- ... It is a complex question legally and less so ethically. In the US copyright law applies to the paper which is the book and the blueprints. Ethically, noMessage 1 of 31 , Aug 3, 2009View SourceOn Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Gabriel K. McAtee<gmcatee@...> wrote:
>It is a complex question legally and less so ethically. In the US
> The previous thread brought something to mind that I've been
> wondering. I understand that there's much more to an actual set of
> plans than is present in the PB&F books, but there's certainly enough
> detail for most of the boats in those books to build from. What is the
> legality of doing this?
copyright law applies to the paper which is the book and the
blueprints. Ethically, no question, you should pay the piper.
The cost of plans is a tiny fraction of the cost of building a boat,
and being able to say "it is a Bolger design" raises the resale value
far more that the plan cost.
As to the shape of the boat vessel, in the USA the 3D shape is covered
by the "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act" which is title V of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Google it...) applies to the shape
of the vessel. In short the legal protection of the vessel shape is
much less than the protection of the printed paper blueprint.
- I paddle mostly been in power boats most of my life pulling crab pots where the chesapeake and the intercoastal intersect I am about at mile 3 I don,t cartopMessage 31 of 31 , Aug 12, 2009View SourceI paddle mostly been in power boats most of my life pulling crab pots where the chesapeake and the intercoastal intersect I am about at mile 3 I don,t cartop just carry the boat down to the water here lately I have been lazy I built a small dolley to tote my canoe with. It is a old battered coleman , I was just building smaller boats with hopes of finding something lighter I am aprox 205-210 pounds most weeks I have built a coupla of peeros for neices and nephews a nieghborhood kid or 2 they do well in them . It don,t do to have a adult beverage or two with you and paying attention really pays off :)
--- In email@example.com, "Rob Kearney" <rdkearney_99@...> wrote:
> Also, once you start messing around with the dimensions, you have
> to ask yourself what your real purpose of use is. Do you want a craft
> that's mainly sailed and occasionally paddled or vice-versa since
> dimensions that enhance one use may detract from the other. To me,
> with the current dimensions, this design looks like it might be a fair
> compromise between paddling and sailing for someone up to about 180
> lbs. At 11'6" it's probably going to be pretty easy to car-top but
> at that length, it sure isn't going to be any speed demon. I agree
> that just raising the sides to gain more freeboard to carry more
> weight will introduce some negatives.
> - Rob
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Rob Kearney" <rdkearney_99@> wrote:
> > >I wonder if would work better for you if it was
> > > stretched out to about 15.5' and widened about 2". I'm still kind of
> > > amazed that a mono-hull with a 2' beam can be successfully sailed but
> > > then I used to feel that way about sailing canoes in general.
> > That could do it as higher sides mean crew weight higher for double paddle use - higher, and... oops over we go! The low sides also allow leaning the upper body out to the side. The Eeek! has higher sides, but also lead ballast stability (and some prefer a single paddle). Bolger said it was unerving though, that, when paddling, you had to lie back prone quickly when you reflexively wanted to lean out as capsize threatened. Isn't bracing meant to save this situation?
> > Graeme