1 set of plans 1 aircraft

[Tom-D]

This statement is on the Aircraft Spruce web page under the Cozy kit page


The Cozy Design is an Aircraft Spruce Copyright
Aircraft Spruce purchased the Cozy designs (Cozy III and Cozy Mark IV) from Co-Z Development, and as of January 1, 2004 has the exclusive right to market these designs. These designs are protected with U.S. copyrights, and Aircraft Spruce has licensed no one else to copy all or any part of these designs to sell, loan, or give to others.

my question is the FAA going to care when you try to get the airworthiness certificate for the completed aircraft?

remember this is a scratch built aircraft no kit other than supplies.

 

[wanttaja]

FAA isn't going to care.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Unbeliever]

Read the statement a bit more carefully. Spruce is asserting that only it has rights to make a new copy to sell, rent, or give.

After a legitimate plans copy is sold, First Sale Doctrine applies. There has to be a legitimate copy bought to start with, but once I'm done with that copy, I can dispose of that copy in any way I see fit, as long as I don't make another copy.

I can rent it, sell it, destroy it, give it away, etc as long as a new copy has not been made. I think trademark has teeth in that the next guy might not have license to call it a Cozy, but there is no restriction on the plans.

Spruce's statement doesn't contradict First Sale Doctrine.

--Carlos V.

 

[kkoran]

Read the statement a bit more carefully. Spruce is asserting that only it has rights to make a new copy to sell, rent, or give.

After a legitimate plans copy is sold, First Sale Doctrine applies. There has to be a legitimate copy bought to start with, but once I'm done with that copy, I can dispose of that copy in any way I see fit, as long as I don't make another copy.

I can rent it, sell it, destroy it, give it away, etc as long as a new copy has not been made. I think trademark has teeth in that the next guy might not have license to call it a Cozy, but there is no restriction on the plans.

Spruce's statement doesn't contradict First Sale Doctrine.

--Carlos V.

That would seem to depend on whether the particular set of plans in question were sold as a license to build a single aircraft.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That would seem to depend on whether the particular set of plans in question were sold as a license to build a single aircraft.

Both sets of plans I own are serial numbered, and licensed to be used to produce one aircraft with that serial number on it.

 

[Henning]

Both sets of plans I own are serial numbered, and licensed to be used to produce one aircraft with that serial number on it.

Typically all construction plans are licensed for how many copies are allowed to be built from them. Whether someone is there to enforce the issue with aircraft plans, I haven't a clue, but I suspect not.

 

[Tom-D]

Both sets of plans I own are serial numbered, and licensed to be used to produce one aircraft with that serial number on it.

That's how I understood it too, but does the FAA care ?

What would the complete set of plans and templates for a Long EZ be worth? in great condition of course. there already has been one aircraft built from these plans.

 

[Unbeliever]

That would seem to depend on whether the particular set of plans in question were sold as a license to build a single aircraft.

Again, it's a single printed copy of copyrighted material. It's the printed copy that is the controlled item, not what you do with it. Turn of the century book publishers tried that with verbiage in the title page along the lines of "This is a license for only one owner." That got smacked down and that smackdown was codified in the First Sale Doctrine of US copyright law. As long as you have a legitimate copy that came from the legitimate copyright owner somewhere along the line, you can do with it what you want. If that wasn't the case, used bookstores and libraries wouldn't exist.

Now if the Cozy design was patented and the patent was still in-force, then yes, you need a license to build the airplane protected by the patent, even for personal use. If it WAS patented, and the patent went stale (past 17 years), then there is no protection at all. The quid-pro-quo for patents is that the government will help protect you while the patent is in force, but you have to give up the goods for the patent so others can reproduce it after the protection period is over.

From the OP, Spruce says "Aircraft Spruce has licensed no one else to copy all or any part of these designs to sell, loan, or give to others." I understand that to mean the printed copies of the design, not aircraft based on that design. If that is the case, then yes, Spruce does have sole license and copyright protection for the first sale on the pieces of paper with the design printed on them.

2nd thought. The other way to protect the design is to make you get a lawyer and sign an NDA, but that's hard to enforce as you can claim someone took your plane and measured all the parts outside your control.

--Carlos V.

 

[Tom-D]

Again, it's a single printed copy of copyrighted material. It's the printed copy that is the controlled item, not what you do with it. Turn of the century book publishers tried that with verbiage in the title page along the lines of "This is a license for only one owner." That got smacked down and that smackdown was codified in the First Sale Doctrine of US copyright law. As long as you have a legitimate copy that came from the legitimate copyright owner somewhere along the line, you can do with it what you want. If that wasn't the case, used bookstores and libraries wouldn't exist.

Now if the Cozy design was patented and the patent was still in-force, then yes, you need a license to build the airplane protected by the patent, even for personal use. If it WAS patented, and the patent went stale (past 17 years), then there is no protection at all. The quid-pro-quo for patents is that the government will help protect you while the patent is in force, but you have to give up the goods for the patent so others can reproduce it after the protection period is over.

From the OP, Spruce says "Aircraft Spruce has licensed no one else to copy(,) all or any part of these designs to sell, loan, or give to others." I understand that to mean the printed copies of the design, not aircraft based on that design. If that is the case, then yes, Spruce does have sole license and copyright protection for the first sale on the pieces of paper with the design printed on them.

2nd thought. The other way to protect the design is to make you get a lawyer and sign an NDA, but that's hard to enforce as you can claim someone took your plane and measured all the parts outside your control.

--Carlos V.

I think you are reading a comma there, that isn't there. but that is why I asked.

 

[Unbeliever]

From the US Copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

Note: This is different from Architectural descriptions as that has a specific and codified copyright protection.

If anything, the fact that building architecture from plans is protected (since 1990), but not anything else implies that you can build as many Cozys from plans as you want (barring patents). "The exemption that proves the rule" and "If it's not listed as illegal, then it is by definition, legal."

--Carlos V.

 

[Unbeliever]

I think you are reading a comma there, that isn't there. but that is why I asked.

Why would I? A comma there makes no grammatical sense.

--Carlos V.