copyright and sales questions

[computer at sea]

Here's a general question for those of you who have been building and selling your projects for awhile:

What's the story with intellectual property in regard to DIY electronics. If I build a, say, a Cracklebox based on someone else's schematic or with someone else's PCB and try to sell it on eBay or at a store or through a distributor, am I infringing on a copyright?

Clearly, the ulterior motive here is that I want to sell some things that I've built, but don't want to step on anyone's toes. I've made a bunch of simple DIY hits and was recently approached by someone who has a distribution deal with a pedal company. My projects are all very sculptural, and not typically black box/knob deals and the schematics are generally altered a bit.

I'm excited about the idea of getting some of these out into the world, but apprehensive about stepping on anyone's toes (legally or personally) in the process. I figured that this must be something that the more experienced builders at this forum have thought their way around, so please let me know your opinions.

[v-un-v]

Unless you have FULL PERMISSION from the original designer(s) of the circuit and/or board and vice versa, yes you are infringing on copyright.

You have the right to sell your own box and design as a design for something else to fit into it- ie a PCB, but you have no rights whatsover over that pcb and it's design and contents unless you have full permission from its owner.

Do I make myself clear?

Thank you.

I will okay this with the other admin, but I am sure that they will repeat the above.

[computer at sea]

Whoa! Glad I asked.

For some reason, I thought that some of the popular DIY designs were public domain.

Naturally, I won't sell anyone else's work for profit.


totally chastised,
Computer at Sea

[6079smith]

You were nice enough to ask, which is commendable. Sometimes people don't, which can lead to bad feelings. This is understandable.

Discussions like this can lead to gigantic cans o' worms being opened. I'd rather that didn't happen here.

The only concrete thing I have to say: 'on the internet' doesn't necessarily mean 'public domain'.

[fluxmonkey]

this question comes up often. there are lots of opinions, few of which are based on fact. the legal fact is:

"Copyright is a set of exclusive rights that regulate the use of a particular expression of an idea or information.... Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression." It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." (Wikipedia. emphasis added--follow the link for extensive additional information on intellectual property rights)

in electronics, that means that the schematic drawings and PCB artwork can be copyrighted, because they are material expressions--if you offered a Cracklebox using the Steim PCB artwork, they could sue you and probably win. but the idea behind those ideas, the actual circuit itself, cannot be--if you designed your own Cracklebox PCB, they would be less likely to win their case.

in some instances (if a circuit is new, useful, and "not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field") a circuit can be patented--moog's ladder filter, for instance. but that's a different thing. 99% of the "standard" circuitry that most SDIY modules are based on would not meet the requirements for patent protection.

hence, dozens of ebayers selling variations of the 40106-based noize oscillators that are the heart of MusicFromOuterSpace's Weird Sound Generator. or the multiple modular manufacturers offering VCOs based on the Terry Mikaulic design from Electronotes (generally without attribution).

so, from a legal perspective, most circuits designs can be pirated with little recourse for the designer. that's why manufacturers used to do things like sand off IC numbers, encapsualate circuits in epoxy, and limit distribution of service manuals. and in that light, the generosity of the SDIY community in general is all the more remarkable, and commendable.

and out of respect for (and to further encourage) that generosity and openness, i myself believe that we have a personal obligation to our fellow SDIYers not to use their work for commercial gain without their permission. that includes direct copyright infringement (commerical sales of modules using someone elses PCB artwork, for instance), and non-infringing uses (clones of someone elses design with only cosmetic changes).

generally, the synth community is pretty good about respecting each other individually, although we are famously willing to copy commercial gear (that that's oftentimes when it's been abandonded by it's original designer). i very much encourage that kind of ethical behaviour. but here in america at least, ethics and legality arent always the same thing.

bbob

[xjscott]

I agree with bbob regarding US law. However, the law might differ in other countries. For example, in Canada, there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Circuit_Topography_Act

text: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-14.6///en?page=1

This provides copyright protection for board layouts, and even if you re-lay it out, it is still protected, since the Topography, or set of interconnections themselves are protected. In the US, there is no protection of any kind for such a set of interconnections. However, to receive this protection, the topography must be formally registered with the Canadian copyright office.

I also agree with bbob that, despite the law, it would be considered polite and good form to acquire the permission of the circuit designer before selling derivative works.

[v-un-v]

[v-un-v]

bbob, good input too

[Randaleem]

[fonik]

[v-un-v]

[jhaible]

[Nosferatu]

[v-un-v]

[Nosferatu]

[fonik]

[xjscott]

-

[fluxmonkey]

[bubblechamber]

Thanks to everyone for jumping on on this. I think it's a really important subject and one that is constantly misunderstood. This is the first really coherent and clear discussion of this I have seen.

As for the wikipedia stuff, most of my professors will not allow it as a source and at the same time most have never used it and I can't help but feel there is more than a little elitism at work here. I would not use it as my only source anymore than I would rely on the New York Times as my only source of news. It's like any other source, look at the footnotes and references, follow those links and decide for yourself if the information is credible. For me it's an easy way to track down primary texts. I might not know how to look up Federal Codes, but by going to the Copyright page I have access to the copyright laws of most of the Industrialized world and I fail to see how this is a bad thing.