Publishing of original concept designs?

Good judgement call.

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."

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).

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?

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.

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!!!

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

Wow. Marmot really ruined what could have been a productive and constructive conversation here. What a negative mantra. Just say it plain- you believe that early sketches, renderings, or whatever you want to call that stage of design, (or not design, whatever you like) get too much attention, and you don't believe they deserve that much attention, and be done with it. If the kind of design and conversation you run into in this portion of YF rubs you the wrong way so much, just go somewhere else. We, meanwhile, will try to keep conversation positive, balanced and constructive.

Wow. What a shame.

To be more on topic, I say publish your designs, but publish carefully and intelligently, as several people have stated already. I know from experience that this works well, as long as you stay smart about it.

Good advice.