[Torch&Marver]

Originally Posted by Asil4

You seem to be ignoring the part where the tutorial couldn't be completed without the culmination of explicit permission given by the designer to duplicate the design.

I'm not ignoring anything (well, that's not true, I'm trying hard to ignore the tone of your posts).

Originally Posted by Asil4

The designer is saying- "here, give me some money and I will show you how to make this specific bead, step by step."

You can't give permission to make the bead for the purpose of collecting the money that was given in exchange for that knowledge and then try to negate having given that permission. The horse has left the barn.

Again, I ask who said anything at any point about a bead not being able to be replicated for learning technique from a tutorial? That is, after all, the point of all tutorials. It's the "what happens after I make the bead can I sell it?" question I'm attempting to address. Sorry if it's not as relevant to the current postings and discussion you may be holding in the thread. My quotes have been in direct relation to the OP's question that tutorial authors take a stance up front on whether or not they choose to retain copyright protection on the bead used in the tutorial. (I know you don't savour that wording but it's what it is and any future tutorials really ought to be written with that fact at least considered).

Originally Posted by Asil4

Have you been reading any of the other specifics being posted from the U.S. goverment site? Lori has been posting things from their site and supreme court rulings that are dealing in the specifics of what we are discussing.

Why, yes... I have. But if you go back to PERMISSION OF THE DESIGNER as per the copyright, none of it is pertinent if the designer has not sold the original piece of work embodied by the tutorial. First sale applies only upon sale of the object in question. A tutorial, whether it's what people want to hear or not, does not constitute sale of the design automatically. Clearly, copyright laws with specific information for specific areas of concern will continue to evolve on an as needed basis. We can only work with what exists today. What I quoted specifically references design and is the most pertinent material I could dredge up to counter your previously posted lawyer's opinion (which I believe was inaccurate based on my own research of the matter). I just wanted to post the actual law to counter any misinformation it may have resulted in.

Originally Posted by Asil4

I'll say it again. It addressed the replication for the purpose of teaching- not learning. It does not address the learning part of that equation at all.

We are discussing the teaching of designs but, the text you quoted from covers how designs are protected when someone besides the designer is using them for teaching and that isn't what we are discussing. It doesn't pertain to how students would be able to use it.

Aren't all tutorial users someone besides the designer when we're talking about distance education? Doesn't the tutorial user in a distance education (i.e. any tutorial or ebook) situation automatically become "the teacher"? And isn't learning the flip side of teaching? Therefore, discussion about what the replicated object can be used for after the fact makes some degree of sense, don't you think?

Furthermore, even if it were the case of discussing teaching by someone other than the designer exclusively, the argument would hold. If you read it again, that's not all it addresses. It states very clearly: "to reproduce the design in a useful article or in any other form solely for the purpose of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the appearance, concepts, or techniques embodied in the design, or the function of the useful article embodying the design.

I'm pretty certain that *is* what we're discussing here. A learning device that is not being used by the designer (but in this case by the tutorial user) which constitutes an exception to the rule of copyright infringement provided certain rules are followed. Whether you want to see it or not, this applies here. Very accurately, in fact. Reproducing a bead in a tutorial in itself does not constitute an infringement of any copyright. What is done with the bead after the fact falls under specific copyright considerations.

I posted the law. I'm not a lawyer but I can see very clearly how this applies to both sides of the original design, to some degree the tutorial itself and absolutely to the end user of the tutorial. You stated you couldn't see its relevance, I've attempted to illuminate just how relevant it is. I'm sorry if the text doesn't suit what you want it to say... but I didn't write it.