Publishing of original concept designs?

BjornS asked "... whether to publish images of new and original concept yacht designs (make public on the internet or in printed magazines) ... ."

This thread is based on a fear of those pictures being stolen and used without payment and the question is whether it is "safe" to post them.

What we see here and elsewhere are concept pictures, in most cases (I suspect nearly all) there is no underlying design work available to flesh out those renderings, the totality of the work is what is published. They are published in order to attract customers, they are bait. There is nothing wrong with that but I find the level of righteous indignation at the idea of having your bait stolen to be rather amusing.

Let's put this another way, of course you personally are an accomplished designer and have the resources to deliver a complete package from concept to sea trial but I suspect most of the internet stylists lack that capability. So, when I see a pretty picture drawn by one of those stylists, that is all he has and can offer. He doesn't have a service to sell and has no way of generating one. Is his drawing a design and any boat built to superficially resemble it a copyright infringement? I think not.

If all a stylist has to sell is a picture I think that picture is very much for sale. Which of course brings us back to the original question. How much is that picture worth and how can you protect it? If I don't want or need your services are you too proud to sell your picture?

This begs the bigger question; if you won't sell it, and can't produce a design to flesh it out or supervise the development of plans, what are you going to do if I take that picture to a designer and tell him to design a boat that looks like this? I didn't put my name on the picture, the stylist didn't produce a general arrangement or underwater shape, calculate the hydrodynamics or draw a set of deckplans. Even if he did, I didn't copy and deliver those to my designer, so what was stolen?

As a professional yacht designer, you must have a stream of clients calling or walking in every day with a picture of a boat they like. They say, "build me one that looks like this." Do you tell them you can't because the picture is stolen and you can only sell him your services, which in this case means he will pay you to keep sending him original concept drawings until he sees one he likes?

You have answered your own question.
Why are you deliberately separating general arrangement, hull design and deck plans apart from the profile design ?

Because a profile drawing is only that, a drawing.

Whatever happened to those thousands of pages of law concerning this stuff? Surely the designers have references to what is best protected by copyright and what must be patented? I have tossed out a lot of reasons why I don't think one pretty picture by itself rates being called a design, I have repeatedly acknowledged the picture is protected by copyright but I have yet to get a reference to a law or court case which links a single drawing to a body of work that could be described as a yacht design someone could steal and build.

And, what about that client who walks in with a picture in hand? Do you look at it? How close do you come to "stealing" some other stylist's work? Where do designers stand in that case?

If you want protection you have to keep everything secret until it hits the ways. If you publish it as bait the fish will nibble on it. That's called fishing.

Have I?

Are you saying that individual desginers or design shops don't look at the picture and tweak it just enough to satisfy their conscience and give the client what he wants?

Or do they just tell the client "Sorry, I can't look at the picture, but here look at my folio and let me know if there is something there you like. Oh, don't see anything to your taste, well, too bad, cheerio then."

I don't think so ...

In the context of the original thread direction, lets agree to disagree on this point. You are right in terms of a statement, that a profile drawing is just that, a drawing of a profile. But IMO you are wrong when you dismiss the potential value of a drawing of a profile in the context of the OP's initial question. I could say a profile design is just that, a design. Wording is similar, meaning is far different. It doesn't matter if its presented as a drawing, a rendering or a painting in oils...if the originator has designed it, that design belongs to him. A successful profile design is as much of an essential part of the overall design as any other design discipline. Profiles or 3-D renderings of the exterior styling are not a result of the design process, in actual fact they are very often the genesis, and at the very least a component of the final product that is given every bit as much thought if not more (as the skippers and engineers on here will agree) as the rest of the design.
Whether the originator is a household name or a talented beginner, the point I'm trying to make is the same. I've seen countless floating product sold on conceptual profile drawings and renderings alone, their potential value is real, if not always appreciated.

That's fine with me, I'm not a designer or a lawyer.

So far though, no one, least of all me, has said anything other than the pretty picture is protected by copyright.

No on has produced one of those "thousands of pages" of case law or judgements which awards a "yacht designer" a single cent for a claim of copyright infringement for building a boat based on a pretty picture publised in a magazine or on the net. That goes to the heart of this discussion.

If I were a designer I too would fight to the finish to protect my artwork but so far I haven't seen anything that says designing a boat based on a pretty picture found online or in print is illegal or has been proven in court to be a crime, civil or criminal. You guys are the designers, you must know what kind of protection you have and from whom and by whom or what. So far this thread has only confirmed everything I have written, that pretty pictures are protected by copyright. And that is the full extent so far. Somewhere in those thousands of pages must be an example that will stop me from taking one of the pretty pictures posted here to my favorite naval architect and saying "Here, I like this, build me one."

Hi,

I wouldn't worry about searching the net for an example of what will stop you doing that, I would instead look in your letter box for your bank statement

Here’s an example of Intellectual property theft.
In this case it’s a photograph that I took that is being used “without permission” for commercial purposes.

http://www.thomasspirit.com/

Hi,

Contact the Broker if you can, I do believe that all Merrill Stevens Brokers got the can earlier this year.


Barbara Tierney
BarbaraT at MerrillStevens.com
Merrill Stevens Yachts
1800 SE 10th Avenue
Suite 215
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

954-791-2600 - Office

I did last year, but she chooses to show her ethical integrity by ignoring the obvious.

Thanks but as a writer I am very well versed in intellectual property law, and having had my own photos and animations used without permission I am aware of that aspect of publishing online. Neither of those examples have much to do with this discussion.

The question never was "are my drawings protected by copyright?" That is or should be self-evident for anyone in a creative endeavor. The question was (more or less) how can you stop someone from building a boat that looks like a pretty picture published in some fashion?

So, we are still at the beginning and seem to be getting nowhere close to the answer. Let me ask another version of the original question, again. How many of the designers responding or lurking have not looked at a published picture brought in by a client who asks you to build one like this, or to use a particular feature of the illustration?

Does anyone know of a yacht designer who has been taken to court for "design infringement" based on something other than "hull splashing" which is another fish altogether?

Is it self evident? Now I am not 100% convinced I know my legal position and rights. I have read your legal links and they seem to suggest it is very hard to protect ownership of a design. Yet the general consensus is that we are protected somehow when we post new pictures?

Yes we all have competition analysis and look at the drawings/specs of similar craft. We would be crazy not to be well versed with our competitors products. I would think that most modern powerboat designs are only 'six boats of separation' from each other, if you see what I mean.
Just because I review the competion does not mean I am copying them when I draw up a new boat (?)
Part of the design brief (typically from a technical director) is often "beat that boat", followed by a viewing and disection of published work from another company. Although in my experience this varies heavily between manufacturers. Some are leaders, some are followers in the design game.
Although I understand this is adding to product convergence, it pays my mortgage so I do what I am told whilst trying to add my own original bit to the collective.

No I dont know of any instances, but I guess it could have happenned.
CODOGs example with Akasia surely must have come the closest (again I am not sure on the actual outcome) because it really is a blatant copy.
Strewth ! It has exactly copied details inside and out. It should not be allowed from a legal or moral standpoint. The Akasia case probably illustrates the OP's concerns.

Does the lack of court cases (that Marmot is searching for) give a green light to the copiers?
Hmmmm

No good idea goes uncopied whether that's a design, a fashion or a business. Yes it is morally repugnant but it's not worth worrying about. The only protection is in being the first and best. I remember a business I started. A year later there was a copy and again about every year another. Each also soon went out of business because they were copies. We had the connections and the reputation and were reinventing while they were stuck in yesterday.
The only benefit to litigating a case such as what has been discussed here is to spend the competition out of business (an expensive way of doing business).

Marmot: you have practically hi-jacked this thread, and by your insistance on wanting someone to show you an example where a picture (sketch, illustration, rendering....) would have served as a base on a court-case for plagiarism made it boring and pointless.

Nevertheless, I will quickly comment on your questioning.

First, you say that a pretty (or not) picture is a picture and just that. Yes, by itself, sure! Just as well as technical drawings are ink on paper and just that!....or are they more? What about their "content"? A "pretty picture" may also show, in clear, innovative ideas, original styling. Sygma is a good example: J. Stark will probably have not done anymore than a few sketches to present his styling concept to the Engineers and N.A.s, but now: make one that looks like it and you would be as ridiculous as sure to get a lawyer knocking at your door, soon!

Second: you do a confusion between styling, that a pretty picture can perfectly well describe, and the whole design package. As E. ******** and a few others have clearly explained, unless you are talking of a small boat whose whole design and calculations can be handled by a single person, it is a whole team, and sometines hundreds of people of various specialities that concur to the engineering, decoration, workshop drawings or various "designs", and all what make the package of construction drawings for a large yacht. Still, that does not mean that the "external lines stylist" did not have his own input, and therefore intellectual property rights.

To finish about your main query: we got other things to do than searching for a proof of a well known thing that is inntellectual property rights, whatever was the way to present them in the fisrt place.

Then, I would like to comment on the value of a simple "pretty picture". First, it effectively has to shown, make identificable (correct my english, please), some design elements in order to pretend to have any copyright value other than the artistry in it. In this respect, I very much deny the exaggerated value often given to the "profile". Of course, it will, by some artistically placed shadows or tones, or by its proportion (that starts to be interesting!), look appealing, but the amount on information it gives is actually minimal. Lets take, for example, the two pictures presented by Lars earlier in this thread: one if of a classic amongst the classic, and, if not being quite fond of some of Lars' designs, I could have really wondered what is original in it and what can have been copied "twice"? It can be superimposed on many Benettis, or forty years old van Lent. This strict profile shows nothing of what good ideas Lars has certainly put it this design. The second design is, of course, much more original, contains more specificities, and any similar boat would be quickly recognisable and "directly inspired". I give credit to Lars in that!

A rendering is often much more explanatory, and, actually, attention has to be paid to showing the best what is original and what is supposed to attract customers in this project. Effectively, what one wants is to find a buyer when presenting a new project, or eventually just show a newly launched or soon to be launched project, just for the pleasure of it.

In the second case, nothing matters anymore, at least about the outside: the boat will be seen all round the marine - or the world - and be pictures everywhrere. Different for the interior, though! But in the fisrt case, what has to be considered is that most - if not practically all - the projects that are shown in medias, paper or web-based, is by the promoters of the project, rarely by a designer who wants to show what he is capable of (excepted here, perhaps!!! ) This promoter maybe a yard, a broker, or sometimes just one who has the means (or the dreams) to get into yacht building.

Going really back to the original question asked in this thread, I would answer that the question rarely presents itself. There is little need for a designer (I mean: one who has work, who has relations, regular customers, and years of presence) to expose all his dreams and deliriums, unless he wants to write a book! Clients will not come to an unknown office after having seen a "pretty picture" on a website: they will come because they know, or have heard of, someone capable of doing the work they need, and it is to these people that the designer will present his "ideas" that had till then been undisclosed, or, more often, he remember from one of his un-published designs something that corresponds to the client's expectation, without having to say - or remembering - where it originally comes from.

For the newbie, there is little choice: he has to work for years in an established office, and will refer to this period and to what he was doing there when one day he wants to fly with his own wings, on which day he may publish a few ideas he had in the back of his mind in order to pick up the first customers, although during these many years he will have established contacts, and will just inform these that he is now working independantly, and on top of that he will have started his own business only the moment he will have been promised some work!

To join this office, unless having already some internal connections (a father, for example....!) he will have had to walk through the door! No hope to be called like the messiah after having showed some of his work on the web!

So, where does lie the risk of being copied, and where is it worth it?

We all copy each other! As one said: " we can see so far only because we are on the shoulders of giants"! Everytime we see a good idea, we remember it, it becomes part of our education. Must be noted that, very often , when we think we had a good idea, there is half a dozen designers having the same one at the same time: it was "in the air". So, one should not feel too offended if someone else has the chance to use it first! When we think of something realy original: better keep it in the "library" of ideas: it will be used someday, and, if it is a really good one, we shall be in a hurry to use it, but publishing it will not help, only to have someone "pinching" it!

To have the "copyright" sign on a picture, drawing, whatever is worth nothing. You need to have it recorded as copyrighted, and then it needs to have been produced to keep this record valid. Even then, it is sufficient to introduce a minute difference in drawing to pretend to be different to what has been copyrighted. To have an invention patented (which is slow and expensive because if you forget one country, that's it!), it is worth it only if very original. If it is not, there again it often needs to do something slightly different in order to be different from the descripton on the invention.

But there is a very good point in publishing, though: it is that, once it has been shown in a publication, no-one else will be able to have it copyrighted or patented if it is an invention: you will have created a precedent. The other way is to have done a (more costly) depot of your designs and inventions, that you will be able to expose if one day someone comes up with that, and invalidate his copyright or patent . It is, effectively, VERY annoying to keep a good idea of yours in a locker....and see someone who had the same idea but has now blocked you from using it!!! It is also annoying to patent an invention and that someone suddenly discloses a precedent!!!

Besides that: if one is really proud of some " pretty pictures" he has done and has no-one to show it to: come on: show us, right here!!! Thanks in advance

Hi,

This is not what is says here:

What is a copyright notice? How do I put a copyright notice on my work?

A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2008 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. See Circular 3, Copyright Notice, for requirements for works published before March 1, 1989, and for more information on the form and position of the copyright notice.

What is copyright infringement?

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

The original source of this information is here:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Yeah, it took me less time than you because I didn't have to compile the list.