Jump to content

Philosophical questions on Selling/Purchasing Plans


rule62va

What are you Selling/Buying when you are Selling/Purchasing Plans?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. What are you Selling/Buying when you are Selling/Purchasing Plans?

    • 1. When I sell a plan, I inform the buyer before the transaction about how they are to be used and how many items they can construct the item and offer them the option to enter into the agreement or not.
      1
    • 2. If you build more than one or attempt to sell the product you are "stealing food from the mouth of the designer"
      3
    • 3. As a designer, I can dictate what you do with my plans even if we have not entered into an agreement prior to the sale.(all designers dictate the same limitations and are implied by copyright law)
      0
    • 4. As a designer, when I sell a plan, I am selling the plan for you to use as you see fit.
      0
    • 5. As a builder/purchaser, I believe there is an implied agreement to only build one with no commercial use.
      8
    • 6. As a builder/purchaser, I may build another with option provided or for my wife/son/father/daughter but no others.
      2
    • 7. As a builder/purchaser, I may be building the item as a custom build/sale for another but would not use the plans again.
      3
    • 8. As builder/purchaser, I am purchasing the plans with the right to do with them as I want.
      5


Recommended Posts

I can clearly see where that is copyright infringement. You can't slightly modify a design and then try to pass it off as your own. I'm curious about the restriction on the number of builds. I just can't see how it would be legally enforceable. It makes me think of terms in many software EULAs. Just because it states that the buyer must use the product in a certain way doesn't mean that the user is legally compelled to. I'm certainly not advocating screwing the designer over, and the money I spent on plans was worth every penny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The license defines a contract between the seller and the purchaser.  Regardless of copyright issues if you violate the purchase agreement you are in breach of contract. 

I wonder though, if it can actually be considered a legally binding contract. If the designer specified on the plans that the boat could only be built with yellow colored tools, once the plans are in the buyer's possession, they're perfectly free to build it with any colored tools they choose. Just because it's on the plans or in the agreement, doesn't make it legally binding.

I was simply surprised when I noticed the "single build restriction" on my plans. I'm not interested in building more than one and I'm certainly no legal expert...just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder though, if it can actually be considered a legally binding contract. If the designer specified on the plans that the boat could only be built with yellow colored tools, once the plans are in the buyer's possession, they're perfectly free to build it with any colored tools they choose. Just because it's on the plans or in the agreement, doesn't make it legally binding.

It would be legally binding and probably unenforceable.  What you can do and what you can be sued over have a big overlap. This is however a pointless conversation.  If people want to steal they will, personally I'm not up for it.  You can also make all sorts of sophisticated excuses that shift the blame or ease your conscience but it doesn't change the act.  Please don't take any of that as a personal reflection. This medium is so difficult sometimes.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be legally binding and probably unenforceable.  What you can do and what you can be sued over have a big overlap. This is however a pointless conversation.  If people want to steal they will, personally I'm not up for it.  You can also make all sorts of sophisticated excuses that shift the blame or ease your conscience but it doesn't change the act.  Please don't take any of that as a personal reflection. This medium is so difficult sometimes.   

No worries at all ChrisObee, though you are certainly right about it being a bit pointless. It was really more of an academic discussion for me. It was something that piqued my interest as soon as I saw it on the plans. There is so much confusion among the general public regarding copyright, trademarks, EULAs and consumer rights, that I find the discussions interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If  academic or not, the point has been successfully proven on many occasions, whereas a builder tried to avoid paying the designer their due on subsequent builds, from the same set of plans. I've been involved in this type of suit and can assure you it's an easy battle, if your purchase agreement is worded correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If  academic or not, the point has been successfully proven on many occasions, whereas a builder tried to avoid paying the designer their due on subsequent builds, from the same set of plans. I've been involved in this type of suit and can assure you it's an easy battle, if your purchase agreement is worded correctly.

Wow, that actually surprises me. But like I said, I'm no legal expert. I'm very glad the designers are able to collect for their designs. Were these suits involving people trying to build and sell the boats commercially?  It makes me wonder though, there has to be a point where the specified restrictions on use are no longer legally defensible (this IS a philosophical thread after all). For example, the previous example of the designer requiring only yellow tools to be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me wonder though, there has to be a point where the specified restrictions on use are no longer legally defensible (this IS a philosophical thread after all). For example, the previous example of the designer requiring only yellow tools to be used.

When I said unenforcable, I was making a distiction between what is legal and what can be effectivly be enforced.  A contract cannot require you to break the law.  But short of that its all legal.  Its all about the contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it also depends on what defines a contract. When a person buys a set of plans online, they don't sign any agreements or have any witnesses. They simply put in their credit card number and receive a set of plans in the mail. There may be an agreement between parties but I doubt that qualifies as a legally binding contract.

For instance, if I walk into a bagel shop and the owner tells me that she'll only sell me a bagel if I eat it inside the store. I agree and we finalize our transaction. I now have the bagel but I'm under no obligation to eat it inside the store. I may have broken our agreement, but I'm perfectly free to walk out the door with bagel in hand. Yes I'm now a jerk, but it's perfectly legal. If the shop owner claims that she's actually selling me a license to only eat the bagel inside her shop does that change anything? I'll admit the whole "selling a license to do something" has me a little confused.

If I'm offending anyone please let me know, I'm not trying to undermine the rights of the designers at all. When I saw the "one build" restriction on my plans, it simply got me thinking. This being a philosophical thread on that very same subject, I had to chime in.

And happy new years everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sage,  

There is nothing undefined about the plans that you buy.  My plans as well as all plans from designers I know, have a statement on the first sheet that gives the plan/hull number, a statement that only one boat can be built from a single set of plans and a copyright symbol.  You can ignore this if you wish but you are breaking the law.  You would also be a mooch and a parasite.

It would be very difficult if not impossible with limited resources to prosecute such a case but if you wanted to know what is fair and legal, there it is.

Boat plans ain't bagels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue over, but it's very simple legally. If you do walk out the door with the bagel, you're in breach and damages can be recovered in civil court. If you attempt to hide the fact you've breached or are attempting to make profit (etc.), you now partly fall into the jurisdiction of most criminal courts as well. The criminal court rules of evidence will require considerable more effort on the part of the prosecution, but the civil courts are a walk in the park for what is admissible and recoverable. A classic example is OJ Simpson, who is financially responsible for something he was found not guilty of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read up on contract law.  A legally binding contract can be verbal or written, and nearly anything two people agree to is enforceable.  The four things Wikipedia mentions that make a contract unenforceable is if the conditions are "trifling, indeterminate, impossible, or illegal". 

The "yellow tools" and "eat the bagel in the store" conditions are probably in the "trifling" category.  They could be enforceable under some conditions, I suppose.

A home builder who violates the "one plan, one boat" principle is on shaky ground.  Nearly every boat plan is sold with that restriction so it is not unusual or unexpected.  There is nothing illegal or indeterminate about the restriction, and its certainly possible to comply with it (in fact, it takes a lot of work and expense to violate the contract).  And its not trifling in the least; it is the requirement the designer has placed on the work he produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the great information, gentlemen. You've got me more interested in contract law that I've certainly ever wanted to be. I'm very glad there are forums such as these that allow builders and the designers to communicate directly.

Talk to any law school student and they will tell you contract law is horribly boring; most that I've talked to consider it the worst class they take the first couple of years.  But it affects nearly every business and personal transaction, so they have to pass it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The issue you all have overlooked is cost. Sure plans cost money. Building materials cost much much more though. If a 1,500$ set of plans is purchased and followed through materials waste is at a minimum because a designer tested his/her design before selling it. If you get a plan for free somewhere (be it stolen form the designer,a magazine, or and old outdated plan online) you get what you pay for. When you need to contact the designer for advice or perhaps an unclear design element, you can't and are forced into "trying to figure it out". That can cost thousands in lost hour and materials waste doing it wrong and then fixing it. One set of plans = one finished boat. Want more boats built, buy another plan. Or learn from your first build and design the rest yourself. Good luck with that though. A good plan purchased is a savings of money, not an expense. Besides that if designers didn't make money designing boats, how could we expect them to continue to survive to keep designing them? You spend a lot of time in construction how would you like it if someone waited till you were finished and then stole your boat when it was done? Same thing my friends..same thing. Hard work is hard work. Pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted #6 instead of #5 not because I like intellectual property theft, but simply because of the language "with option provided." If the designer provides such an option surely it's OK to build another boat. The second half of #6 is morally and legally questionable (to say the least) but I thought the "option provided" covered it too. It doesn't but I voted before the full meaning sunk in.

Be that as it may, there is no way I would re-use a set of plans as a practical matter. I am so messy and I tinker with plans so much as I go along that they don't survive, either in physical form or as plans I want to build again. That's why I ended up designing my own boat (see http://176inches.blogspot.com ), and I would not sell the design even if there were demand for it, because it would take too much work to document every mid-stream correction and improvisation I had to make!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This thread is very informative. I have a question that I think I know the answer to, but I'll ask it any way. I there was a canoe I admired, build in fiberglass, but I wanted a stripper version of it, could I measure it carefully and produce my own copy?

I'm guessing no, but I need the facts.

Take Care,

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm wondering how much of a change in design or method is legal. I have a several page article of a tender called Apple Pie; that was drawn up fresh, then later the person stumbled upon an exact boat plans called Rinky -Dink. These plans are now free on the internet. I see a typical thing about boat designs; most of them are inspired or modeled after someone elses design with a few mods.

I noticed on Duckworks, mainly because I was interested in a Michalak AF4B. Michalak has some pretty minimalist designs, simple, meant to be made out of inexpensive materials, sells his plans cheap, in order to help get people out of the dream and into reality, on the water, of course protected waters, but what someone does after they have something that floats is out of everyones control. $32.50 for the pretty well thought out plans that a lot of people have built and are enjoying. Then there is the recent "design" of a Sandy Shoal 16 by Rob Rohde-Szudy. $60 for his plans. He explains how he took Michalak AF4B he built and did some minor mods, and "created a whole new boat". Side by side, you can hardly see the difference. So that gets me to think, though Rob openly gives verbal and written credit for "his" idea, is he obligated morally or legally or neither to send Michalak anything? I could site if enough research was done, hundreds of plans all over the world in the same way.

I have plans for an original Brockway Skiff obtained from the museum. NO qualifications, no restrictions on building any, or a lot, or doing anything with the plans, they are free basicly; I'm sure someone will try to sell them somewhere. I have the Ladybug Boats Skiff by Ken Martin, he says he doesn't care how many are made, have fun. Build them out of cheap Home Depot material, get out on the water and have fun. Do what you want with the plans.

I also have Walter Baron's Lumberyard Skiff. He says build with the finest quality material you can find, you cannot sell the plans nor build more than one boat. Other than a few minor measurements, these are all the same boat. I'm sure someone will argue that, but I have them all laid out in front of me so I feel confident in making that statement.

So which boat is being built? Lets see, I bought some material from Home Depot, I bought some material from Crosscut Hardwoods, rather spendy. I drew out the hull in the stern from Walter's drawing so I wouldn't have much rocker, the front half from Ken's so I'd have a high bow, bent the gunnels from Brockways design. I even used a Bolger idea and used external chines. Humm, is this an entirely different boat, so I can write it up and say this is my own design and charge money for it? Or just enjoy the boat and don't sweat the small stuff? I don't "plan" on building another boat like it, but now that the isdea of the combinations is out there, I'm sure someone will probably see it and do that..

I don't believe any designer of boats under 20 feet are making a good living on boat designs, but keeps the lights on, and their love of boatbuilding keeps them going.. Just my 2.25 cents. WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yea, I've been doing some purging or cleansing of my boat plans. I managed to stack them in a pile that is almost as tall as I am. Some were free, some I spendt a few dollars for, some I spent a lot for. Some I have that are left over dreams from my dad that didn't get built, some he did build. All of his do not have the statements of today, you can only build one and you cannot sell the plans, as they didn't do that back then. I have almost $2K in actual receipts; about fell out f my chair. I got most of them for ideas and dreaming. Some I actually built and enjoyed, some I couldn't get rid of fast enough.

So now I am starting to pack; we're moving into a retirement condo. Some of the plans say that when I get the boat certified by the local authorities, that I need to incorporate the hull sequence number in the serial number. So one set of plans of a certain boat says I can build one boat that should be referenced as #56, another plan say I can build #317 of their plans, still another says I can build #610. So those just will not be made by me. The actual sequence will be out of sync and deceiving to future purchasers of plans and actual boats into thinking they were actually that popular. So should the designer that says I cannot do anything with the plans other than build one boat, or don't do anything at all (or maybe frame them and hang on the wall as a lost dream) or use for a brief moment in warming the body from the fireplace, be obligated to take them back, even at half or a quarter the original cost?

Most generally, I suspect, a person is paying for an idea, it's someone elses idea. They can choose to use that idea, or not. Plain and simple.. Anyway, since the power has been out recently I have gotten a little warm feeling from some of the plans, from the fireplace, and the stack is now down to my waist; still more to go.. WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual sequence will be out of sync and deceiving to future purchasers of plans and actual boats into thinking they were actually that popular.

Maybe for some people. Most of us active here know that many are never built. But it is still the easiest system to use. No designer wants to get involved in tracking progress after he/she sells the plans. I bet the completion percentage of kit cars is even lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.