Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 08:35:42 -1000 From: Adrian Pierorazio Message-Id: Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Subject: Copyright I may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer) but, I believe that copyrights only apply to products for financial gain. For example, it is perfectly legal for you to make infinite copies of your favourite video tape so long as you don't give/sell them to people who would otherwise have to pay for it. Similarly, my understanding is that you can make Rev copies for yourself (even if you don't own a Rev) because you're not removing a market share from Revolution using their own design. Again, my understanding may be flawed but, you may even be able to 'give' these heavily copyrighted and patented kites to your friends for cost of materials so long as you're not making a profit on them!! Therefore, there is no reason why someone SHOULDN'T copy kites that they like. However, I think that your point is very well taken that such a kite should not be considered for an award as the kitemaker who wins is not the person who deserves the accolades for the kite. The other side of this, of course, is that if we were to accept your thesis that other people's designs are copyright infringements and, therefore, ineligible for awards, then we must eliminate ALL Codys, Parafoils, Flowforms (?), Revolutions, etc. Heck, maybe all rok awards should be attributed to Japan directly, also edos, hatas, grandmasters, etc would similarly be attributed to their nation of origin rather than to the maker. Also, what about kite ballet--should the songwriter/composer/performing artist be given credit? I guess my point is that in an artistic field, there will always be imitation, duplication, etc out of necessity and fashion (there were more than one cubists, impressionists, etc and we don't criticize them) as this is how the medium evolves. Each builder changes the design slightly until the it has evolved into something completely different (single line delta into swept wing stunt kites for example). However, it is also important that awards for such artistic and technical work take into account the ORIGINALITY of the work as well as the level of execution. Adrian -covering under a rock in anticipation of a firestorm of responses = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 07:44:40 -1000 From: crowell@teleport.com (Carl Crowell) Message-Id: Organization: Kites By Carl Crowell Subject: Re: Copyright Adrian Pierorazio writes: >From: Adrian Pierorazio >Subject: Copyright >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:35:42 -0500 (EST) >I may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer) <<< delet-o-matic activate>>> - (poof goes the text..) you ARE wrong. carl ___________________________________________________ email: crowell@teleport.com FTP: ftp.teleport.com/pub/users/crowell WWW: http://www.teleport.com/~crowell Kites By Carl Crowell - O.S.F.M. World Headquarters = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:10:35 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: <3b1hpr$ono@xochi.tezcat.com> Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: Copyright Carl Crowell (crowell@teleport.com) wrote: : Adrian Pierorazio writes: : >From: Adrian Pierorazio : >Subject: Copyright : >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:35:42 -0500 (EST) : >I may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer) : <<< delet-o-matic activate>>> - (poof goes the text..) : you ARE wrong. : carl Carl's Right. -- ============================================================================= Opinions not necessarily those of the author ;) _____________________________________________________________________________ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:10:35 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: <3b1hpr$ono@xochi.tezcat.com> Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: Copyright Carl Crowell (crowell@teleport.com) wrote: : Adrian Pierorazio writes: : >From: Adrian Pierorazio : >Subject: Copyright : >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:35:42 -0500 (EST) : >I may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer) : <<< delet-o-matic activate>>> - (poof goes the text..) : you ARE wrong. : carl Carl's Right. -- ============================================================================= Opinions not necessarily those of the author ;) _____________________________________________________________________________ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 11:44:00 -1000 From: Cyuen@rci.rogers.com (Calvan Yuen /vanc) Message-Id: <8314D62E012B854A@-SMF-> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Copyright I'm getting somewhat confused on this copyright thingie... Past posts indicates that Carl's copyright issue isn't with the 'kite cloners', it's with the AKA who allowed it to compete. So, from a legal point of view, at what time was copyright being infringed? a) When the kite was made, visuallized or whatever (Hey, let's make one of those) b) When the kite was used for some perceived gain (i.e. recognition at a competition and/or profit) (Hey, we did such a good job, let's see what'll we win) c) When the kite was ->discovered<- to be a copyright infringement (Hey, that's MY kite!!!) Usually, it's at point C where the fur starts to fly. So, does the responsibility belong to the AKA to determining if it's a copyrighted or derivative work...would they need to keep a list? I think some blame rests with the kitemakers; I would not think it ethical if I knowingly made a clone kite with the intention of taking it into competition, and at least informing the judging body as such. Mind you, as Carl says, if design only accounts for less than 10, the judges probably thought it wasn't a factor anyways... Regards, Cal Yuen Vancouver, BC Canada (cyuen@rci.rogers.com) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 10:33:56 -1000 From: cornwell@cds8604.Cadence.COM (Richard Cornwell) Message-Id: Organization: Cadence Design System, Inc. Subject: Re: Copyright Adrian Pierorazio (adrian@me.queensu.ca) wrote: : I may be wrong (I'm not a lawyer) but, I believe that copyrights only You are very wrong!!!. : apply to products for financial gain. For example, it is perfectly legal : for you to make infinite copies of your favourite video tape so long as : you don't give/sell them to people who would otherwise have to pay for : it. Similarly, my understanding is that you can make Rev copies for This is illegal, it is just that companies don't have the resouces to mount a law suit against everyone who copies there product. If they did go after a private indiviual they would probaly end up getting the retail cost of the product. But it would cost them several thousand dollars in lawerys, they would go broke. Also do you realize that part of the cost of a blank audio tape goes to the song writers guild (or someone like that). They sued the tape manufactures stating that 900f all audio tapes purchased are used to make copies of records, CD's and tapes or prerecored music. This was also the reason DAT tapes took so long to get from Japan to the US. : yourself (even if you don't own a Rev) because you're not removing a : market share from Revolution using their own design. Again, my : understanding may be flawed but, you may even be able to 'give' these : heavily copyrighted and patented kites to your friends for cost of : materials so long as you're not making a profit on them!! Therefore, How about labor, you should charge labor, what about shipping of supplies. If you don't make a profit why are you doing it? If you make a kite off of published plans than you are ok. If not, then you are robbing the company of income. Also, technicaly, you can not sell anything to anyone without a business license and sellers permit (sales tax). If you do the IRS, and the state tax board can come after you. If you are only doing a few per year (<$1000), I think they will ignore you, I'm not a laywer either so don't quote me, ask. I have been told that the police are supposed to look for long running garage sales and report them. : there is no reason why someone SHOULDN'T copy kites that they like. : However, I think that your point is very well taken that such a kite If you can afford to buy it, buy it, most kite companies are very small and can not afford to loose sales. If you want to make a copy of a Rev, (same paneling etc), why bother, buy it and support the manufacturer. If you want to make a very detailed applique, then maybe that is something different. : should not be considered for an award as the kitemaker who wins is not : the person who deserves the accolades for the kite. : The other side of this, of course, is that if we were to accept your : thesis that other people's designs are copyright infringements and, : therefore, ineligible for awards, then we must eliminate ALL Codys, : Parafoils, Flowforms (?), Revolutions, etc. Heck, maybe all rok awards : should be attributed to Japan directly, also edos, hatas, grandmasters, : etc would similarly be attributed to their nation of origin rather than : to the maker. Also, what about kite ballet--should the : songwriter/composer/performing artist be given credit? This is a problem, if you have to come up with a unique design to compete, then there will be very few competiters. Maybe kite shapes based on published designs should be allowed, but known copies of non-published kites should be disqualified. If you want to make a copy for yourself to fly or put up at a kite festival, ok, don't sell or compete with it. Rich ========================================================================== Richard Cornwell cornwell@cadence.com Cadence Design Systems Office: (408)944-7607 555 River Oaks Parkway FAX: (408)894-3487 San Jose, CA 95134 ========================================================================== ========================================================================== Sky Vision Kites 415-112 No. Mary Av. Suite 111 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 (408) 733-9313 ========================================================================== = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sat, 26 Nov 1994 11:05:17 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: <3b87ud$di6@xochi.tezcat.com> Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: Copyright Calvan Yuen /vanc (Cyuen@rci.rogers.com) wrote: : I'm getting somewhat confused on this copyright thingie... : Past posts indicates that Carl's copyright issue isn't with the : 'kite cloners', it's with the AKA who allowed it to compete. So, from : a legal point of view, at what time was copyright being infringed? : a) When the kite was made, visuallized or whatever : (Hey, let's make one of those) : b) When the kite was used for some perceived gain (i.e. recognition : at a competition and/or profit) : (Hey, we did such a good job, let's see what'll we win) : c) When the kite was ->discovered<- to be a copyright infringement : (Hey, that's MY kite!!!) : Usually, it's at point C where the fur starts to fly. It is when that particular kite was made (i.e. "a"). At that point, it infringed the previous copyright holders right. -- ============================================================================= Opinions not necessarily those of the author ;) _____________________________________________________________________________ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 16:39:11 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: copyright It occurs to me that few people realize that Hawaii contains an archive of previous posts. If people continue to be interested in the issue of copyright I suggest that you first ftp the previous articles dealing with this issue. Look in potpourri then for copyright or AKA and copyright = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 11:02:21 -1000 From: Charlie@ind3x.dircon.co.uk (Charlie Charlton) Message-Id: Organization: ind3x Subject: copyright Carl Crowell writes CC> Ahhh.. another poor fool who sent in his $9.95 for the 'Kellogs CC> Frosted Flakes Law Degree'. I ought to cross-post this to biz.law so CC> more people can laugh at your expence. This is a bit uncalled for Judge Crowell or even at his expense ! CC> The fact is that if the Rev guys wanted, they could walk up and down CC> the beach and file suit against anyone that has a clone. It just so CC> happens that they do not because it would not do them any good. Doesn't say they'd win, and in which country is this hypothetical beach ? why would it not do them any good ? CC> Other things that are 'against the law'. Which countries laws CC> Making photo copies of just about anything you did not write. CC> Posting private email that you did not write (even if it was mailed to Hey Frank here's your chance to make some big bucks ? CC> you.) Printing out a copy of this post and showing it to a friend. Drawing Mickey Mouse for your kids Eating pork etc. etc. I'd love to hear of the case law to support this final assertion Perhaps you'd like to sue me for quoting you here ? Take Care Charlie ... There are no absolutes, I'm not even sure about this one ! +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | ind3x.dircon.co.uk in Nottingham, England /_ _|_ | | // || |_|\/ | | "...Slave to the hormone, body and soul..." // ||_|_|/\ | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 16:36:03 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: copyright It is my understanding that Carl is out of town for a bit. I thought that I would take the opportunity to respond for him. In article , Charlie@ind3x.dircon.co.uk (Charlie Charlton) wrote: > Carl Crowell writes > > CC> Ahhh.. another poor fool who sent in his $9.95 for the 'Kellogs > CC> Frosted Flakes Law Degree'. I ought to cross-post this to biz.law so > CC> more people can laugh at your expence. [snip] > CC> The fact is that if the Rev guys wanted, they could walk up and down > CC> the beach and file suit against anyone that has a clone. It just so > CC> happens that they do not because it would not do them any good. > > Doesn't say they'd win, and in which country is this hypothetical beach ? > why would it not do them any good ? Pick almost any beach in almost any country. But simplicities sake let us pick the U.S. They would win because they own a valid patent. It does not do them any good because it would cost too much. > CC> Other things that are 'against the law'. > > Which countries laws Carl would respond with more style but all I can say is : P (rasberry sound) > CC> Making photo copies of just about anything you did not write. > CC> Posting private email that you did not write (even if it was mailed to > [mindless snip] > > I'd love to hear of the case law to support this final assertion I can find it for you but you have to agree to pay the Lexis/WestLaw fee plus my time. > Perhaps you'd like to sue me for quoting you here ? Perhaps he would. He gets to pick the forum though. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =