Publishing of original concept designs?

Read my earlier posts. Your computer rendering is a work of art, it can be protected by copyright.

Those napkin drawings were probably representations of a mechanical device or parts assembly that incorporated new or unique operating characteristics or functions, it was the idea that was protected and the napkin's value was extrinsic, the opposite of a pretty picture.

Claiming that an artistic illustration is a design in the context of naval architecture or marine engineering is a very long stretch. That is no different than if I drew a picture of a vertical structure with rows of windows on all sides and then tried to claim copyright infringement on every boring office building constructed from that time on.

You are almost right, architecture is also protected by the same design laws.

I think this is where the coordinated efforts started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights

I am not a lawyer but I would think the design "laws" are not similar at all. Look at the architectural works protection act vs the fashion industry copyright laws and let me know what you think.

What it boils down to, at least in my opinion, is that a graphic artwork is what it is, a pretty picture and is protected as such. It is not a design or set of plans and an article constructed to resemble the drawing is not a copy of that drawing.

Marmot, this thread is about publishing a design or not and your input is welcome, but there are actually a lot of laws on intellectual property rights.

I have been involved with product designs since the 60:s and met with lawyers from all over the world discussing if and when designs need formal protection.

There are numerous cases to study, many available on the net for anyone interested. I have probably 10.000 pages downloaded on this subject...

The thread began with the words "Here is a topic that may be of interest ... whether to publish images of new and original concept yacht designs ... "

If you have case law in your files that shows where someone was found guilty of copyright infringement for building a boat that looked like a picture published in a magazine or on the net, please share them and answer the question that has so far taken 3 pages to address.

Marmots take on a rendered profile not being design intent is interesting.
I'll test it using the myriad of Turkish timber built clones of well known and sometimes iconic Italian and English yachts that are being built today. Pershing, Azimut, Ferretti, Sunseekers and others are being cloned regularly out there (I wont post a link, but search for Akasia Yachting as a small example and see how many timber clones you can recognise). Not new designs that resemble older ones, but blatant, exact copies.
Lets say a rendered profile and rendered deck plans of a proposed Pershing 115 appeared in a magazine. Pershing were well into design and development, but a Turkish yard took the profile and deck plans and used it to build a clone and had it built before the Pershing was launched to the public.
Marmot seems to suggest that in this example, no copyright infringement was made...because the original design was released as artwork. This is fundamentally wrong
The Turkish yard may not have copied the naval architecture, nor the engineering, nor even the interior layout...but it has copied a recognisable and deliberately designed exterior style. A style unique to the brand that has been created by others under a commercial banner, at considerable cost and as such has considerable commercial value, both in the cost of creation and the revenue that that style can potentially generate.
If another designer or company takes that style and uses it for commercial gain without consent or licence, it is copyright theft pure and simple. The Turkish yards get away with it for mainly geographical reasons...also, not many get built, but woe betide any European or US yards that tried that one on.
The same issues apply to larger, one-off builds. The only difference in most cases is that the original designer of a 'profile style' may be a small fish in the proverbial sea or not already in a position where the style has been commissioned by a yard or client...if a large established company then build something using the original profile style without the original designers permission and make commercial profit, it is in my opinion plain theft. What happens morally and legally after the event is something else, but the point is that the original designer of an original profile has protection in law, whatever the medium in which it was originally published.

So "intent" is now protected property?

I just don't see how a pretty picture and a dream of making it reality is anything more than a pretty picture. The picture is, merely through the act of its creation, already covered by copyright. If someone else copies the picture and claims it as theirs then the copyright laws apply.

Show where building a boat that resembles one of the pretty picture posted on this site is an infringement. If a general arrangement and deckplan was posted and someone used that to build an identical boat then the poster might have a case. But like I have asked, give us a precedent that shows there is risk in publishing a pretty picture, or remedy if someone builds a boat that looks like the picture.

http://www.just-style.com/blogdetail.aspx?id=1633

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

Except that an original and striking profile can be perhaps the most recognisably unique and hence identifiable aspect of a 'design' as a whole.

Sorry S, but I disagree. Given enough talent, flair, technical knowledge and experience, sufficient financial cushion, and a copy of current rules and regulations, and given enough time, Real Ale and Marmite sandwiches, it can and has been done very successfully by many during this industries history.
Its just not commercially viable in terms of time scale, project management and human life span.

You are describing the propagation and development of market trends. In the series production world, this is a mine field into which we throw customer taste and commercial pressure in the hope to be attractive and competitive. Being different sells...for how long depends on how many sell (too successful and its no longer different), and how much extra being different costs. Being conservative may ensure a wider market, but at the cost of being formulaic and out shone by the competition. Enter brand loyalty...and if possible, an identifiable brand style. Continued success then begins to rely on a customer base that actually influences the pace at which design evolution can progress without either boring or scaring off the client base. This pace is hopefully fast enough to keep ahead, but the race is long.
Move up to custom builds, and it gets very incestuous very fast. The collective knowledge in engineering, interior design and exterior styling is far more obvious if you dig deep enough. Brand identity is harder to define and bigger differences between the competition come down to cost, slot availability and build quality.

Intent....the intent in this case is not to draw a pretty picture, but to design / create / intellectually invent a design /style...playing with words as I do, same meaning, same intent.

Sorry, but you differentiate a pretty picture of a profile and a pretty picture of a deck plan and interior layout ? How can one not have any protection in law and yet the other has ?
I obviously value the skill of an exterior stylist far higher than you do...I'm not claiming the profile sells more boats than the interior or deck plans, but I'll settle for 50/50 between forum friends. Even at that generous split, the design intent / content in that pretty profile picture is potentially quite a valuable asset.

Marmot, you are trying to find out what a criminal can get away with, which is not the same as giving a go ahead on copying other designers work.

Not many companies are in the position to copy a 500 foot yacht.

In fact, somebody did publish an exact rendering of the project, perhaps by mistake. This is why I told you to not believe the newspapers..

And I agree, she is not a style icon, but the size makes her unique anyway. It is the same thinking as when I made the "Victoria" concept, which is even bigger, that she must stand the test of time for perhaps a century.

It could have been much worse...

No, I am just trying to express my opinion that an artist's conception such as we often see on this site and others is not a design. It is a work of art, a pretty picture, and it is protected for what it is, a single expression. To claim a rendering of a pretty boat sailing on a reflective sea is a "design" is in my opinion too great a stretch.

I have no issue with copyright of the rendering, it is a work of art and like any other it is born with a copyright. For anyone else to reproduce it and claim it as theirs is an infringement. No one, certainly not I, claim otherwise.

For an artist to claim that any boat built to resemble, no matter how closely, his artistic rendering is, again in my opinion, absurd. This is a far cry from the practice of reverse engineering or "hull splashing" which has been covered by recent changes in the copyright laws.

As much as a stylist or graphic artist might want to claim design rights for anything that resembles his illustration, until it is a design or set of plans that a builder can use to create the hardware, it ain't a design, it's just a pretty picture no matter what "intent" stirred its creation.

If I am wrong please let me know, show me case law and judgements that indicate where my thoughts on this are in opposition to legal practice and standards.

Marmot, in the link you provided was the following text, saying a published design is protected for two years prior to registration in the US. Then you need to produce it to get another ten years of design protection.

"Unlike copyright law, where protection arises at the moment of creation, an original design is not protected under chapter 13 until it is made public or the registration of the design with the Copyright Office is published, whichever date is earlier. Once a design is made public, an application for registration must be made no later than two years from the date on which the design was made public. Making a design public is defined as publicly exhibiting it, distributing it or offering it for sale (or selling it) to the public with the design owner's consent.(31) Only the owner of a design may make an application for registration.(32)"

The question still exists, is a pretty picture created by a graphic artist a vessel "design?"

I think not. I think it is a pretty picture and is copyrighted just like a photograph or a cartoon or other expression of artwork.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/definition.html

The way I read this is that you can use copyright to claim infringement if someone puts their name on your drawing but if you want to claim owership of a design you have to patent it. If it isn't patented then all you can protect is the picture you created and then under "fair use" that drawing can be legitimately used and published without your consent.

Much of my opinion on this subject is based on the fact that many of the renderings published on this site are the creations of talented young computer operators who have little if any knowledge of naval architecture or marine engineering and are quite incapable of penetrating the exterior surface of their "design" to produce anything other than a pretty picture. Their product is artwork, not a design. For them to claim vessel design status for a two-dimensional graphic is (no pun intended) patently absurd.

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/art-vs-design

I think I should add that in no way do I mean to diminish the talent of any stylist or designer who publishes a conceptual drawing. I differentiate between the artist and the designer in this context by giving a designer credit (hopefully earned) for having a body of work underlying the published rendering.

The rendering is in effect the cover of a book, the real work lies within and is the real body of work that defines the value of his product. The published drawing says "here is a picture of what my new design will look like on the water" and there is a real design available for sale. The book cover is protected by copyright but the contents are the body of work and if there is nothing behind the cover there is no book and the cover artist is rarely an author.

Marmot, I understand what you are saying and in a way you are right. You can only claim your rights to what you have achieved. If it is a styling, that is what you own. But sometimes the styling can sell the whole yacht. Like an architect can make a "design" of a building, a bridge or whatever that he can not supply construction drawings for.

An example would be the "A" design by Philippe Starck. I think it was selling the yacht and he got paid for what he did, other involved got paid for their work. Nobody could have told Starck that his renderings was not a yacht and just built it without paying him?

We are not talking about consumer goods and decoration, but one off designs.

That is what I have been trying to get across.

Yes, and the group that designs it and builds it gets the money.

Let's propose a scenario. I see a pretty rendering on this site that really catches my interest as I am going to have a new boat built. I approach you and offer you $1000 for the rights to your drawing. Will you sell it to me?

If not, now long will you hold out and for how much? How many offers do you anticipate receiving for renderings you publish here?

If I say you are asking too much and go ahead and build a boat that looks exactly like the picture you posted, what are you going to claim for damages? Have you sold that picture previously and established a value? How much is that picture worth?

Nobody is selling pictures. We are selling our services. If you want me to design a yacht like the one pictured we will make a contract where you will get the rights to build one boat or perhaps more if you are a boatbuilder.

How do you think designers pay their bills?

The OP was presumably worried about publishing 'pretty pictures' depicting a potentially commercially viable design of his. We can paddy about what exactly a pretty picture is or is not until the cows come home, but I understand the OP's concerns are about renderings of his design (call them pretty pictures if you must)...if the 'pretty picture' (promotional rendering) depicts an original design and somebody steals that original design, its theft. No one is going to steal the the non existent design intent depicted in a 'pretty picture' that is obviously naive, amateur and no more than a five minute jobbie done on Photoshop, we are not discussing this. We are discussing bona fide designs, accurately presented in an attractive 'arty' way for the purpose of attracting potential clients...or at least I thought we were.