Forum Thoughts - Patterns

[HerbO]

My wife and I are talking about putting up a website for patterns.
I purchased some software and talked to a couple of graphic artists.
Our thought is to have a site with patterns at a very reasonable price. (below $10) We are not looking to make alot of money, but before we invest our time and money do you think there would be an interest in a site like this. Everyones thoughts would be greatly appriciated.

[JOHNB]

I'd Buy 5 Right Now Just To Get Me Started. Go 4 It. (remember Quality Though)

[Azbear]

You bet. What types of patterns?

[HerbO]

We would like to have high quality patterns in alot of different catagories.
Also would like to add a cosignment page were others could sell their patterns. It will take awhile to get this rolling but if we could some input on what types of patterns to start with ..that would help

Thanks
Herb

[pkunk]

Herb, I admire your quest for self employment, but wonder why. So many of us are giving our work, our scans, & ideas here for free, how would you prosper? Secondly is the matter (discussed here before) of ownership of the artwork. Third is the availability of truly profesional PTN files fron VA3D for a reasonable sum. Just wondering what you think?

[CW Rookie]

We would like to have high quality patterns in alot of different catagories.


Many of the forum members have generously posted FREE patterns in the forum's pattern sharing depot!! (at the top of this "gallery" section for some excellent patterns)

For those looking for extremely high quality 3D patterns and scenes checkout - http://www.vectorart3d.com/

Setting up a site and consignment arrangement sounds like a lot of hassle and work - time better spent CARVING!!!

[HerbO]

Well for self employment I already am. I do tech support from my home for a local ISP. We only have dialup which is dewindling fast. I answer the phone 12 hours a day 7 days a week. I do my other hobbies between phone calls. Today being saturday I only had 5 calls. With customer base getting smaller so is my bill to the ISP. I wouldn't think it would be prosperous the first few years but like any business you only hope someday it would. Talking to a couple of graphics artists they could do high quality patterns(of course that remains to be seen) They would sell me the work with the copyright. I would also state that you could mass produce and sell the carvings but do not sell the pattern itself. The gallery depot in this forum it is Great and I have carved some of the patterns posted. Since they were shared I wouldn't want to sell the carving because I didn't make the pattern myself or purchase it. If I am looking for something special that no one has posted in the gallery then I need to purchase one. As for VA3D they do have Great patterns. My brother inlaws bithday is coming up and he loves to fish and I would like to carve one of the fishing scenes for him but at $75 ...he is a good brother inlaw but not that good :) If I could buy the pattern for $10 I would do it.
I highly regard the opinions of this forum so any input is welcome.

Thanks
Herb

[newcarver]

Give it a try and see what happens. I also agree that the vectorart files are to expensive. $10 is better, and you will probably sell a ton. As far as the cw forum. Hardly anyone posts anymore, and a bunch have been removed(due to the dreaded copyright issue). I alos have been looking AT producing patterns for use with the machine. I have 2 graphic artists who with me are going to create original art to work with and sell.
In response to others...
Why not try it?!>>

[HerbO]

I am glad someone is also looking into the venture. The more patterns available will be beneficial to CW and CW owners. I have been self employed for many years. My last business before tech support was VCR repair. When I started repairing VCR's were around $300 and of course I had the close the doors when you could purchase one for $60

Thanks
Herb

[kyeakel]

I hope your considering having the files in other formats besides carvewright's. There are probably more cnc routers out there than carvewright systems. I currently have both types and would buy from you at those prices.

[RC Woodworks]

Herb, just making sure these patterns are not the same patterns from vector. They state they are for personal use only and can not be resold or shared. Copyright laws!

Don't want you to get into trouble or anyone else. Otherwise I am on board for some patterns. So far if I see one I like I right click it and save it to my documents. Of course from free areas or photos etc. Then import it to my pattern file and it seems to work.

I am curious if a purchased pattern will carve differently?

[Router-Jim]

I think the pattern market needs some good competition. I say go for it and best of luck with your new business.

[Charles M]

I think the pattern market needs some good competition. I say go for it and best of luck with your new business.

I agree!! More competition in the pattern market will be good for everyone.

[John]

The possibilities are endless. Don't let the nay-sayers affect your decision. With 1000's of machines out there already and many more on the way, the market is going to be huge. Best of Luck to you!!

[RC Woodworks]

Trust me I am not a nay sayer, just trying to have Herb back. With all the sharing of patterns and some members not willing to share due the copy right law.

I hope the best and look forward to excellent priced patterns

[Sarge]

I would say making high quality pattern (ptn) files does have a market. However, you haven't thought of the licensing agreement with SEARS and Carvewright and 3D VA. I'm sure they have a license, patent or copywrite on their software. Make them for yourself okay.... profit from them and it'll cost you alot for licensing agreement.

I'm just saying.................. :cool:

[John]

I would say making high quality pattern (ptn) files does have a market. However, you haven't thought of the licensing agreement with SEARS and Carvewright and 3D VA. I'm sure they have a license, patent or copywrite on their software. Make them for yourself okay.... profit from them and it'll cost you alot for licensing agreement.

I'm just saying.................. :cool:

That's a twist I hadn't thought about...but really doubt it applies. There are tons of patterns for laser engravers, cnc plasma, etc., etc. Do they all have licensing agreements? I read the carvewright EUA awhile back to see what it said about giving a compucarve owner patterns they could not produce with the software that came with their machine (ie. centerline text). I personally feel that is a copyright infringement. I couldn't find anything specific. I am not a lawyer, and there is a lot of legalese. If there is a problem selling ptn's, then one would just sell the grayscale image and the buyer would produce their own ptn. Carvewright has said they are going to introduce software that is g-code capable. That will open up opportunities to use many, many patterns already available. Also, those of us that are beta owners saw this subject discussed very early on. Carvewight suggested then it was always their intent to have third party patterns.

[HandTurnedMaple]

I would say making high quality pattern (ptn) files does have a market. However, you haven't thought of the licensing agreement with SEARS and Carvewright and 3D VA. I'm sure they have a license, patent or copywrite on their software. Make them for yourself okay.... profit from them and it'll cost you alot for licensing agreement.

I'm just saying.................. :cool:

This is a reply to an email I sent to LHR on 23 Jan 07:

"Hi Troy,

I don't believe there is any problem selling your plans, as long as they are your design or you have rights to sell them.

As for the forum, some companies have advertised patterns available for the machine, and I don't see a problem advertising products relevant to users of the machine. But really, it is up to the user community as to what is acceptable.

We expect to bring an online marketplace/trading site for patterns and probably entire projects.

Let us know if you have any further questions.

Best Regards,
Chris Morlier
CarveWright"

IOW, use the software to make patterns if you want, and sell all you want, if people are willing to buy them. The more patterns that are available the more people will buy the machine, and the longer and stronger our support network will be. Of course free is a better motivator (for everyone but the person doing the design work).

[John]

Thanks for posting Troy. That pretty much sums it up.

[liquidguitars]

I think it is a wonderful idea! More people the more designs on the internet the better and at around $10.00 dollars what's to loose!

promo:

I have a free Motorcycle on my site with projects you can download at:
http://www.liquidguitars.com/html/carvewright.html

here is a pic.;-)
http://www.liquidguitars.com/assets/images/MotercycleR002.jpg

Lig

[Sarge]

Well, I guess that kills my thought process. I would have bet that LHR had an agreement of licensure for ptn files. Given that their software is what produces them. OH WELL, can't be right all the time!!! :rolleyes:

[cajunpen]

I think it is a wonderful idea! More people the more designs on the internet the better and at around $10.00 dollars what's to loose!

promo:

I have a free Motorcycle on my site with projects you can download at:
http://www.liquidguitars.com/html/carvewright.htmlLooks like somebody has already started the "competition". Ain't our Free Enterprise system great! Gotta love it. All you talented guys are appreciated - keep up the good work.

[JOHNB]

Hi Liquidguitars; You Got It. Excellent Work. Did You Make Them With Designer? Thanks For Sharing.

[liquidguitars]

I am using a few programs some 3D but mostly Photoshop and Designer.

Lig

[RedBear]

Well, I guess that kills my thought process. I would have bet that LHR had an agreement of licensure for ptn files. Given that their software is what produces them. OH WELL, can't be right all the time!!! :rolleyes:

Sorry but this is one of my pet peeves, being a computer person. So I'd like to take a moment to clarify some thinking.

Does IBM own the copyright to a book just because you wrote it on a Selectric typewriter? Does Adobe own the copyright to a computer drawing just because you made it using Photoshop and saved it as a PSD file? Why would the manufacturer of a tool have any claim over the copyright of work YOU create with that tool? The creator of the software owns nothing but the copyright to the software THEY created. That means they have the right to tell you not to make copies of their software or use a copy that you haven't paid for. That's it. That's where their rights end.

Software is a tool, just like your computer is a tool and a hammer is a tool. The creators of the tools have ZERO rights over any creative works you make with those tools. People have this odd tendency to think that anything computer-related is somehow different from everything else, but... it isn't. The mere fact that more than one person here thought it was necessary to ask the CarveWright people for permission to give away or sell copies of independently created PTN files is kind of scary, because that means those people don't understand their own rights of ownership over the works they create.

Sadly there have been examples of certain software companies who actually think they do have some right to control what you do with their software. For instance a certain company thought they actually could tell users of their software that they couldn't use said software to write anything bad about said company. Which is of course an obvious violation of the user's 1st Amendment rights. It's not too farfetched to imagine a software company that would actually respond to confused user inquiries about copyright with, "sure you can copy your files, just send us $5 for every copy you make because the file was made using our software".

I wouldn't want anyone to be exploited like that, thus I have provided this quick'n'dirty and hopefully useful explanation of your basic rights under US copyright law. Hopefully it's also clear why the fact that you're using "software" rather than "hardware" tools to create your work has absolutely nothing to do with it. Not trying to offend anybody, just trying to correct some misconceptions.

[BobHill]

Red,

I believe you've confused the actual case with the PTN format (as used in Designer) being owned by LHR AND the ability to create something with it. As you indicated, MicroSoft might well not own something you created using the WMA format, but it sure owns the actual format code and only if it's licensed can you use it with other programs/software. What you create with the software, is your's, but as the case of Apple and it's I-Pod formats (etc.) you can use the format, but only on their gear or other gear that they have issued licenses for (are there any?). Thus, what you indicated is correct, but failed to add the limitations when that creation is still contained in a computer code format.

Bob Hill
Tampa Florida

[Matthew]

RedBear,
Though your statements are compelling, they are very inaccurate. LHR can own the PTN file format if they choose to register it and can have complete control over distribution of data in that file format. Many companies do this. One of the most obvious is the MPEG format. MPEG-2 and later files require permission from the owners of the file format in order to create/distribute MPEG-2 and later files. Similar capabilities exist with many other formats such as MP3. The CAE industry is filled with software file formats that can only be used with a particular program and data written in that format may not be transferred to any other program or only to registered programs. This is why IGES hung around for so long. It was one of the few file format methods of transferring geometric data that was available for open use.
Though these companies do not own or have any claim to the data that is stored in their particular file formats, they do have control over what can be done with those files. It's another aspect to proprietary rights.
So don't believe that just because you created a data file that you can do anything with it that you want. There may be limitations. Those people asking permission to use this file format are correct in doing so.

[liquidguitars]

Though your statements are compelling, they are very inaccurate. LHR can own the PTN file format

No sorry not a good idea, CompuServe’s "Gif” format was almost dropped from most art programs because of this thinking.



One of the most obvious is the MPEG format. MPEG-2 and later files require permission from the owners of the file format in order to create/distribute MPEG-2

This is not a good example and inaccurate as we are not copying or compressing video/players are we...



So don't believe that just because you created a data file that you can do anything with it that you want. There may be limitations.

Tell that to DFX or OBJ with over 20 years of cad inport and export just about all cad progarms will understand, if not one can transate the data with in 5 min.

Its the user that has limtations. :rolleyes:

Lig

[rjp736]

Blah, Blah, Blah......some of you guys are splitting hairs over this topic. If your sooooooo worried about copyright, why did you even buy this machine. I mean really, now your talking about making stuff using copyright programs being illegal. Good lord, this is getting way out of hand. If I happen to use something with a copyright.......catch me if you can. Don't plan on having any CEO's over in the near future anyways. Relax people!

[JOHNB]

I'm With You Robbie

[meat]

Sorry but this is one of my pet peeves, being a computer person. So I'd like to take a moment to clarify some thinking.

Okay.



Sadly there have been examples of certain software companies who actually think they do have some right to control what you do with their software. For instance a certain company thought they actually could tell users of their software that they couldn't use said software to write anything bad about said company. Which is of course an obvious violation of the user's 1st Amendment rights.

Just to clarify: The 1st Amendment actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And to make certain what I'm saying is clear: The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech, not a private or publically held company. The government.

Therefore, your example is not an "obvious violation" of any rights or protections put forth in the First Amendment. No matter what the Dixie Chicks may have you believe.:rolleyes:

Your pal,
Meat.

[pkunk]

Fellas, let it rest! The reason for this forum is for the amicable exchange of ideas, repairs and patterns. If you made it, share it. If you bought it, don't. If you stole it, keep it to yourself. No more arguing!

[Sarge]

Can I get clarification on what USCFR (United States Code of Federal Regulations) says about that???:rolleyes: :confused:

[pkunk]

Can I get clarification on what USCFR (United States Code of Federal Regulations) says about that???:rolleyes: :confused:
If ya gotem, smokem. I gave 'em up.:rolleyes: :D

[HerbO]

I am afraid to start another thread :) :)

[pkunk]

I am afraid to start another thread :) :)
Oh, go ahead HerbO. I don't even load my 45 until after 10 PM. :roll: :twisted:

[HerbO]

Alright Pkunk ...one thing I do have to add. I have been reading the forum for months and I think I have your schedule down.
Work all day...load a project into the CW...throw back a couple of cold ones then load the 45.
I wouldn't want to be thief in your neck of the woods :)

[pkunk]

You got it sleuth!:p Plus I watch the forum morning, noon, & night. :D Never lock the doors 'cause that'd make it too difficult for 'em.:eek:

[Sarge]

My 1911 is NEVER unloaded or out of arms reach.::cool: ;)

[GSchm87408]

Give em hell!

Glenn

[pkunk]

My 1911 is NEVER unloaded or out of arms reach.::cool: ;)

I was trying to make him feel comfortable, Sarge. :D

[Gary]

I've been out of the loop for awhile. I wear a P95DC. I'm going to scan it!

Gary

[FINGERS]

A 1911 is something old guy's play with

[rjp736]

Fingers, what's yout your WI location
?

[FINGERS]

Nere Mad town, you know where that is

[GIZMO1D1]

i buy the stuff and give it away............ theres much more crap in this world thats abit more important to worry about.......gezzzzzzzzz

its mine, i bought it, ill do with it what i want!

for crap sakes.. my neighbor needed a shovel but he didnt buy it,, ooo lord...i loaned it to him... there comming to take me away..

i guess my g.e. frige owns all the food i put in it and or..i cant feed my friends from it.!!!they didnt buy it!...

just share what ya got! freakn lil winers.....

[liquidguitars]

scan away.. but china has my $295.00 probe.

Lig

[Mike]

Hey liquid doesn't charge to much for his designs. take a look evryone.

[Jon Jantz]

I've been working on listing about 80 patterns by one of the good contributors to this site (and mine).... should have a bunch up by this weekend and there are some really good ones in there...

I'll let y'all know when they are available.

[RedBear]

This post is slightly long-winded and if you don't care about the issue of copyrights you should skip over it. :D


Red,

I believe you've confused the actual case with the PTN format (as used in Designer) being owned by LHR AND the ability to create something with it. As you indicated, MicroSoft might well not own something you created using the WMA format, but it sure owns the actual format code and only if it's licensed can you use it with other programs/software. What you create with the software, is your's, but as the case of Apple and it's I-Pod formats (etc.) you can use the format, but only on their gear or other gear that they have issued licenses for (are there any?). Thus, what you indicated is correct, but failed to add the limitations when that creation is still contained in a computer code format.

Bob Hill
Tampa Florida

No, sorry Bob, you're still confused. Whether the file format is copyrighted and/or patented and/or proprietary makes no difference regarding the copyright of your independently created work. Apple has no control over what you do with a purchased or independently created AAC or MP3 music file just because they license or own the file format. I don't know where you would even get that idea. They can't force you to only play your music using iTunes or keep you from using some non-iPod music device. As long as that other device or software understands how to decode AAC/MP3 files, you are home free. Of course if you are using a format that incorporates some form of Digital Rights Management features such that they will only work on a particular device, that is a separate technical issue that has nothing to do with whether or not you own the legally purchased file. You do own it, and you do have the right to move the file around to different devices, but technology may be stopping you from doing so. This is why you shouldn't support the use of DRM. But anyway...

Now, if you were to sit down and write a piece of software yourself for creating files in a proprietary file format, and you wanted to distribute/sell that software to others, you may need to negotiate a license to use those proprietary file formats in your software. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the end user of the software creating their own files to which they will own the copyright and have complete control over distribution or sale. No ifs, ands or buts.



RedBear,
Though your statements are compelling, they are very inaccurate. LHR can own the PTN file format if they choose to register it and can have complete control over distribution of data in that file format. Many companies do this. One of the most obvious is the MPEG format. MPEG-2 and later files require permission from the owners of the file format in order to create/distribute MPEG-2 and later files. Similar capabilities exist with many other formats such as MP3. The CAE industry is filled with software file formats that can only be used with a particular program and data written in that format may not be transferred to any other program or only to registered programs. This is why IGES hung around for so long. It was one of the few file format methods of transferring geometric data that was available for open use.
Though these companies do not own or have any claim to the data that is stored in their particular file formats, they do have control over what can be done with those files. It's another aspect to proprietary rights.
So don't believe that just because you created a data file that you can do anything with it that you want. There may be limitations. Those people asking permission to use this file format are correct in doing so.

You are also quite mistaken, Matthew. Again, the creator of the software application may own the rights to use the file format and refuse to license use of that format to other software makers, but they do not own the data that you store in that format in any way, and cannot restrict you from converting that data into another format, no matter what any software company may have said (unless you signed a contract specifically handing over the copyright of your data to that company). Whether the software maker decides to include features that let you convert the files easily from within the application is a separate issue, but there is absolutely nothing stopping a third party from reverse-engineering the file format in order to read it and convert the data into a different format, as has happened with many proprietary file formats like Microsoft Word's DOC format. Whether you may have experienced an inability to convert your data from some proprietary format because there was no third-party software available or no one had ever taken the time to reverse-engineer the format is a separate issue.

Your MPEG example is another misunderstanding. The restrictions only apply to those who wish to write software that will use proprietary algorithms to create such files, just as makers of MP3 creation software are required to license the algorithm in order to make software that creates new MP3 files. You as an end user have no restrictions with what you do with any files you create with licensed software. Neither the owner of the algorithm nor the creator of the software have any rights over the use, sale, conversion or distribution of any data you create and own the copyright to. Format is irrelevant.

So no, those people who were asking for permission from LHR for using PTN files were not correct, unless they were talking about making their own software for creating PTN files. Even then I'm not sure that LHR would have any say in the matter because in point of fact I am not entirely sure that file formats can even be copyrighted! A quick googling on the issue would suggest that they can't, and there are a lot of examples of proprietary file formats that have been reverse-engineered and are freely and legally used even by competing software applications despite the fact that they are proprietary formats. After all, a file format is really just a description of how to arrange data, usually it is only a creative work that can be copyrighted. They could write down a complete description of the format and that would be copyrightable, but someone could come along and rewrite the description or separately implement the format itself without infringing any copyrights. So the only restriction would likely be, as with formats like MP3, if it were necessary to implement a proprietary (i.e., patented) algorithm in your software in order to create the PTN files. Either way, any restrictions would only apply if you were making your own software.

If I, as an end user, have a legally purchased copy of CarveWright Designer I can use it to make an infinite number of my own PTN files and distribute or sell them for a million dollars apiece from now until heck freezes over, and LHR will have no rights over those files. Period. No limitations, you can do anything with it that you want.

To those who are complaining that this is "splitting hairs" or an unimportant issue, I respectfully disagree. I think this is a very important issue to understand for anyone who is involved with making creative works using a computer, especially if you are basing a business off the selling of your creations.

[rjp736]

I think we can decide for ourself what we can/want to do with our projects.........ENOUGH already. It's like watching a Charlie Brown movie, Blah, Blah, Blah. Talk about beating a dead horse.................

[Hanna]

Two things on pattern sharing. First, do unto others. That pretty well solves that issue. Secondly, it would be nice if the jpg's or whatever used to create the ptn or mpc came with it so #1 people could see what a ptn is made of and #2 so people could make changes if they chose to.

Hanna

[RC Woodworks]

WOW I have a headache from all this!!! Correct me if I am wrong, but where ever we get our patterns may it be a jpg or scan from a comic book. Once it is imported to the CW designer and saved it becomes a ptn. file? When I have imported patterns I noticed they became a ptn. file. So if they were not orignally a ptn file and became one once imported who does it belong to?

Now the most disturbing post what is a 1911 and it being an old man's toy!!! Shame on them!!! Sarge you would like this I own and carry as my off duty weapon. An Ithaca 1911 Army issued WW2 45 auto !!!!!

So a 45 is the best handgun made and the 1911 the only one made!!!!

[Sarge]

That's Okay, I know those who speak out of ignorance, must use ignorant plastic guns. Solid steel and BIG ball ammo is all you need. :D :D :D

[RC Woodworks]

LOL you said it Sarge!!!!!! Oh I know 45 too slow of a bullet speed.... I say as I chamber a round......... RUN!!!!!!!

Rick
medically retired (Peace Officer) Sergeant

[Sarge]

Sometimes I'll swap out to a .38 snub nose, Ruger Redhawk, Ruger Security Six, S&W M5906 or 4006 or Beretta M92/96...... Whatever trips my trigger.

When needed for long range....... M1A, M4, 30.06, 30.30.

Extreme short range... knuckle sandwich or my 15 year old Pit Bull named Airborne!!! :D :D

[Jon Jantz]

I'm been doing a good job of staying out of this debate, and am going to do so in the future.... but I would just like say:

WITHOUT A DOUBT, REDBEAR IS 100% RIGHT...

It is completely insane to think that I could write a program that would allow other people to design original artwork, and then I say that I own the license to the original artwork since it was generated on software written by me... that'd be the scam of the year if you could get a good graphics program out there that everyone would start using, and then a year later lay claim to all the work created on it worldwide.

I don't care how you write the licensing agreement, that would never hold up in court. Maybe if you have some online graphics generator and you let people submit artwork to you to enter in a design contest, you could do that, but even then it would be debatable. But with a program such as Designer where people are designing their own creations to carve? Not even a chance!

Can you imagine how many thousands of dollars worth of designs Carvewright would own if somehow they could claim ownership of every design made up on the Designer program?

Use some freakin' common sense people.

***Bowing quickly back out of this argument before I draw the attention of the authorities***

(((DON'T TELL JON I POSTED USING HIS ACCOUNT))) hehe.

[RC Woodworks]

Before I retired I used the mini 14 and when I worked at Sierra Army depot we carried the trusty M-16 and the Beretta M-9 9mm. I think that is the model is it Sarge? The 9mm that replaced the 1911?

I have no dogs but cats a huge tom cat he is over 2' from tip of nose to butt and stands about 9 1/2" or so tall!!! So short range has to be the knuckle sandwich or the good ol pr-24!

Uh oh we are off the CW subjects!!! Yikes Jon!!!! Nobody has answered my question about ptn files in the above post

[Bill]

Why mess around?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU

[RC Woodworks]

Yes Bill when I play Joint Operations I am a sniper the Barrett 50 cal. But hard to conceal!

Awesome video

[Bill]

:) that's correct and it's not for the light hearted.

[HandTurnedMaple]

The issue is really resolved here. CW says they don't care if you sell .ptn files or give them away. Just as long as you distribute them somehow.

As for the other topic, a .40 Cor-Bon 165-gr JHP will make a bigger mess then a .45 ball. And fits better in a concealed IWB holster.

[RC Woodworks]

I still have not received an answer to my question...Correct me if I am wrong, but where ever we get our patterns may it be a jpg or scan from a comic book. Once it is imported to the CW designer and saved it becomes a ptn. file? When I have imported patterns I noticed they became a ptn. file. So if they were not orignally a ptn file and became one once imported who does it belong to? I know also a mpc file but I have saved some that converted to ptn files

I will take my Ithaca WW2 1911 45 auto any day!!!

Rick.

[cajunpen]

All this gun talk scares me:p

[HandTurnedMaple]

My take:

First it depends on who had rights to the original file. If its from a comic book or the like, then it still belongs to the artist who drew it or the publishing company. Some can say what they want about did they register it, etc? But what is right and fair is very clear IMHO.

If the file imported was truly public domain, then do what you want with it. If the image is yours, then you would seem to retain the rights to it once it becomes a .ptn (when using companies like Vector Arts as a model).

Now the others can come and discuss their interpretations of law and other stuff. But in the end just do what is right.

[rjp736]

HTM,

Great point.

[RC Woodworks]

Oh my head is really aching now!!!! Still my question is lets word it this way. I take a photo of my son sky diving and I import it to the CW designer does it not become a ptn file? So that in mind from what I have gathered then CW has the copyright to the ptn files since it is their program?

Just a question I don't agree with that it becomes CW. It is my photo and I did purchase the CC and the software it came with. So when is it a copyright violation? Better yet if I see a image I like on the net, I save it to my documents then convert it with the designer is that a copyright violation?

Ok enough bottom line is I have used commercial images in my sign shop that customer's wanted on their signs. I am not worried if Walt Disney or Harley Davidson etc. will come after me or my customers!

I still stand by my 1911!!!

[CallNeg151]

OK. There is a lot of confusion about these issues, so I hope to clear up the issue a little bit. Keep in mind that this is intended as legal information, not legal advice or representation.

In the United States there are several distinct areas of intellectual property, each with its own set of laws. Oftentimes these are confused by people who have better things to do than split legal hairs.

COPYRIGHT: Copyright covers the rights to copy artistic works, whether written, photographic, musical, etc. Federally, this is covered by the Copyright Act. Material is copyrighted for a limited period of time (currently this time is VERY long), after which the material falls into the public domain.

TRADEMARK: Marks that identify goods and services are called trademarks and servicemarks, respectively. A company can keep a trademark forever, as long as it protects the trademark from dillution. Asprin, for example, used to be a trademark of the Bayer corporation, however the word was used enough as a generic term that eventually the courts ruled that it was a generic, and no longer afforded trademark protection.

PATENT: Patent protection grants an inventor the exclusive right to produce his or her invention for a limited period of time, after which time anyone will be allowed to produce it.

Just remember, copyright prevents duplication, trademark prevents use, and patent prevents manufacture

All of these rights can be modified by contract.

Getting back to the earlier questions about copyrighted images...

If you take a photograph of a non-copyrighted subject, for example a landscape or a llama, you own the copyright on that photograph. You can do anything you want with that photograph. You can put it on t-shirts, you can put it on greeting cards, you can carve it. You can also say that other's cannot do any of these things. Simply converting the photograph into a different format does not relinquish your copyright.

Here's where it gets sticky: Software typically comes with a licensing agreement that can limit the use of the software. Microsoft had a controversial licensing agreement that tried to say you could not use the software to publish anything negative about Microsoft. It was in the contract, however it is highly questionable whether that is an enforcible contract term. Likewise, some services, such as YouTube, have licensing agreements that say that you grant them permission to broadcast the video that you upload to them.

Unless a contract specifically states that you relinquish your copyright, you do not lose your copyright simply because you use a piece of software, and even if it did say that, it is unlikely that it is enforcable.

On the other hand, if a company has a patent on a file format (because the format does something unique, such as a new way to encrypt or compress data), then the use of that format is subject to a licensing agreement. That licensing agreement may say you are not permitted to use the format for certain uses.

I must confess that I do not remember the CarveWright licensing agreement in detail, but I do not remember seeing a clause in the agreement that would give them ownership over any of your patterns. If someone has a copy of the licensing agreement conveniently available and begs to differ, please point out the offending clause so that we may all see it.

In the mean time, IN GENERAL: If you created it yourself, it is yours to share if you wish. If you made it from something that is is copyrighted, it is not yours to share. If you made it from a trademark, it can be shared provided that it is not likely to cause confusion in consumers by making them think that the pattern was the product of, or endorsed by the trademark holder, and is not used in such a way as to confuse or trick consumers, and will not otherwise weaken the trademark.

I hope we can end this discussion once and for all, since it seems as if it is all based on an easy to make misunderstanding of the law.

[Hanna]

Now I am not sure what I can do. I have some patterns that I bought which were intended for hand carving and/or wood burning. Obviously you cannot import one straight into designer and end up with anything worth carving. To make them carveable requires a good deal of work........and in the process the only thing recognizeable from the original pattern is the outline, if that....and in most cases I change that one way or another to suit myself.

Now the qauestion is, can I share the jpg I created or the ptn that results from it?

[RedBear]

Oh my head is really aching now!!!! Still my question is lets word it this way. I take a photo of my son sky diving and I import it to the CW designer does it not become a ptn file? So that in mind from what I have gathered then CW has the copyright to the ptn files since it is their program?

Just a question I don't agree with that it becomes CW. It is my photo and I did purchase the CC and the software it came with. So when is it a copyright violation? Better yet if I see a image I like on the net, I save it to my documents then convert it with the designer is that a copyright violation?

Ok enough bottom line is I have used commercial images in my sign shop that customer's wanted on their signs. I am not worried if Walt Disney or Harley Davidson etc. will come after me or my customers!

I still stand by my 1911!!!

I know my previous posts were long and complicated, but this issue is really a lot simpler than you think. I'll sum it up: The file formats you use are completely irrelevant to your copyright. The software you use is completely irrelevant to your copyright. The software maker or inventor of the file format can never lay any claim to any of your files. That's it. Full stop. Nothing to worry about.

As to what comprises a copyright violation, if you copy or scan some image that was created by someone else and attempt to distribute it or sell it, that is a copyright violation. (If it's just for personal use no one cares, but making more copies or selling it is different.) If you CREATE something original on your own by writing something, taking a photograph, or drawing an image on paper or on the computer, you own the copyright to that and you can convert it into any file format that has ever existed without losing that copyright. Software: irrelevant. File format: irrelevant. CarveWright does not and never will own your PTN files. Neither does Adobe or Microsoft or anyone else.

Software usually comes with a click-through license as someone else mentioned, but those licenses are not contracts in the legal sense and have never been enforced in court. If you didn't physically sign something with full knowledge of what you were signing, it will never hold up in court. So no matter what any software license says it really doesn't matter.

Now you mentioned using commercial images in your signs. That can be a problem if you aren't using royalty-free images. Like if you make signs with the Coca-Cola logo and make money from selling them, Coca-Cola will be happy to sue you if they ever get wind of it, unless you have licensed the use of that image from the company, which I'm sure is quite easy to do. So that's where you would need to be careful. If you don't own the copyright or have a license for a particular image you shouldn't be selling it. That's kind of the whole point of copyright law.

And that is all I have to say about that. ;) Hope it helps.

[RedBear]

Now I am not sure what I can do. I have some patterns that I bought which were intended for hand carving and/or wood burning. Obviously you cannot import one straight into designer and end up with anything worth carving. To make them carveable requires a good deal of work........and in the process the only thing recognizeable from the original pattern is the outline, if that....and in most cases I change that one way or another to suit myself.

Now the qauestion is, can I share the jpg I created or the ptn that results from it?

Usually what they say is that if your work is "substantially different" from the original work that you started from, you should be fine with distributing it. If any reasonable person could look at your image and say that it bears very little resemblance to the original outline drawing, then it can probably be classed as an original work and therefore the copyright would belong to you. This is of course kind of a gray area since the phrase "substantially different" is a subjective judgement that will vary from person to person. But if you really did put in "a good deal of work" on it, you should be fine.

On the other hand, scanning in the image and importing it directly into Designer with minimal changes and then distributing the resulting PTN file would be a definite copyright violation, of course.

Clear as mud now, I hope.

[Jeff_Birt]

Well, I don't even remember how this thread started out but the information provided by RedBear was very informative and I hope it has helped to clear this issue up for everyone.

I know some folks have gotten their shorts-in-a-wad over this issue, and they persaonlly don't care, one way or the other, about sharing copyrighted images etc (and to be honest if you are making a sign for yourself or your grandma I don't think any company around would care either). That's fine, you are free to do what you wan't personally. Please understand that who ever runs/owns the website is liable for hosting the shared files. In other words, CW will get sued if there is a legal problem with sharing the file and that is not good for any of us.

Folks, If you get asked about the ownership of something you are sharing please don't get upset. As a side note: I once wrote a piece of software to communicate with an older CNC mill and posted it on a user forum for that type of mill, for free use. The forum mod/admin later sent me a somewhat stern letter asking if it was a commercial software and if it was to please remove it. The guy was doing what he should have done, making sure that the forum would stay open as a valuable resource for its members. All it took was a brief response from me to clear things up. If you question whether something shared on this forum should be, please contact a moderator and/or the OP via PM, do not attack the OP in public.

I move to lock this subject and move on to the subject of carving. With RedBears approval I will also copy his explanations of this subject to a seperate thread that will be easier to find adn reference.

You know I was on legal forum the other day and a discussion about carving broke out

[CallNeg151]

The whole post explains it, but the executive summary is this:
1. Trademark and copyright are two different things.
2. If its your original work, you own a copyright on it.
3. If it is a logo or other trademark, it may be copied, but its use may be retricted.
4. Posting a pattern or project file containing a copyrighted element in it is not permitted without the permission of the copyright holder, especially since the end user could extract the element from the posted file and use it in his or her works without permission of the copyright holder.
5. Posting a picture of your own work, even containing a copyrighted pattern, to describe and identify your work is likely fair use, since you are entitled to describe and advertise your own work, and it is unlikely that a picture will facilitate duplication of the project without licensing the pattern.

IN DETAIL:
To clarify (hopefully) what Redbear said, the CocaCola logo (for example) is not subject to copyright, but it is a trademark. You may not USE the trademark for unauthorized purposes. In theory, trademarks exist for purposes of consumer protection, to prevent consumers from believing they are buying one person's goods or services, but instead receiving another. It is the end use that will dictate what you can do with the trademark. For example, I can talk about Coca Cola brand soft drink until I'm blue in the face, use their logo to identify that company, or even educate consumers as to the differences between their product and my product (remember the whole Coke vs. Pepsi ads that had both logos in them? Do you think the rival company authorized the use?). If you sell a Ford Motors logo sign to your local ford dealership so that they can identify that they sell Ford brand cars, I don't think you've got a problem. On the other hand, selling a ford logo product to end consumers would be a problem, because they sell their logo on a great many consumer goods, and the use of the logo would possibly confuse them into believing that your product is associated with, or endorsed by Ford Motors. Creating a logo pattern for yourself is also not a problem, provided that it is not used in a way that would cause people to believe that you or your product are affiliated with or endorsed by the trademark holder.

As to copyright: RedBear is correct in that you own the copyright on your own work. Anything original pattern or project that you create, you own, regardless of file format, so it is up to you whether you wish to release it to the public. If you use a copyrighted pattern or image in your own work, you are limited to using it in the way it is licensed to you. For example, VectorArts allows you to load the pattern onto one computer, so that you can create woodworking projects, and allows you to carve those projects with any CNC equipment for sale. They do not allow the use of their work to create mass-production molds, or allow you to distribute the pattern file to others. This is why those of us who have used their patterns do not upload the project files, since doing so would create a copy of the pattern on more than one computer, and would allow others to use the pattern without licensing it.

Derivative works: If you create works with a copyrighted image or pattern, you have created a derivative work. You own the copyright on the completed work, but the copyright of the first image or pattern rides along as well. It may be possible to assert a defense against an infringement claim if your deriviative work is substantially different from the original. The test applied is based upon what an average person would think seeing/hearing/etc. the original work and derivative work side-by-side. For example, if I used a 1/2 second clip of a particular instrument from one song in my own song, it is unlikely an infringement will be found if an average listener would not consider it to be a major part of the song, and the original source is not readily identified by that listener. On the other hand, if I create a song such as "Bittersweet Symphony" (by The Verve), that incorporates an extended sample from another band's music (The Rolling Stones), so that the average listener asked to hum a few bars from the song would hum the sample from the original band, then infringement is likely to be found. How this applies to us: If you take a copyrighted photograph, and modify it for purposes of carving, it is still infringing (regardless of how much work use use converting it) if the average viewer would recognize that the carving and the photograph are the same image. The substantially different test depends on the end result viewed by a person, not the file formats, or the amount of labor used in converting.

Fair Use: The purpose of fair use is to prevent copyright from restricting the ability of people to communicate. Fair use is a defense to an infringement claim that allows people to engage in limited copyright infringement when it is against the public interest to enforce the copyright. For example, if I wanted to report about a film that is drawing a lot of controversy, playing a short clip from the film so that people can identify the film that I am describing, or get an idea as to the nature of the controversy, it is a fair use, however playing an extended portion or the whole film would not be. Likewise, republishing short excerpts of a longer work are acceptable if done for purposes of critique or commentary. AS IT APPLIES TO A FORUM LIKE THIS: Taking a photograph of a piece that you created with a licensed pattern and posting it on this board is likely a fair use, since you are entitled to describe and advertise the work that you have created, and unlike posting your project file, your photograph will not allow someone else to create one without licensing the copyrighted pattern file from the owner of the pattern.

I'm not exactly how much clearer I can make this.

[CallNeg151]

Sorry, I got started typing one of my long winded posts, and the forum moved on without me. I have some background in intellectual property, so I get my knickers in a bind whenever I see one of these discussions. For my own sanity, I second the motion to end this thread.

[Julie Coffey]

CallNeg for posting one of the best descriptions of it I've seen in recent past.

My compliments.

J

[Jon Jantz]

Thank-you once again, Redbear and CallNeg for having the patience to explain this correctly and thoroughly...

I move for this thread to close and move on to the subject of carving as well...

[rjp736]

Amen !!!!!

[RC Woodworks]

Thanks for a the info, as I said, the commercial logos I get the most request for is Harley Davidson. I have seen this pattern shared in this forum. Matter in my website I have a sign in the shape of the HD logo but I have slightly change the shape. Sorry for the poor images.

Still I do admit I have thought about selling signs with commercial logos. But if HD sued everyone they wouldn't have time to make any motorcycles! Anyone who has been to fairs or craft shows you have seen people selling intarsia projects with Lonney Tunes patterns and I have seen other sign makers who has HD logo on their example signs. I only have the one with a simular shape.

It has been a good topic but as Jeff said the subject has been exhausted!