Copyright as related to mechanical art.

W9GFO

Since issues of copyright are in the forefront of discussion today I thought I would bring this up.

I have been working on making a walking mechanism attachment for the BOE-Bot. It is patterned after Theo Jansen's Strandbeests. Since what he created was art it is copyrighted but he has not patented the mechanism as far as I can tell. Contrast that with the Klann linkage which is patented. He is quoted as saying that that the way the creatures reproduce is by enticing other people to build them.

I'd like to understand better how I can make this without violating the copyright. It is not clear at all to me exactly to what the copyright applies to. My version is substantially different from his creations, yet they share the same general geometry for the walking mechanism. I do intend to alter the ratios of the link segments to make the gait a little more efficient. There is a white paper I found which discusses improvements to his design.

If I do figure out a way of efficiently manufacturing this - (there are a couple kinks to work out) then I would prefer to seek permission from Theo to sell them. However, what do I do if he says "no"? It seems probable that I don't actually need permission. The saying 'it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" comes to mind. Theo does offer a couple of his Strandbeest kits for sale and even has instructions on his website to contact a firm that represents him for licensing purposes. Here is a fellow that is selling the laser cut parts to build a Jansen style walker and has "open sourced" his(?) design.

What do you all think? Worthy pursuit or waste of time?

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)

It's definitely a worthy pursuit and one that I've contemplated myself. I would imagine that the basic mechanism cannot be copyrighted -- only Theo's original manifestations of it. But if you don't duplicate one of those manifestations, I shouldn't imagine you'd run afoul of any copyrights. But I'm not a lawyer or IP expert.

-Phil

idbruce

I am not an attorney, just providing my two cents.

Copyrights do not provide protection for structure. Patents provide protection for structure.

idbruce

Additonally, if patents do exist pertaining to this gizmo, there could be two types of patents, design or utility. If a design patent exists, simply change the design, but if a utility patent exists, then the "structure" must be altered to be different then the structure set forth in the claims of any existing patent. However a utility patent cannot be overcome by adding more "members", it must be overcome by having fewer members.

LoopyByteloose

I really like what you have come up with, and I think that it would not be restricted by the copyright you mention. There are many reasons -- it is not wind powered, it is not the same scale, different material, different application.

In other words, it is a different work of art in many aspects.

Above all, if the owner of a patent or copyright doesn't bother to come after you -- everything is likely to be okay.

localroger

IANAL but I have closely read the Patent It Yourself chapter on the differences between copyright and patent, and I'd guess that just the fact that your BOE-beast isn't wind powered would be enough to separate it from Theo's copyright, as that is a big part of his art project's gestalt. It's very clear that the linkage system can't be copyrighted. If you're worried about appearances there are many ways to adjust the aesthetics to make it look different without impacting its functionality. Theo's creations are obvious art pieces meant to be evocative in ways other than simply walking. Avoid duplicating his look, don't call your creation a *beast, and don't put a wind turbine on it (obviously it will have a propeller lol) and you should be fine.

prof_braino

W9GFO wrote: »

He is quoted as saying that that the way the creatures reproduce is by enticing other people to build them.
My version is substantially different from his creations

If I do figure out a way of efficiently manufacturing this - (there are a couple kinks to work out) then I would prefer to seek permission from Theo to sell them. However, what do I do if he says "no"? It seems probable that I don't actually need permission. ...
.... contact a firm that represents him for licensing purposes.

First, it is unlikely he would say no.
Second, it seems there would be a strong case that says he has made his work available so you can reproduce it.

I believe the only way you would get into a problem is if you claimed the YOU created the design, and not Theo, and tried to demand money from him.

If you attribute the original design to Theo, and state your mods, you should be fine, in my opinion; but I am not a lawyer. However, I'm too small for anyone to bother with, so I don't worry.

idbruce

First off, "Patent It Yourself" is an excellent book!!!

Secondly, I don't believe you would have any problem whatsoever, providing patents are not involved. If patents are not involved, I doubt you would even have to attribute the man of whoose work it is based upon, but let your moral judgement be your guide. As previously mentioned, I am not an attorney, but if it was me, I would do a quick patent search, and if I did not find any patent claims that protect the idea, I would make them without a second thought about copyrights.

ElectricAye

I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it, regular patents cover the functionality of devices. Design patents cover the look of things. A shaving razor creator can get a design patent on the handle of their shaver, but they obviously can't patent the eons-old concept/functionality of a handle as being something you grip. Copyright covers the particular manifestation of something, and sometimes its "look and feel," for example in the overall way a candy wrapper looks or a company's combination of colors, etc. in a logo. You could rip off the plot of a movie and make a movie with the same basic plot, but you couldn't use the same script, call the characters by the same name, use the same settings and costumes, etc. How many versions of Romeo and Juliet are there? I can't imagine how copyright could prevent you from doing what you want to do. And especially if you profusely credit the dude with inspiration, you'll probably be in good standing with everyone. One bit of caution, however: you might contact the creator of this and ask where he might have gotten the idea - it's possible he got the idea off of something else, or that somebody else even has a patent on it, so there's always a chance he ripped off somebody else and you could be treading on somebody else's territory. Who knows - you might get lucky and find out he can even cite you the exact (expired?) patent from which he got the idea, if that's the situation.

Good luck.

LoopyByteloose

@electric aye
So what's the difference between a design patent and a trademark?

Trademarks tend to have a rather open-ended useful life.
Patents are restricted to a period of time that is the shortest
Copyrights are restricted to a longer period of time.

To me the 'design patent' has a lot of similarities with having the shape of the CocaCola bottle being a trademark item.

GordonMcComb

idbruce wrote: »

Copyrights do not provide protection for structure. Patents provide protection for structure.

Structure can be copyrighted. Buildings, statues, and all manner of three dimensional art can be and are copyrighted, for example.

Copyright for these is typically the design layout of the functional pieces, and/or the written description of it. In the case of copyrighted art, it usually applies to the exact shape and form, or substantial parts of it where the duplication is obvious. (There are limitations to this, of course, such as reproducing the human form in statue. What could be protected is the unique pose, etc.)

You could vary the shapes of the linkages and completely avoid issues of copyright. But he only way to know for certain is to ask.

-- Gordon

idbruce

@Gordon

Come on you know better... You are definitely taking it out of the context to which I was refering. I was refering to the structure to which patent claims are made.

Most certainly, architectual blueprints can be copyrighted.

Bruce

ElectricAye

Loopy Byteloose wrote: »

@electric aye
So what's the difference between a design patent and a trademark?
....

I have no idea.^sm
I'm just guessing trademarks are usually considered 2D creations while design patents can be 2D or 3D. While a design patent might cover the actual design of a Coke bottle, the trademark probably covers the way it appears - as in a photo, illustration, etc. But maybe it's like the difference between copyright and saying marks. Used to be you couldn't copyright short phrases because... well... because they were just too short to embody any value, I guess. Besides, society didn't want somebody to copyright a phrase like "get a clue" or a slang term like "bro" and then demand royalties for any time somebody said it. So companies lobbied for the saying mark, which doesn't prevent people from saying something, but it does prevent them from saying that something to sell a product.

idbruce

A design patent is issued for the ornamental design of an actual product, whereas trademarks are issued to protect company and product names, and do not protect actual products. Most of the time, trademarks are used on printed or formed material such as labels, raised embossing, etc... However I must admit that I do not know as much trademarks as I do about patents and copyright.

In addition to trademarks, there are also Service Mark(s). Trademarks can be distinguished by (TM) and Service Marks can be distinguished by (SM).

ElectricAye

idbruce wrote: »

... Service Marks can be distinguished by (SM).

Oh, poop.^sm What a brain fart I just had!^sm I've been calling them saying marks when they're actually service marks? Geez.^sm

Am I dumb or just getting old?^sm

Thanks, Bruce, for clarifying that for me.^TM

idbruce

You had the right idea