CAD files

[RICHK]

"the logging Donkey, and the Mich cal shay are from Bill Harris works. Bills original prints for both where so full of mistakes they where almost useless. when I was working on both I had to double check every dimension going both ways, and to mating parts to find all the mistakes. now if all the original mistakes are still in the "plan ahead packages" that is pretty bad, but if all the models and prints are corrected what does that mean? new and useable prints?? I think it is just as much of a crime offering prints for projects that have never been built to prove themselves out, or full of mistakes. I have come across that a lot in the machining hobby!"


Hello there.
This is an accurate statement.
I took great pains to correct all the mistakes.
In the near future I plan to make a trip to the prototype to cross check my work.
If one want to build from the "original" then have at it.
I have gotten several statements asking if anyone had actually built models from those original documents.

[WJH]

I built the Kozo A3 in solidworks, and promptly received requests for the model files. I declined feeling that it would circumvent the intellectual property protections in place for the original developers. Now if one was to modify greatly, or fix the mistakes in the original, I tend to wonder if it would be ok?

[Pipescs]

I built the Kozo A3 in solidworks, and promptly received requests for the model files. I declined feeling that it would circumvent the intellectual property protections in place for the original developers. Now if one was to modify greatly, or fix the mistakes in the original, I tend to wonder if it would be ok?

I applaud your declining.

I am in a similar situation in that I am building an enlarged, twin pump variation of his steam oil pump that is shown in his A3 book.

And there in lies the issue (to me). It is his design that he has gone to great lengths to design, build and document in a book that is currently being published. I am sure he was paid a for the book and continues to receive royalty checks for its sales.

To my way of thinking, If you or I want to give the drawings away I should at least ask the publisher if there would be a problem with doing it.

[Greg_Lewis]

I am not an attorney but I have taught copyright law in my university classes. To reiterate what I wrote early in this thread, in short, you may make copies of a work for your own use but you may not distribute those copies to someone else. Making a CAD file for machining a part for yourself would be OK. Giving or selling that to anyone else would be a copyright violation.

Altering the original design such as correcting errors or making changes creates what is known as a "derivative work." A CAD file might also be considered a derivative work. Such a work is still protected by the original creator's copyright and the person distributing such a derivative work would be in violation of the copyright.

Ethically, let's take a real example — someone I know who supplies the hobby has received requests for PDF versions of his drawings. He has decided not to supply them because part of the way he earns his living is by selling the drawings. In fact, he told me that he sells more drawing sets than any other item in his product line. He knows that once he puts a PDF out there it is likely to escape and a significant part of his income will be lost forever.

In the age of the internet, contacting the original creator to get permission for something you want to do with the material shouldn't be that hard to do.

[SP&S700]

This seem to me an interesting point. It would seem to me that if you took the time and effort to transfer (but I don't think that is the right word here) to create a Cad drawing (create would be in line with original and not just a copy of something). I know a PHD that taught at a college got his PHD cause got folks to buy the idea that Fortan was a language... I believe that Cad maybe considered to be a complete new media. Now if the product was patented that would be a different story. My take would be more on the line of reverse engineering. Or say a non OEM company making a thermostat housing out of aluminum for a Ford lets say, as long as they don't use the Ford logo on the component and this new OEM product lasts longer than a normal Ford product which was made of plastic such as the 4.0L thermostat housing. I think this would be considered new product. I don't believe you can patent the 2-8-0 idea, but then again? but if someone makes a wheel set for your 2-8-0, I believe thats OK, So there should be a few lawyers out there just waiting to say yay or nay.

Just an idea

Clint

[Miserlou57]

I spent a considerable amount of time typing a response until I found online a conflicting answer from what I had been told by a lawyer, so now I'm in a gray area here, and I'll keep it simple.

I was of very strong opinion that a CAD model is not a derivative work of a 2D line drawing. It is an entirely different beast in an entirely different media. Upon google search, I did find a claim that a CAD model is a derivative work since it is just a different format. I feel like I could argue otherwise, but that doesn't mean I'd legally be right, nor that case law currently supports that. I do think that proving the likeness or practically enforcing such a thing would be extremely difficult, but I have no experience with it.

As for the inherent "design" of the locomotive, part, geometry, or whatever contained within the drawing, unless there is a design patent on that geometry, then there is no restriction on manufacturing, distributing, and selling these parts. Google Patent search finds nothing related to Kozo's name.

[Greg_Lewis]

Copying something into a new medium does not circumvent copyright. A photographer took a photograph of a sculpture. The photograph was used commercially. The sculptor who created the original work was awarded $685,000 in damages. (http://petapixel.com/2013/09/23/sculpto ... sed-stamp/) In an example going in the other direction, a sculptor made a sculpture from a photograph. The photographer prevailed in his lawsuit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) Thus, using a work in one medium for a copy in another medium does not bypass copyright.

[SP&S700]

As per copy wright infringement, I submit this as I just copied it.
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), is a leading U.S. court case on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody. The case involves parody now does it apply to our argument well its food for another argument. I've been to court a couple of times, its never over till the judge sings. I won my cases but I'll tell you, sweating bullets the whole time.
So in the interest of PC I'll admit defeat.

Clint

[10 Wheeler Rob]

When making drawings for water jet cut parts there is usually some additional material added to the parts to allow some machining to get to critical tolerances and to have perpendicular edges. So the cad files would not be usefull for making the final parts without having the actual drawings. Seems then the cad files would ok to give out.

But this is an engineers logic, not a lawyers logic on the issue.

[Greg_Lewis]

When making drawings for water key cut parts there is usually some additional material added to the parts to allow some machining to get to critical tolerances and if have perpendicular edges. So the cad files would not be usfull for making the final part without having the actual drawings. Seems then the cad files would ok to give out.

Sorry but that would be a derivative and not OK to pass along. Making minor changes to an original does not bypass copyright.

[RICHK]

Hello there
I have corrected corrected most all of the errors in the Harris book.
Tremendous amount and as you noted without this work the book is practically useless.
Interesting that it is now out of print.

[Steggy]

When making drawings for water jet cut parts there is usually some additional material added to the parts to allow some machining to get to critical tolerances and to have perpendicular edges. So the cad files would not be usefull for making the final parts without having the actual drawings. Seems then the cad files would ok to give out.

But this is an engineers logic, not a lawyers logic on the issue.

Copyright extends to derivative works as well. Giving out the files would open the door to a copyright infringement lawsuit, which I can tell you from personal experience, can become a financial black hole for the individual being sued.