Copycat business should get their larcenous, unoriginal dicks knocked into the dirt.

No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit.

ne2d: No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit DESIGN.

FTFY

The middle one looks like a blatant copy; the lowest one also, but a sufficiently minimal design that it might otherwise be permissible (cf. argument for Ghostbusters-vs-Fatso of Harvey Cartoons v. Columbia Pictures); and the top one looks non-identical but significantly derived.

The lawyers will earn their money; I'd lean 3:1 for the original artist.

I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

Sure, but that doesn't equate copyright infringement. If you make a firepit with a Greek key design on the top, you can't copyright the functional parts, the firepit itself, nor can you copyright the use of the Greek key, as it's a preexisting design.

In this case, the bottom one is simply a basic firepit with, as far as I can see, no original design embellishments, the middle uses a fairly common wave-style design and the top uses flames.

This would be akin to trying to copyright painting flames on a car.

As the article states, this case will be interesting because it will help show what can and can't be copyrighted.

/and if you think any of those designs are original, I've got an "original" bridge to sell you.

The headline is wrong. The copycat isn't trying to force the original artist to abandon his business; he's trying to claim that the artist's works are uncopyrightable (or that the knockoffs are sufficiently different that they don't infringe). That wouldn't mean that the original artist couldn't keep selling them -- it would just mean that the knockoff artist could keep selling the knockoffs.

Of course, I'd probably still buy from the original artist.

FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

Rapmaster2000: FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

Also makes them different from the "original" design.

Rapmaster2000: FishyFred: I think the first example is different enough that it doesn't infringe, but the second two are clearly ripped off.

If you note the copycat has added an asymmetrical granite base to the firepits which screws up the symmetry. Way to fark up the design, moran.

i think he keeps it on the dock, it looks to be the same piece of stone in at least 2 of the pictures

most likely this is for pyre prevention

Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

Those firepits are awfully spikey. If I impale myself on them can I sue?

Drakuun: Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

Or people that have access to scrap metal and either an oxy-acetylene rig or a plasma cutter, like me.

/again, not saying YOU should give a fark, but I do.

Drakuun: Fire pits for people with more money than brains.

Who gives a fark?

So many idiots on fark, I wonder if you're trolling or if you've never seen the 100s of NON decrotive fire pits.



Fire pits are also great of any number of other reasons. You clearly don't do alot of backyard partying, from something to set a weiner stick against to something to mitigate low flying embers, to a solid method of preventing the collapse of a pile of logs into a grey mess on the lawn. My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it, its there to stop embers and make it easier to clean out the fire pit. I guess most campsites in Canada have ugly rusted undecorated firepits for decorations. Its not like they are a nearly essential part of having a fire regularlym, only for people with more money than brains right? I suppose you do all your cooking with magic fairy pellets, or do you only eat raw unprocessed, unpreserved, uninspected, uncooked "Organic" foods?

PersistantRash: Fire pits are also great of any number of other reasons. You clearly don't do alot of backyard partying, from something to set a weiner stick against to something to mitigate low flying embers, to a solid method of preventing the collapse of a pile of logs into a grey mess on the lawn. My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it, its there to stop embers and make it easier to clean out the fire pit. I guess most campsites in Canada have ugly rusted undecorated firepits for decorations. Its not like they are a nearly essential part of having a fire regularlym, only for people with more money than brains right? I suppose you do all your cooking with magic fairy pellets, or do you only eat raw unprocessed, unpreserved, uninspected, uncooked "Organic" foods?

Hmm...

For outdoor cooking, we always used something called an "outdoor grill." They used charcoal or LP gas. I guess they don't have those where you come from.

The legal issue is a legitimate question mark, since it's legitimately up to interpretation exactly how much of the items are entirely decorative and artistic in nature and to what degree they can be distinguished from the functional elements of the item.

But at the end of the day, the original artist seems to be a decent enough guy and the copier comes off as a total douchebag prick, so you can use that to determine who to buy from.

Wittrig doesn't deny that Unger's designs came first. He simply claims that Unger has no right to copyright his fire pit designs, as they are utilitarian objects and not decorative works.

Those swirly thingies are for... spreading the heat. Yeah, that's the ticket.

KickahaOta: The headline is wrong. The copycat isn't trying to force the original artist to abandon his business; he's trying to claim that the artist's works are uncopyrightable (or that the knockoffs are sufficiently different that they don't infringe). That wouldn't mean that the original artist couldn't keep selling them -- it would just mean that the knockoff artist could keep selling the knockoffs.

That isn't what the headline says. The headline doesn't imply the original artist has to abandon his business, it says he has to abandon his copyright. Which is exactly what you went on to say later in the post.

I don't expect people to always RTFA, but please RTFHeadline before commenting.

ne2d: No, dumbass, the issue is whether you can copyright a firepit.

As it was already copyrighted, the answer is "yes." The issue is whether that copyright can be voided because the item was, in the copycat's opinion, incorrectly categorized. The copycat's trying to invalidate the artist's copyright.

It's a war of attrition. The lawsuit allows the manufacturer to simply hammer away at the artist until the artist runs out of money to defend his copyright - once he can no longer legally respond to the copyright challenge, the default judgment goes in favor of the manufacturer.

timujin: Sure, but that doesn't equate copyright infringement. If you make a firepit with a Greek key design on the top, you can't copyright the functional parts, the firepit itself, nor can you copyright the use of the Greek key, as it's a preexisting design.

In this case, the bottom one is simply a basic firepit with, as far as I can see, no original design embellishments, the middle uses a fairly common wave-style design and the top uses flames.

This would be akin to trying to copyright painting flames on a car.

As the article states, this case will be interesting because it will help show what can and can't be copyrighted.

/and if you think any of those designs are original, I've got an "original" bridge to sell you.

My personal interpretation is that there are only a few real functional elements here. There's the pit-ness, and the stand. Maybe a third and fourth element could conceivably be the fire-resistant metal chosen, and the basic size of the work.

I think a person could reasonably divorce the styling around the rim, the color of the pit, the shape of the rim (since the third design shows that roundness is not necessarily functional and a triangle could work), and possibly, the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

My bet: 4:1 against the copycat.

PersistantRash: My fire pit doesnt have any fancy hoo-haws on it

You can buy fire pits covered in hoo-haws? That's a design I'd buy!

cefm: The legal issue is a legitimate question mark, since it's legitimately up to interpretation exactly how much of the items are entirely decorative and artistic in nature and to what degree they can be distinguished from the functional elements of the item.

You can saw off the 3 designs ans still have a functioning firepit, they are decorative and copyrightable.

Nuuu: the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

There is no way you could possibly succeed on that claim. Prior art exists for thousands of years.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

I'm willing to bet a halfway decent lawyer can find so much prior art of those three pieces that it can be shown that neither artist is original and both are using ideas which have existed for a long time.

ThematicDevice: Nuuu: the fact that the design is intended to be viewed against a fire.

There is no way you could possibly succeed on that claim. Prior art exists for thousands of years.

While I know the rim design isn't especially revolutionary, copyright has a low threshold for original works of authorship.

I'm willing to bet a halfway decent lawyer can find so much prior art of those three pieces that it can be shown that neither artist is original and both are using ideas which have existed for a long time.

This is not a patent dispute.

Bodine Wilson: This is not a patent dispute.

Yet if you can prove that both pieces of work are merely derivative works of an earlier unprotected piece of work you should be able to explain away their similarity by that third piece.

For example if you rearrange and publish a symphony by beethoven and I rearrange and publish my own version of the same symphony they are likely to sound somewhat similar. But neither of us has infringed on the others work, further since Beethoven's work is in the public domain, neither of us infringed upon him.

I would say that the first design, the flames, is clearly a copyright infringement. A poorly, uninspired, and boring infringement, but an infringement none the less. The waves are an old design (probably inspired by 'Tsunami' or other, older designs, but still beyond copyright), and the triangle is obviously that 'neo-art' bull shiat from the 80's and 90's that people with more sense than money love.

But, while I like the original designs much more (more artistic and better executed), I like the broader base of the knock offs (safety point of view) as well.

I'd rule in favor of Unger maintaining copyright because the first example establishes that Wittrig is, indeed, infringing and the following designs merely cement a pattern of copyright infringement. Now, if it had just been the waves and triangle, I would have said universal design and voided the copyright.

/knitting designers face shiat like this constantly
//yes, knitting is a ruthless, technical, and detail oriented field

------------------
timujin [TotalFark] 2009-10-29 05:30:25 PM

This would be akin to trying to copyright painting flames on a car.
-----------------------

Actually, you can copyright a specific flame design on a car. I know a guy that's done it. Now, flames themselves, no. A specific design, yes.

jack21221: That isn't what the headline says. The headline doesn't imply the original artist has to abandon his business, it says he has to abandon his copyright. Which is exactly what you went on to say later in the post.

I don't expect people to always RTFA, but please RTFHeadline before commenting.

The admins fixed the headline.

The original artist deserves to be paid by anyone who even looks at a firepit for the rest of his life with possible extensions to be filed in perpetuity on behalf of anyone who looks sorta like his children. After all, he truly deserves the money and without true innovators like him we wouldn't even have pits for our fire. You think the caveman who first harnessed fire didn't get mad residuals? He did, because it was THE LAW.

Did anybody else think that the copycat guy totally came off as a douche?

The issue and article is actually more interesting than the headline makes it sound.

As a matter of principle, I don't really think you should be able to copyright this work. #1 is probably sufficiently different in decorative elements to not infringe. And look at #2 and #3. Are they really so original that they should get copyright protection? REALLY? So the first guy to make a fire pit with curly ques gets the monopoly on firepits with curly ques for his entire life plus 75 years? That seems stupid to me.

Sure someone is ripping this guy's idea off, but his idea isn't protectable.

The problem and story are actually more interesting than the headline makes it appear.

As a matter of course, I don't really think you should be able to copyright this work. The first one is probably sufficiently different in decorative elements to not infringe. And look at the second and third: are they really so unique that they should get copyright protection? Actually? So the first guy to make a fire pit with spirals gets the monopoly on firepits with spirals for his entire life plus 75 years? That seems stupid to me.

Sure someone is stealing this guy's idea, but his idea isn't protectable.

ScouserDuck: Did anybody else think that the copycat guy totally came off as a douche?

So, you didn't read ANY of the comments before you posted did you?


Actually, with number 2, there is quite a bit of difference with the basic wave shape, as the original actually comes up high enough to be able to rest a long metal pole from one end of the pit to the other, perhaps the design is heavy enough to stick a pig on it and spin it around a bit. The copycat design couldn't do that because the end of the wave doesn't come up high enough.

SpacePunk: Actually, you can copyright a specific flame design on a car. I know a guy that's done it. Now, flames themselves, no. A specific design, yes.

Yes but this would appear to be an issue of copywriting the general idea of flames ringing a fire pit, since the flame designs are different even if the general idea is similar.

I see the word "Design" a lot in this thread.

I'm no expert, but 30 seconds searching tells me the original designer might consider getting DESIGN PATENTS (new window)

For something this simple, it would probably only cost around a thousand dollars.

My understanding of copyright comes mostly from publishing and online concerns, as I'm a print and online publisher, etc. One thing I've learned is that it is not some kind of precise arena. Lawsuits can fly easily and lawyer fees can add up. The original designer might win, he might not. Either way, he might be on the hook for more money in legal fees than it is worth. He might be better off just getting a more precise form of protection with a design patent.
/just sayin'