[AMG]

We are discussing Intellectual Property laws here which this court case was a fresh example on. Nothing more than that.

The link about "my case" was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/sp...sign-copy.html

[NYCAP123]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...al-verdict.ars

Ah the record biz. Wonderful isn't it. They've gotten rid of reel to reel & tape to tape so now they have to set examples for fear another Napster will raise it's head. It's rough when thieves get stolen from and they'll pay millions in legal fees to thwart any attempt even if there is no chance of collecting. A lawyer's dream. Nice visit to Hollyweird; now back to the real world where we don't often see identical copies, but use of ideas and very few have the budget of an entire industry to fight legal cases with. People who copy are pond scum, but they will always be there. Be first; be best, and keep it in your pocket until you're ready to use it if you don't want it copied.

[CODOG]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Does this mean you think "A" is a stolen design and Starck is a thief?

Reading throught the thread it seems that must be the concensus of opinion among those yacht designers who post here since the "design" of the DDG-1000 certainly seems to be "heavily laden with original and identifiable design content."

In my opinion it is simply an example of taking a nice piece of "artwork" and designing a piece of hardware that is "hauntingly familiar." I wouldn't call him a thief. I will leave the ethics argument to you guys, you have already covered that part fairly well.

Expertly done there. Well set up and sublime delivery.

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by AMG

The link about "my case" was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/sp...sign-copy.html

Since the issue never made it off these pages it is a stretch to call it a "case." A bruised ego doesn't make it far in court or life.

I didn't see much that was "hauntingly familiar" either. There are only so many ways to arrange the layers of a big white wedding cake and some windows are square, some are rounded and they come in twos and threes and fours.

Yacht "artwork" is just that, artwork. The drawings shown in the thread were not copies by any stretch of imagination and no plans were claimed to be stolen or used to build a copy so no harm no foul. If it went to court could you have proved you lost something?

If you take your pet project out for a public stroll you have to expect people to imitate it if they like it. If you want secrets and security, keep your stuff in the dark.

[AMG]

Marmot, I guess you have made your point by now. Please allow others to have other opinions.

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by vernetluc

Starck may not have been aware of the existance of this DDG-1000 project, but B & V surely was. Then they found nothing wrong in building this ship. Why?

Are you suggesting that Starck merely put his name on the design and is claiming credit for something that BandV picked up after it "fell of the back of a truck?"

If BandV originated the design why would they stiff their own designers and give someone else credit?

If BandV found "nothing wrong" with building the ship then maybe their view of "design" stealing or "copying" is at variance with the majority of opinion posted in this thread and the one AMG referenced.

Now that we have a real world example of a design that few would suggest is less than "hauntingly familiar," this thread has moved beyond the hypothetical. If we are to view "A" through the same same lens used to observe the "obvious" infringements noted in the thread about the "theft" of AMG's design, the cries of indignation expressed in that thread are curiously muffled if not entirely absent in this case. Why is that do you think?

AMG, I don't know if you took any ethics courses in college but if you did you would remember that being asked uncomfortable questions and having to defend a position based on the nuances of ethical behaviour are some of the risks of taking the position you did concerning what you believe to be the theft of your own design. Trying to silence the "opposition" is hardly ethical.

[AMG]

Sorry Marmot, but I would like to pick my own fights...

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by AMG

Sorry Marmot, but I would like to pick my own fights...

Good judgement call.

[Marmot]

Here's someone else's opinion. From an intellectual property attorney:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html


"Another interesting copyright concern is the extent of copyright protection in pictoral or sculptural works that portray a useful article. Take, for example, a painting of a futuristic looking automobile. Copyright protection would prevent the outright copying of the painting. In addition, copyright law would prevent the creation of a three-dimensional model of the automobile found in the painting. However, under the specific terms of the Copyright Act, copyright law would not prevent General Motors from making a working (hence utilitarian) automobile of the design found in the painting."

[vernetluc]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Are you suggesting that Starck merely put his name on the design and is claiming credit for something that BandV picked up after it "fell of the back of a truck?"

Read the thread!
There is a resemblance, yes, between "A" and this navy vessel. One thing, however, you should have noticed, is that this vessel does exist, and is not only a graphic presentation. but how much resemblance is there?
Very little actuially! Just take a reverse bow (that is one feature Starck is not responsible for, probably, since his knows little about boats, I can assure you!) and put on a short and tall superstrucure on it, and there you are!
Where Starck's design is remarkable, is how it differenciates itself from the rest of the large yacht design, with their huge superstructure...and you can be sure that there are a few dozen other "ideas" or just plain decorative items inside this boat that are quite unique! As I said: this is a submarine superstructure on a hull floating a bit higher, basically! But who else dared it? (for yachts, I mean).

If we are to view "A" through the same same lens used to observe the "obvious" infringements noted in the thread about the "theft" of AMG's design, the cries of indignation expressed in that thread are curiously muffled if not entirely absent in this case. Why is that do you think?

You may be interested by the fact that the vast majority of members of this very forum reckoned that the "work" of this "other yard" was to be considered as a copy.
You may also say that the stern of this same vessel resembles M.Y. "Eco", that vertical windows was at a time a "trademark" of J. Bannenberg, and that the symmetry of the superstructure, including windows, is very common.... However, I personally say that whoever undeniably took elements of Lars design did it very poorly! No big deal, though...!
Curiously muffled you say???...I think there was an outcry...just read the concerned thread! Why repeat oneself on and again?

[NYCAP123]

You may be interested by the fact that the vast majority of members of this very forum reckoned that the "work" of this "other yard" was to be considered as a copy.

Actually, the vast majority of members never weighed in one way or another. That said, the only people that matter in this question are a jury. I don't like copiers or thieves, but ranting does no good. Take them down or forget them.

[vernetluc]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Here's someone else's opinion. From an intellectual property attorney:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html


"Another interesting copyright concern is the extent of copyright protection in pictoral or sculptural works that portray a useful article. Take, for example, a painting of a futuristic looking automobile. Copyright protection would prevent the outright copying of the painting. In addition, copyright law would prevent the creation of a three-dimensional model of the automobile found in the painting. However, under the specific terms of the Copyright Act, copyright law would not prevent General Motors from making a working (hence utilitarian) automobile of the design found in the painting."

THAT is interesting!
I am actually surprised by some of the conclusions though...!

We all agree that, as you keep on insisting, a picture is a picture, yep, thus copyrightable as picture (only), but a picture can also show some distinctive elements that will be so unique and original that it should be (in my opinion) possible to defend that this "picture" is a representation of an original, hence copyrightable, design.

There again, I insist on the fact that a difference has to be made between a "designer's design" and an "engineer's design", one showing basically what an object would look like, the other one how to make it. There is - I repeat - a difference between the conceptual design and the pile of construction drawings, the "blueprints" in earlier days.

Then, would someone produce "just" a picture (hand illustration, rendering, simple profile for a yacht, etc)... of an object, and would that picture show really distinctive features or shapes, it is my opinion that this could be presented as a document for registering the copyright on the shape of this object. I would however add that additional documents would have to precisely point out what are the distinctive features that are submitted for copyrighting. A "bare" document, by itself, could not be opposed in case of pretended infringement.

In the articles you cite, they explain why "utilitarian" features could not be copyrighted: that is in order to avoid abuse of the copyright protection for what should go through the stricter procedure of patenting.
That is again where a "designer's design", copyrightable, has to be differentiated from an "engineer's design's" distinguishable features, that could perhaps be patented.
I do not think, then, that a "picture" (that's been published, of course), could be easily opposed as showing an "antecedant" (English?) to a patent from someone else, unless if it clearly shows very exactely, in their shape AND FUNCTION, the claims of the considered patent. Rare in a picture!!!

[vernetluc]

Originally Posted by NYCAP123

..........I don't like copiers or thieves, but ranting does no good. Take them down or forget them.

I too, actually, have a very short lasting memory for this sort of things