Lampwork Etc.
 
AKDesign

LE Live Chat

Enter Live Chat

No users in chat


Donate via PayPal to donate@lampworketc.com

Beads of Courage


 

Go Back   Lampwork Etc. > Library > Tips, Techniques, and Questions

Tips, Techniques, and Questions -- Technical questions or tips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #931  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:11pm
Asil4's Avatar
Asil4 Asil4 is offline
Don't dis The Cheese
 
Join Date: Jan 17, 2008
Location: Into the Mystic
Posts: 1,459
Default

[quote=MoltenMuse;2281556]As this includes the specific word "sell" ... "any useful article embodying that design" - I'm 99.9% certain this would cover the concern about "I bought a tutorial, therefore I should own the design"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Quote:

§ 1309. Infringement

(e) Infringing Article Defined. — As used in this section, an “infringing article” is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design. An infringing article is not an illustration or picture of a protected design in an advertisement, book, periodical, newspaper, photograph, broadcast, motion picture, or similar medium. A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

(g) Reproduction for Teaching or Analysis. — It is not an infringement of the exclusive rights of a design owner for a person 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.

(note: nowhere in the last paragraph does it say "offering a copy of the design for sale")
Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It appears from what I'm reading that the last paragraph covers someone else- besides the design owner reproducing the design for teaching purposes.

LIsa
__________________
~Lisa

It takes a lot more "faith" to believe that man did all of this all by himself than it does to believe that he had help.

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not. ~Andre Gide
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:23pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Actually, I don't think you do transfer your copyright to the design through a tutorial, yet you also don't retain the right to dictate what the buyer does with the knowledge you provided in the tutorial. It is unreasonable to sell a tutorial and not allow the purchaser to actually carry out the steps in the tutorial. Once the buyer has carried out the steps, it is reasonable that they have created the same article that the instructions provided for. If you read further into First-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights you'll see that "Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder." By purchasing the tutorial I have permission from the copyright holder to recreate the article, then the copyright holder does not have the right to restrict what I do with the article. The copyright on the tutorial is on the tangible tutorial itself not the articles made with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Another point, if the tutorial author states that the articles can not be made for commercial use and I give it as a gift...the receiver of my gift can then sell the article, the fact that the receiver of the gift is legally allowed to sell leaves some law professionals with the opinion the courts would not enforce the restriction of sale to the first holder of the article.

Now the subject of Disney was brought up, Mickey Mouse and the other characters are trademarked, which carries different protections, the cartoons or movies they are in fall under copyright law.

Personally I understand that where the law stops ethics steps in, but tutorial authors cannot refuse their buyers' legal rights. Any statement can be made on the tutorial, that doesn't mean it is enforceable by law.

I'm also not a lawyer, I'm reading the laws and concluding what I think they will or will not provide for. Do you think that a tutorial author could take a buyer to court and claim they did not mean for the buyer to actually make the article the instructions were for? Once it is determined that it is reasonable to have permission, then the article is the buyers to do what they wish.

I find the subject interesting because it is an area that doesn't leave a clear and concise answer. It is important, in my opinion, that both the tutorial author and buyer know what they are getting into, and it isn't a case closed situation.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:29pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

[quote=Asil4;2281604]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post
As this includes the specific word "sell" ... "any useful article embodying that design" - I'm 99.9% certain this would cover the concern about "I bought a tutorial, therefore I should own the design"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.



Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It appears from what I'm reading that the last paragraph covers someone else- besides the design owner reproducing the design for teaching purposes.

LIsa
That paragraph on using for teaching purposes opens another can of worms. I immediately thought of Sharon Peters and her story of the woman who stopped at her booth to try and rush her into tutorials, with the threat of someone else beating her to it.

If anyone were to use classroom materials from another teacher, and use them to teach is that legal? Would it make a difference if the materials used were given away for free, or if the the materials carried a cost? I would think it would be against the law to take Ms. Peters materials and use them to teach others, but that paragraph seems to say differently.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:34pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Lisa, I haven't written the bolded words above, they're directly out of the copyright act. What *I* have said is that I don't think it's fair, given that designs are covered by copyright, to ask tutorial writers to state they give that permission or risk not selling a tutorial (as it has been suggested in this thread) for the meager $15-$20 they'd receive for abandoning design copyright. It's a lot to ask, don't you think? While many existing tutorials come without restrictions, the initial request that all tutorial authors turn over their copyright in exchange for a tutorial purchase is asking a great deal, imho.

Yes, the last paragraph does imply a party separate from the original designer teaching (or in this case, a tutorial teaching since it falls under the category -- covered under separate legal areas as distance education which a tutorial would fall under) as protection for the original design. I'm having a hard time seeing what's confusing about the clear wording of it all. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just have no way to explain it further than it's been explained here. Seems really clear and concise and DOES NOT include the inherent right for one teaching or learning from a design to turn around and sell the derivative product *without explicit permission from the designer*. This last paragraph makes it clear that people can reproduce a work from an original design for the purpose of learning without express permission to do so from the designer. Nowhere does it address the sale of this reproduction without permission. Some posters in this thread have indicated they would do whatever they want with a design they've seen or learned from, regardless of what an artist may intend from their teachings.

I think this continues to be an important conversation because other artists who are (or were -- as the case may be) considering developing a tutorial of their own may wish to retain their explicit right to hold the copyright on a design AND sell a tutorial. They *can* do both -- as witnessed within the actual copyright text. So, why must they state upfront what their intentions are with respect to abandoning copyright or risk reducing tutorial sales?
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:46pm
DianaDesigns DianaDesigns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 01, 2008
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post

I think this continues to be an important conversation because other artists who are (or were -- as the case may be) considering developing a tutorial of their own may wish to retain their explicit right to hold the copyright on a design AND sell a tutorial. They *can* do both -- as witnessed within the actual copyright text. So, why must they state upfront what their intentions are with respect to abandoning copyright or risk reducing tutorial sales?

Because Disclaimers such as this need to be made upfront when selling teaching materials according to Law.

You will see such disclaimers or similar ones in every book that teaches drawing and the like.

You have to be clear on your intentions, so there is no confusion for the buyer.

You can't say nothing, then sue later.
Reply With Quote
  #936  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:48pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

They haven't given up their right to their design...but by selling the instructions on how to make the design they do not have the legal right to dictate what happens to the article made from the tutorial. If a tutorial, or class was never given on the article they would be able to restrict the making of copies regardless of the use of those articles.

My point is, it doesn't matter what they say, if it isn't legally enforceable. To say that the buyer can't sell the article made with permission, is just as unenforceable as saying the buyer has to destroy the article. Again I think the law would find it unreasonable to dictate that the buyer cannot make the article they have bought the instructions for. That would mean they can have the knowledge for a set price, but are not allowed to use the knowledge. Knowledge doesn't fall under copyright laws.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:48pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

[quote=artic^wolf;2281637]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post

That paragraph on using for teaching purposes opens another can of worms. I immediately thought of Sharon Peters and her story of the woman who stopped at her booth to try and rush her into tutorials, with the threat of someone else beating her to it.

If anyone were to use classroom materials from another teacher, and use them to teach is that legal? Would it make a difference if the materials used were given away for free, or if the the materials carried a cost? I would think it would be against the law to take Ms. Peters materials and use them to teach others, but that paragraph seems to say differently.
No, that's covered separately - reams of copyright protection which cover teaching materials specifically. Taking someone else's teaching articles would also constitute copyright infringement (as would reproducing tutorials or e-books and distributing them without permission). There are tons of references on teaching and university sites which cover this!
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:51pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaDesigns View Post
Because Disclaimers such as this need to be made upfront when selling teaching materials according to Law.

You will see such disclaimers or similar ones in every book that teaches drawing and the like.

You have to be clear on your intentions, so there is no confusion for the buyer.

You can't say nothing, then sue later.
My understanding is that you *can* say nothing. Provided you have a little c with a circle or the word copyright by the bead and on the tutorial, you've said you're following the existing laws.

In my mind, saying *something* and doing it incorrectly leaves the tutorial writing artist far more at risk than the purchaser of said tutorial.
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:52pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

It would seem unwise to me for a tutorial author to write a tutorial on a bead they are still selling in order to profit from it. They should consider that the market may not ( I repeat: may not) be able to sustain their sales, along with the potential sales of the tutorial buyers. This should also be considered when setting a price for the tutorial, it wouldn't hold up in court to say that since the tutorial only sold for 10 dollars the buyers can't saturate the author's market. The author can set the price at whatever they think the market can sustain.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 2008-12-27, 11:56pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post
My understanding is that you *can* say nothing. Provided you have a little c with a circle or the word copyright by the bead and on the tutorial, you've said you're following the existing laws.

In my mind, saying *something* and doing it incorrectly leaves the tutorial writing artist far more at risk than the purchaser of said tutorial.
But if you read about the clickwrap agreement , some case law has found that: If the terms of service are not visible and/or accessible, courts have found the notice requirement to be lacking and as such, the purchaser may not be bound to the terms of the agreement.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #941  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:08am
Asil4's Avatar
Asil4 Asil4 is offline
Don't dis The Cheese
 
Join Date: Jan 17, 2008
Location: Into the Mystic
Posts: 1,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post
Lisa, I haven't written the bolded words above, they're directly out of the copyright act. What *I* have said is that I don't think it's fair, given that designs are covered by copyright, to ask tutorial writers to state they give that permission or risk not selling a tutorial (as it has been suggested in this thread) for the meager $15-$20 they'd receive for abandoning design copyright. It's a lot to ask, don't you think? While many existing tutorials come without restrictions, the initial request that all tutorial authors turn over their copyright in exchange for a tutorial purchase is asking a great deal, imho.
I guess I don't see folks asking tutorial writers to abandon their copyright in order to sell the tutorial. What I've seen is a request that if the author has a problem with it, be upfront about it. The way I see the law- the author, by teaching the specifics of how to duplicate a specific bead gives permission to duplicate that design- in order to even complete the tutorial.


Quote:
Yes, the last paragraph does imply a party separate from the original designer teaching (or in this case, a tutorial teaching since it falls under the category -- covered under separate legal areas as distance education which a tutorial would fall under) as protection for the original design. I'm having a hard time seeing what's confusing about the clear wording of it all. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just have no way to explain it further than it's been explained here. Seems really clear and concise and DOES NOT include the inherent right for one teaching or learning from a design to turn around and sell the derivative product *without explicit permission from the designer*. This last paragraph makes it clear that people can reproduce a work from an original design for the purpose of learning without express permission to do so from the designer. Nowhere does it address the sale of this reproduction without permission. Some posters in this thread have indicated they would do whatever they want with a design they've seen or learned from, regardless of what an artist may intend from their teachings.
Actually the last paragraph doesn't appear to be talking about learning at all. It talks about teaching and how someone could use the design to teach. It wouldn't address selling because it does not appear that is what the paragraph is about to begin with.

Quote:
I think this continues to be an important conversation because other artists who are (or were -- as the case may be) considering developing a tutorial of their own may wish to retain their explicit right to hold the copyright on a design AND sell a tutorial. They *can* do both -- as witnessed within the actual copyright text. So, why must they state upfront what their intentions are with respect to abandoning copyright or risk reducing tutorial sales?
Actually, some of what you quoted covered some parts of it but other parts you quoted were clearly not even about what we are discussing.

The key words in the part that pertains are: "without explicit permission from the designer." In order to complete the tutorial, the designer is giving the buyer/student explicit permission to duplicate that design. Once the tutorial is complete the student has duplicated that design with the explicit permission from the designer and they can't then go back and say they are aren't giving permission. They already did.
__________________
~Lisa

It takes a lot more "faith" to believe that man did all of this all by himself than it does to believe that he had help.

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not. ~Andre Gide
Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:16am
DianaDesigns DianaDesigns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 01, 2008
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artic^wolf View Post
But if you read about the clickwrap agreement , some case law has found that: If the terms of service are not visible and/or accessible, courts have found the notice requirement to be lacking and as such, the purchaser may not be bound to the terms of the agreement.
And that I can assure you would be the users arguement, if they have good council that is.

Either way, if the tutorial writer cares about being copied and is hurt, then don't write a tut.

Don't make veiled remarks about morality, ethics and such after giving express permission to copy.

You need to let that issue go first, then write the tut.

As Lydia nicely pointed out many posts ago.

If you still care and you are offended by copies, do not write a tutorial.

I don't have anything to write a tutorial about, but if I did one day come upon something worthy, I would really contemplate my emotions first, legalities second, price last. I would have to let it go and be prepared for copies to appear.
Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:19am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

The Supreme Court upheld the First Sale Doctrine.

Justice Stevens, delivering an opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INT'L, INC (96-1470), 98 F.3d 1109, reversed, stated,

"The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution."

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...y11182002.html

It is also interesting to read the whole story about the letter in the above link.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...y11182002.html

It shows that just because restrictions are placed, does not mean they are legally enforceable. Even by the feared giant Disney.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:23am
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
I guess I don't see folks asking tutorial writers to abandon their copyright in order to sell the tutorial. What I've seen is a request that if the author has a problem with it, be upfront about it. The way I see the law- the author, by teaching the specifics of how to duplicate a specific bead gives permission to duplicate that design- in order to even complete the tutorial.
No, you may not see it that way. However, that's the premise of the request since the copyright exists if they don't give express permission. Therefore, giving express permission does affect the retention of copyright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
Actually the last paragraph doesn't appear to be talking about learning at all. It talks about teaching and how someone could use the design to teach. It wouldn't address selling because it does not appear that is what the paragraph is about to begin with.
It spoke of that, yes, and by teaching the product it addresses the use of the replication of the design. Sorry but - how is that not clear? It also discusses limitations of use of the reproduction. So, it seems pertinent imho.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
Actually, some of what you quoted covered some parts of it but other parts you quoted were clearly not even about what we are discussing.
I quoted the section of the copyright protection for design and a segment on fair use. Since we were discussing design and teaching of designs, it all seemed pretty pertinent to me. Sorry if you didn't find it as relevant. Perhaps others may? Perhaps not... in any case, it's the text of the US government with relation to the topic, as closely linked as I could find.
Reply With Quote
  #945  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:38am
Starrr Starrr is offline
a pox upon an idiot :..
 
Join Date: Jul 01, 2005
Location: in the real world...
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artic^wolf View Post
It shows that just because restrictions are placed, does not mean they are legally enforceable. Even by the feared giant Disney.
In my experience Disney is a dynasty that few others come close to where trademark enforcement comes in.

On three separate occasions over the years, I have seen at shows actual representatives of Disney, (they have a special name that I can't recall), come in and close a person down and make them stop selling items with a Disney trademark. The most memorable was an air brush artist, quite famous in my area who was not a new vendor, get served with papers because he was airbrushing Disney characters on clothing and forced to stop.

At the time I remember everyone thinking how bizarre it was that Disney actually had "people" who followed up on these things a fairly unknown craft show. Even now thinking back on it I still find it bizarre, but I guess if you want to run a ship as tight as Disney you need to nip infractions before they get out of hand.

I didn't mean to derail the thread but all this info on copyright and trademark protection facsinates me and reminded me of these incidents.
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:45am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starrr View Post
In my experience Disney is a dynasty that few others come close to where trademark enforcement comes in.

On three separate occasions over the years, I have seen at shows actual representatives of Disney, (they have a special name that I can't recall), come in and close a person down and make them stop selling items with a Disney trademark. The most memorable was an air brush artist, quite famous in my area who was not a new vendor, get served with papers because he was airbrushing Disney characters on clothing and forced to stop.

At the time I remember everyone thinking how bizarre it was that Disney actually had "people" who followed up on these things a fairly unknown craft show. Even now thinking back on it I still find it bizarre, but I guess if you want to run a ship as tight as Disney you need to nip infractions before they get out of hand.

I didn't mean to derail the thread but all this info on copyright and trademark protection facsinates me and reminded me of these incidents.
I have also seen the fear of Disney at tiny, little unknown craft shows. I've seen the craft show promoters go around and give warnings that "Disney might come in".

There was a little day care that had a mouse in red pants and a duck in blue sailor outfit along with a few other familiar animals in clothing, painted on the outside of their building. Disney went after them, but they fought back and still have the characters on their building. The mouse is not exactly Mickey...completely different face and body. I can't say how they managed to keep the images, but they did.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:59am
Asil4's Avatar
Asil4 Asil4 is offline
Don't dis The Cheese
 
Join Date: Jan 17, 2008
Location: Into the Mystic
Posts: 1,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post
No, you may not see it that way. However, that's the premise of the request since the copyright exists if they don't give express permission. Therefore, giving express permission does affect the retention of copyright.
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.

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.

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.


Quote:
It spoke of that, yes, and by teaching the product it addresses the use of the replication of the design. Sorry but - how is that not clear? It also discusses limitations of use of the reproduction. So, it seems pertinent imho.
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.

Quote:
I quoted the section of the copyright protection for design and a segment on fair use. Since we were discussing design and teaching of designs, it all seemed pretty pertinent to me. Sorry if you didn't find it as relevant. Perhaps others may? Perhaps not... in any case, it's the text of the US government with relation to the topic, as closely linked as I could find.
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 purposes and that isn't what we are discussing. It doesn't pertain to how students would be able to use it.
__________________
~Lisa

It takes a lot more "faith" to believe that man did all of this all by himself than it does to believe that he had help.

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not. ~Andre Gide
Reply With Quote
  #948  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:33am
Kevan's Avatar
Kevan Kevan is offline
Entropy increasing....
 
Join Date: Nov 12, 2005
Location: In a box of paints
Posts: 25,094
Default

You people with colds, I hope you feel better soon.
__________________
"I am an artist… I am here to live out loud." Emile Zola
Reply With Quote
  #949  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:49am
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
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.

Last edited by Torch&Marver; 2008-12-28 at 1:52am.
Reply With Quote
  #950  
Old 2008-12-28, 8:40am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Let's see if we can summarize using the information so generously provided by so many of you. I will list what I believe has been stated and confirmed, but please feel free to discuss, change, modify or eliminate any of the list below.

1) Tutorial authors have copyright protection for their tutorial.
A. This protection covers the right of the author to distribute the tutorial.
B. This protection explicitly prohibits the distribution of unauthorized copies of the tutorial by a purchaser or a holder of a copy of the tutorial.
C. Right of First Sale allows the purchaser of a tutorial to distribute the purchased tutorial as he or she sees fit, thus relinguishing all rights to the tutorial.


2) Tutorial authors have copyright protection for any and all pictures contained within the tutorial.

3) Tutorial authors may elect to relinguish copyright protection for any or all parts of the tutorial.
A. Tutorial authors may elect to relinguish copyright protection on the photographs contained within the tutorial for the express purpose of creating copies of the beads depicted to be produced by the purchasers for learning purposes.
B. Tutorial authors may elect to relinguish copyright protection for the duplication of the bead or beads pictured in the tutorial for commercial purposes.


4) Tutorial purchasers have the right to the knowledge contained in the tutorial.
A. That knowledge includes all techniques included in the tutorial, along with the process used by the author to create the bead pictured in the tutorial.
B. Techniques covered in the tutorial may be used by the purchaser to create beads of their own design.

5) Tutorial purchasers have the right to use the knowledge contained in the tutorial for the purpose of creating beads.
A. Tutorial purchasers may replicate any bead pictured in the tutorial for learning purposes.
B. Tutorial purchasers may not replicate any bead pictured in the tutorial for commercial purposes unless copyright to the bead or beads pictured is explicitly relinguished by the author.


Okay, what say you? I'm absolutely sure I have left something out. 3B bothers me because, as stated, it would allow AH to purchase a tutorial and, if copyright protection is relinguished by the author, as is the case so far that we have seen, use the tutorial to replicate the bead or beads in a factory setting.

Does anyone know if the author has the right to restrict purchase of their tutorial? Could an author legally deny the right to purchase to a factory owner, for instance?
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #951  
Old 2008-12-28, 8:52am
moondanse's Avatar
moondanse moondanse is offline
Honey Badger
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 1,604
Default

There is consensus on 5B?
__________________
Lauren
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 2008-12-28, 9:30am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Pam, I believe (and I have not found actual case law on this) that the First Sale Doctrine would be found in court to apply to one person "the purchaser" not to my directing or employing others to create the design, hence mass production. I think it is a reasonable conclusion, although I have been unable to find a legal definition of mass production.

I also don't think that all copyright rights are extinguished through either First Sale Doctrine or the Doctrine of Exhaustion. The original designer retains their original copyright that the design is theirs. For example: If I bought a tutorial on your gorgeous dragon, made and sold it...I could not also claim it as my original design. This is why most lawyers who have written opinions on the subject always include the addition of the original author's name. The following lawyer makes my point, much clearer,lol.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...lArticle.shtml

Now she mentions that some state statutes go further, in actually saying the original designer needs to be noted. I do not know which states provide for that. I also would be interested in how the state of origin for the article would effect the sale of the article out of state.

Again I'm not a lawyer, but I feel there is enough info to support that the original rights of copyright would be altered by selling the knowledge in the form of articles, books, and tutorials.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #953  
Old 2008-12-28, 9:38am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moondanse View Post
There is consensus on 5B?
Hi Lauren, I thought there was because of the following quotes:

Original patterns, tutorials, diagrams and writing are covered under copyright law, which gives bead workers the right to control the selling, displaying, distributing and even derivatives of their original work.

While assignments and licenses may be of most interest to free-lance artists and authors who are not dealing with a company on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, even entrepreneurs may have occasion to consider licensing others the right to reproduce a particular item.

§ 1308. Exclusive rights (US Copyright law)
The owner of a design protected under this chapter has the exclusive right to —
(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any useful article embodying that design; and
(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any useful article embodying that design.

As used in this section, an “infringing article” is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design.

"Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder." ( I put the underlining in this quote)

Do you have reason to believe that copyright does not exist because a step-by-step article or tutorial or book is written? As far as I know every tutorial writer so far has relinguished copyright protection for the bead or beads pictured in their tutorials, however retained the copyright protection for the tutorial itself. All 5B is saying is unless it is specifically relinguished the author retains the protection of copyright.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #954  
Old 2008-12-28, 9:39am
sarah_hornik sarah_hornik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,330
Default

Throwing in another point to consider - US law might not be entirely relevant in our case, because many tut writers/buyers don't live in the US.

I have absolutely no idea how these things work (beyond what I've been reading in this thread), and don't really see myself resorting to legal action over a tutorial anyway.

For me, it's more about community ethics and respect than what the law says or doesn't say.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by sarah_hornik; 2008-12-28 at 9:51am.
Reply With Quote
  #955  
Old 2008-12-28, 9:45am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah_hornik View Post
Throwing in another point to consider - US law might not be entirely relevant in our case, because many tut writers/buyers don't live in the US.

I have absolutely no idea how these things work (beyond what I've been reading in this thread), and don't really see myself resorting to legal options over a tutorial anyway.

For me, it's more about community ethics and respect than what the law says or doesn't say.
That's a very valid point Sarah, I know I have read where some copyright law is the same in Israel, also many laws differ in Europe. For instance both the 2-d and the 3-d are protected in Europe...but not in the USA. There are some laws that pertain to legally imported goods, but I haven't read as thoroughly on that subject. Guess I should, lol.

I also feel that ethics and respect are important factors here, but the community can't legally enforce them. I feel the law does become important when people apply their ethics model to another, and harm the other persons business.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #956  
Old 2008-12-28, 9:58am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Thanks, Lori. That was an interesting article.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #957  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:12am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

There is an international agreement Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works


The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

This page lists all the countries that have signed the agreement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ght_agreements
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #958  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:14am
moondanse's Avatar
moondanse moondanse is offline
Honey Badger
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 1,604
Default

"explicitly relinquished by the author"--isn't that what this whole thread was about--that some authors will not explicitly give permission to the buyers of their tutorials to copy and sell the beads? Also, that by selling a step-by-step tutorial some believe the author is giving implicit permission to copy and sell the bead?
I agree with this: many here agree that permission is needed to copy and sell beads made from a tutorial, most believe it would be foolish for one's reputation to do so (regardless of explicit permission), and most people aren't going to do it anyway.
But there will be some who will--there's always that 15% of any given population who are mavericky.
__________________
Lauren
Reply With Quote
  #959  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:15am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Sarah, it took me a few minutes to find this, but here is information about the Berne Convention:

"The Berne Convention was developed at the instigation of Victor Hugo as the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale. Thus it was influenced by the French "right of the author" (droit d'auteur), which contrasts with the Anglo-Saxon concept of "copyright" which only dealt with economic concerns. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force at creation, without being asserted or declared: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors were treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country that signed the Convention. Victor-Marie Hugo (pronounced in French) (26 February 1802 — 22 May 1885) was a French poet, playwright, novelist, essayist, visual artist, statesman, human rights campaigner, and perhaps the most influential exponent of the Romantic movement in France. ... Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (ALAI) was founded 1878 in Paris. ... The droit dauteur (or French copyright law) developed in the eighteenth century at the same time as copyright developed in the United Kingdom. ... The Anglo-Saxons refers collectively to the groups of Germanic tribes who achieved dominance in southern Britain from the mid-5th century, forming the basis for the modern English nation. ... A creative work is a tangible manifestation of creative effort such as literature, paintings, software, and this article."

It has been revised many times, latest revision was 1979 and I believe to date the Berne Convention has been signed by and adhered to by 163 countries.

You can read more about it here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...Artistic-Works
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #960  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:18am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moondanse View Post
"explicitly relinquished by the author"--isn't that what this whole thread was about--that some authors will not explicitly give permission to the buyers of their tutorials to copy and sell the beads? Also, that by selling a step-by-step tutorial some believe the author is giving implicit permission to copy and sell the bead?
I agree with this: many here agree that permission is needed to copy and sell beads made from a tutorial, most believe it would be foolish for one's reputation to do so (regardless of explicit permission), and most people aren't going to do it anyway.
But there will be some who will--there's always that 15% of any given population who are mavericky.
Actually, Lauren, I am unaware of any author who has refused to relinguish their copyright for the bead on which the tutorial is based. In fact, authors specifically came on this thread and reinforced that.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:28pm.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Your IP: 3.238.36.32