Copyright & copying

[Scott]

Can anyone explain to me (step daughters homework) how copyright works, with the emphasis on the fishing world.

How can for example every reel company make a baitrunners type system, and its ok but they cant call it a baitrunner?

 

Is that to do more with patent or trademarks?

 

Is it ok to blantantly copy another item (thats not patented) providing you dont use the name and/or try to pass it off as the real thing?

 

Another would be ifs ok to sell a bread bun containing a beefburger, lettuce, tomato etc thats no problem, but is you were to call it a big mac, lawyers would be banging on your door.

 

So what can or cant you copy, or can you do what you want as long as you dont use anyones patent or trademark.

 

 

This started off with a simple homework question that got more involved as we talked about it, my girfriend works for a major high street shoe shop that has been told to stop selling a shoe (very similar to Burberry) and I gave her examples of how copying other people gear was normal in the fishing world, now she wants to know why you cant sell a shoe thats similar but you can sell an identical item of tackle, confusing but can anyone explain because its lost me.

 

Scott.

[Scott]

Any ideas? Anyone.

 

Scott.

[chesters1]

i have no idea about design of reels etc as the word "baitrunner" is probably the copyrighted part rather than the actual mechanical bit ( its really just another aproach to a slipping clutch the same as loosening the drag right off say with a front drag reel) on the otherhand photo copyright i think belongs to the photographer but if employed by a company when it was taken (on their behalf) it belongs to the company .

in researching the Intrepid trade mark although mostly the companies have long since folded (i.e morritt) or have sold on the trademark if i use the intrepid name in my book then i must mention the name now belongs to HWYOUNG (thanks LEEDA) i have gained permission to use the name (phew) in relation to the Leeda versions as the company that used the trademark still exists and so they own the trademark .

having said that though could they sue for breach of copyright if i used the trademark for defunct versions of the reels rather than the versions of existing companies ????? i dont know ,luckily because i have permission from Leeda (HWYOUNG) to use the name i hopefully wont be getting nasty letters from lawyers

i think to get a patent you have to prove that the design is completly different to former designs if it uses a variation of a former design then its just a improvement , poledark patented a reel fixing he may be able to explain the ins and outs ,over to you Den

the copyright issue seems to me a VERY hazardouse area (hence lawyers do get involved) for instance if i use a photo from a defunct magazine can i be sued for copyright issues if the magazine was amalgamated into another one that may exist today (it may have had several amalgamizations) how would a person know ,even harder how would you find out hopefully an acknowledgement of the origanal source of the article could get round it but its a very grey area

hardy held the patent on the modern bailarm untill 1955 since then its standard on all reels but how they got a patent i do not know after all it was just a improvement of the half bail :confused:

 

[ 15. July 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[John S]

I think it's got everyone else stumped as well

 

Copyright is a very complicated aspectof the law. You cannot copy another persons' (or companys') design without permission, usually involving lots of money trading hands.

 

If something hasn't been patented (or does not have a patent pending), I am pretty certain that it is okay to make copies of it as long as you do not try to pass it off as your own work. If I paint a copy of the Mona Lisa (an extreme example ), I could sell it as a reproduction but I could not sell it as an original.

 

I haven't seen inside a baitrunner but I would imagine that unless royalties have been paid to the copyright owner, the two systems would be different either in design or execution (unless they are actually made by the same company and rebadged, something that occurs a lot more often than people think - in the 70's and 80's some Nikon camera lenses were actually made for them by Canon who simply redesigned the lens body slightly, and in the 80's some cars badged as Fords in the USA were called Mazdas in Europe).

 

The name Big Mac is different however. That is a tradename registered by Macdonalds and you use it at your peril. If however you owned a chain of fast food establishments, you could use the same ingredients and call it a Scotts Special instead and then register that name....

 

Just a few thoughts

[Jim Roper]

Rights of ownership of photographs last about 70 years, I believe.

Could never make out why desktop publishing courses encourage student to use a scanner to copy photos from all over the place if it were breaching someone's copyright. Perhaps it's OK if you don't sell them.

Music playing esablishments have to pay something every time they play a record, I believe.

McCartney has to pay Micheal Jackson, who bought the rights to Beatles music, every time he plays the music he wrote himself, from what I can make out.

 

Life gets tedious, don't it?

 

[ 15. July 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[Scott]

Thanks, she seems to have a better understanding now.

 

Scott.

[chesters1]

good ,could she then explain it to us