Publishing of original concept designs?

I guess you are thinking of the Australian Yachtbuilder. They are making headlines without my help:

http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/sensation-yacht/9890-sensation-top-news-nz-tonight.html

Lars,
It only shows how Integrity and Professionalism play important roles in the yacht industry, and the lack thereof often results in failure and shame.
I can only echo what Carl said:

"What comes around, goes around..."

Arnie

It sure did not start a "design trend", no! But, in the other hand, does that mean that there was any intention of "copying" by both one of the World's most reknown designer, for his creativity and the very varied kinds "objects" he has been worknig on, or by big, old, Blohn & Voss yard? 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?
One thing you must understand is that to have something "reminding" another one does not mean that it is a copy! The "hautingly familiar" look of the "Sigma/A" compared to the "DDG-1000" is just a journalist quote. As you seem to be so keen on courtcases and all that sympathetic tendency of running to a lawyer's office the moment there is a smell of some bucks, then how do you explain that the US defense did not sue Starck and B & V?
I sure admit that the "Sigma/A" does not look so original when seen side by side with this Navy's vessel, but both could also be compared to submarines: just sink these hulls a little more, and there you are !

What the heck is this fantomatic question that makes each one shiver of fear so much that no one dares to ask it ??????

Not so original at all.

I guess you haven't been following the thread closely, I am the one who claims that, in this context, a published drawing is just that, a drawing. It is a piece of artwork and the only protection it has is copyright of the drawing. A piece of "artwork" is not a design and a boat built to resemble the art is not an infringement of the artist's work.

The designers and "artists" posting here are the ones who claim that anything built that resembles a published "artwork" is equivalent to stealing the "design" and should be (and as one designer claimed) has been prosecuted as proven by "thousands of pages" of court cases. So don't turn this around and try to make it look like I am the one wanting to prosecute boat builders. I didn't bring up the court cases, I am the one who said "show me" a court case.

I think this particular example is hilarious, all of a sudden the single designer put forward as an example of having a unique design is shown to have something that appears to be a carbon copy of a previous work. This is exactly the scenario that I claimed is not a violation of the "artwork" copyright. So where is all the righteous indignation now?

Read the thread. If someone builds a gigayacht that looks exactly like the picture of an aircraft carrier, it is not a violation of anything. The builder did not copy the picture and claim it as his own. He only built a boat that looks exactly like the picture.

Read the thread. Read the posts written by designers and artists who claim their "artwork" is a protected "design" then respond to those claims.

The question is to those who claim an "artwork" is a protected design. Did Stark "steal" the design? According to most of the designers and artists who posted in this thread, he did. So why the silence and where has all the righteous indignation about building a boat that looks like a published "artwork" gone?

IMHO M/Y A and DDG-1000 look a lot closer than the yachts shown here: http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/sp...ghlight=copied
and elsewhere. As said before, the best (and possibly the only real) protection is to be first and best. No good idea goes uncopied (except maybe in a Utopian society). If you have an original design keep it in your pocket until you are ready to sell or build it or design in a major flaw that won't be caught by a copier until the build is done and sinks. Then just smile as the knock-offs start appearing.

Interesting to say the least.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on Lars' recent issue Marmot ?

Recent issue?

What is your current opinion on the definition of "plain theft" as it applies to yacht designs?

If you really want to know, do like I did and consult an IP lawyer.

http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/sp...sign-copy.html
A discussion concerning a 'pretty picture' that was also heavily laden with original and identifiable design content.

I've just read through the entire thread again...yup, I've already expressed my opinions fairly clearly on this one.

The question about current opinion was addressed to CODOG as he was the one who called "build(ing) something using the original profile style without the original designers permission and make commercial profit," thievery.

As far as your "issue" is concerned, he asked my opinion and I asked what he was talking about since I have no idea what "issue" might apply to you.

If you choose not to share what CODOG must have thought is public knowledge then that is your business and of very little concern to me. I don't need to express an opinion on everything. If you have problems with your "issue" being raised in public, take it up with him.

Marmot, you are free to have your opinion on the laws, as these days a lot of people have opinions on file sharing. Still the law applies for some of those who have faced trials;

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars

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.

And this applies to the "A" design and yacht design in general in what way?

Did you have some songs stolen?

If you accused someone of stealing one of your designs, what became of it?

(The link to " ...=sensation" returns a link broken message so if the answer to the above is there please post the full link in text so I can find it.)

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/special-features/5383-new-yacht-design-copy.html

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.

Expertly done there. Well set up and sublime delivery.

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.

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

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.