in certain places and a few windows.

Yes - form certainly follows function - a logical train of thought. However, there are unlimited ways an artist can make the design unique, yet still be 100% functional. One may think there are only a finite number of ways to make a musical piece with only an octave available (8 notes from C to C, and 5 sharps), but look at the amazing, great and seemingly endless variety of original musical content that has been created over the centuries. Modern yacht design can certainly be done in more different ways than what one finds floating inside any marina today, and the designers should and must be more creative with the ways form meets function. Not everything has to look a certain way just because it is going to float on water or sail through a wave. If not the visionaries and artists - no paper clips, no Hubble space telescope, no Bugatti Veyron, and no 21st century computer chips (although the latter probably came from the pencil necked 'greys').

While you might be able to copyright the renderings you publish, unless someone uses that specific graphic without making substantial changes you really can't claim your idea was stolen, can you?

Agree ... to a certain extent. I think it is still the designer's ethical and moral role to not just tweak someone elses work and thereby just barely getting away with it in a potential court of law, but rather make it unique even when basing it on another's work. IMHO.

How many parents of small children felt they had the right to sue Jackson Pollack for stealing the idea to throw paint on a wall or the floor? A computer rendering of a visionary yacht is a long way from cutting metal and until a unique expression of the designer's art becomes a trademark ala the grill on a Rolls, it's just another bit of computer graphics.

Love the Pollack comparison. I think he never left his childhood though. Interesting work. But what a slap in the face to the established fine art world it was at the time. Like the urinal installations of others.

Yes, one can not protect the wheel on the bridge, that a ship has propellers, or that the hull is white. But one can certainly protect elements or looks that as parts or as a whole contribute to a products total appearance, function or both. It is a somewhat grey area legally speaking because of weak copyright and intellectual laws world wide, but hopefully that changes to the designers benefits sooner than later. Otherwise - who would want to make music or art anymore if one can not get the necessary protection to keep making unique 'things'? Legal protection, but also a collective global indoctrination that theft and direct copying is not acceptable in any form.

I know, I know ... the place I live is called Utopia ...

Bjorn

[AMG]

Originally Posted by Marmot

I don't recall offering any advice in this area.

What are you guys calling a "design?" Have you delivered a full set of engineering drawings and plans to someone or made them publically available somewhere they might be stolen?

Like I said before, a computer rendering of a boat is just that, it is a long way from a design, it is just a drawing, a piece of graphic artwork. Put a copyright mark on it and it's yours.

If somebody builds a boat without input from you, it seems to me they developed or paid for the construction drawings, got the plan approvals with their name on them and built the hardware. Unless they used your rendering to sell the concept and you can prove it, you don't have much to claim.

OK, now may I repeat myself; When it comes to copying yacht designs, I wouldn´t bank on Marmot´s advice...

[Marmot]

OK, now I repeat myself. A computer rendering of a pretty boat on the water is not a vessel design. It is a nice piece of computer graphics, it is artwork. That graphic is all you have that can be claimed and copyrighted.

If someone sees that and designs then builds hardware that resembles it, that doesn't make it yours to claim.

[AMG]

Marmot, I happen to know how this works in all civilized countries, but outside them you are probably right.

[BjornS]

Originally Posted by Marmot

OK, now I repeat myself. A computer rendering of a pretty boat on the water is not a vessel design. It is a nice piece of computer graphics, it is artwork. That graphic is all you have that can be claimed and copyrighted.

Your copyright extends to any copy or potentially likeness of said design - on paper or otherwise - in the civilized world. If "pretty" art and graphics on paper or digital files can not be protected - how do you think patents are filed?

If someone sees that and designs then builds hardware that resembles it, that doesn't make it yours to claim.

Nonsense. But one has to show that the idea was yours to begin with. And that goes both ways.

Bjorn

[Blarp]

Originally Posted by BjornS

Blarp

I have always thought direct targeting/marketing would be the way to go. I have already tried it by approaching builders and a few designers at trade shows. The builders general consensus were that they have very little clout over who the client/owner will pick as a designer, but they are happy to keep your name on file. ---do you have a story or two to relay to this community about your experiences?????

Bjorn

Hi Bjorn.
My experience was withn a design team. I apporached a company because I wanted to work in the design office with them.
Perhaps what you are talking about is for larger one-off projects where you are the designer and would be contracted to see a project through at a yard, on behalf of a client.
This is a much more specific field, and a position that only a tiny fraction of designers achieve. Of course you would need the backup of many engineers and other designers, so the project would quicly change from 'your' design to a collective 'our' design as you would be part of a team, claiming joint reponsibility and credit in different areas.

Which leads on to Marmots points about the 'deisgn' being a more than a profile drawing of a boat. Obviously he is right that an entire boat design is much more than that and you could only claim responsiblity for your input.
Lets try to be more specific about design: are we talking about interior or exterior styling, packaging, engineering, interior materials selection, etc?
I would class most work posted on YF as 'exterior styling' with the occasional 'packaging' thrown in to the more realistic and educated works. Rarely do we see engineering drawings or interiors, but why?
Maybe exterior styling is the easiest way for people to claim the title of a designer

I dont think anyone could design all aspects of a large modern boat on their own from start to finish.

I see design as more of a collective evolution.
We are all adding to the development of modern boats as we propose ideas that are interchanged globally. Some vessels make great leaps in design that are absorbed by other designs and so it goes on.
So none of us can lay claim to any design in its entirety because we must all give a part of the credit to the guy that put the pointy end at the front eons ago (which we copied), and so on.
So dont fret and get precious about design. If someone copies your work, it means you have added your bit to the collective. That is something to be proud of.

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by Blarp

Which leads on to Marmots points about the 'deisgn' being a more than a profile drawing of a boat.

Yes, you got my point exactly.

Originally Posted by Blarp

I would class most work posted on YF as 'exterior styling' with the occasional 'packaging' thrown in to the more realistic and educated works..

This is precisely what I meant. They are lovely examples of computer graphics but in my opinion they are far from being a "design" that could be construed as having any beyond its intrinsic value.

Originally Posted by Blarp

Maybe exterior styling is the easiest way for people to claim the title of a designer.

Yes, and as I wrote, until a designer has established a style that is recognized, and valued as his "trademark," his sketches published on internet yacht sites can be described as equivalent to sidewalk painting.

Originally Posted by Blarp

I dont think anyone could design all aspects of a large modern boat on their own from start to finish. ... So dont fret and get precious about design. If someone copies your work, it means you have added your bit to the collective. That is something to be proud of.

That's it, and what I meant by put the material out and hope someone likes it enough to offer a commission. Until the time a design team turns a concept sketch into approved drawings there is nothing to "steal" other than a graphic illustration.

[BjornS]

Blarp

My kind of guy. You just walked in and got the job for the asking. Nice.

You are correct that my approach would be more in the direction of larger one-offs and direct interaction with the client. It fits better in my end of the world.

Yes, it is all about the team effort. The lead designer or concept artist usually gets the public credit. Which is fair. And the profile of a yacht may be the most important feature. The client is often likely to go for a design because of a profile that is appealing. That would of course depend a little on the function and purpose of the vessel, but like with so many products made - it is most often the profile, the exterior "gloss", and the pride factor of exterior styling of most products that sells.

Regarding evolution of design - I briefly touched upon the issue in post #9 (with AMG). The intention with this thread is to try to clarify the issue of posting original concepts on the web or not, but the issues get a little side tracked now and then. But it is your chicken and egg scenario that comes into play. Issues regarding copyrights, what is original design or not, and the issues that are ostensibly connected with designers and unique art. I am not trying to take any high road, but just trying to find fair answers and have a good conversation in the process.

That we all contribute to the collective is fine and good. However, I assume that you - like me - don't physically live in such a dull grey industrial and political regime where no individual gets diligent support and due credit in the form of proper mention and serious remuneration for being such a bright head in the ocean of "grey" designer heads. Teamwork and co-operation has to be present at all times, but credit needs to go where it should go when design leaders step forth with ideas and direction. And if you yourself have created original art, don't you ever give up on your right to claim your art to be yours and yours only, and that you are proud of it as well.

Bjorn

[BjornS]

Originally Posted by Marmot

... as I wrote, until a designer has established a style that is recognized, and valued as his "trademark," his sketches published on internet yacht sites can be described as equivalent to sidewalk painting. ...

... Until the time a design team turns a concept sketch into approved drawings there is nothing to "steal" other than a graphic illustration.

Marmot

So .. are you saying that a one-off piece of art has no copyright protection? Or that perhaps one has to go into serial production or create the same looks for everything to receive legal protection? I hope that is not your reasoning, because it would not hold any water in a legal dispute.

BTW ... concept sketches are as good as gold in the court of law. And stealing is stealing - whatever the form of the original presentation. Courtcases have been won because of designs that was jotted down on a piece of napkin in a bar.

Bjorn

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by BjornS

So .. are you saying that a one-off piece of art has no copyright protection? ... Courtcases have been won because of designs that was jotted down on a piece of napkin in a bar.

Read my earlier posts. Your computer rendering is a work of art, it can be protected by copyright.

Those napkin drawings were probably representations of a mechanical device or parts assembly that incorporated new or unique operating characteristics or functions, it was the idea that was protected and the napkin's value was extrinsic, the opposite of a pretty picture.

Claiming that an artistic illustration is a design in the context of naval architecture or marine engineering is a very long stretch. That is no different than if I drew a picture of a vertical structure with rows of windows on all sides and then tried to claim copyright infringement on every boring office building constructed from that time on.

[AMG]

Originally Posted by Marmot

That is no different than if I drew a picture of a vertical structure with rows of windows on all sides and then tried to claim copyright infringement on every boring office building constructed from that time on.

You are almost right, architecture is also protected by the same design laws.

I think this is where the coordinated efforts started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeme...roperty_Rights

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by AMG

You are almost right, architecture is also protected by the same design laws.

I am not a lawyer but I would think the design "laws" are not similar at all. Look at the architectural works protection act vs the fashion industry copyright laws and let me know what you think.

What it boils down to, at least in my opinion, is that a graphic artwork is what it is, a pretty picture and is protected as such. It is not a design or set of plans and an article constructed to resemble the drawing is not a copy of that drawing.

[AMG]

Marmot, this thread is about publishing a design or not and your input is welcome, but there are actually a lot of laws on intellectual property rights.

I have been involved with product designs since the 60:s and met with lawyers from all over the world discussing if and when designs need formal protection.

There are numerous cases to study, many available on the net for anyone interested. I have probably 10.000 pages downloaded on this subject...

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by AMG

There are numerous cases to study, many available on the net for anyone interested. I have probably 10.000 pages downloaded on this subject...

The thread began with the words "Here is a topic that may be of interest ... whether to publish images of new and original concept yacht designs ... "

If you have case law in your files that shows where someone was found guilty of copyright infringement for building a boat that looked like a picture published in a magazine or on the net, please share them and answer the question that has so far taken 3 pages to address.