"Hull Splashing" Boat Builders - Beware

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes to a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important areas, according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Chicago-based trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it, hull splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic changes and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.

Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats. Every year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers that are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it," Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this," including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's a fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of boating products in 2004.

==

2) If the article is not altered but posted in it's entirety and if the author is acknowledged, there has been no particular damage.

3) Copyright cases are often settled based with a fine based upon the amount of money the "infringer" received by infringing the copyright. Makes sense, of course, because if there was a set fine of say $100,000 people would routinely violate copyrights where they could make considerably more than the amount of the fine by doing so and they would simply consider the fine one of the "costs" of doing business. Also makes sense because in cases like this, where the dubious "violation" of a copyright produces absolutely *zero* economic benefit, is restricted to a very small group, and was not intended for commerical purposes there won't be a cottage industry consisting of a bunch of hungry attorney's haunting newsgroups to find people to sue.

To be absolutely within the law, the proper approach would be to provide a link to the article, and it is perfectly acceptable to lead with some personal commentary or summarization.

Example:

In an article at the following site, a renown aeronautical engineer has published a study of airborne mammals. www.whenpigsfly.com

-or-

Check out www.whenpigsfly.com

I think the author is full of crap, and here's why.....

-or-

In an article at www.whenpigsfly.com the author theorizes that pigs once had wings, but that millenia of domestication have caused the appendages to devolve.

Can you imagine somebody claiming, "My competitor built a boat that was pointy in the bow and blunt at the stern! Obviously that's a direct copy of my design, which is also also pointy on one end and blunt on the other."

I wouldn't defend hull splashing, put there are probably hundreds of cases where one boat manufacturer develops a design that is "inspired" by, (rather than physically molded from), a competitor's boat, and moving too agressively into that arena begins to tread in the "pointy on one end, blunt on the other" copyright claims.

Cut and pasting an article in a NG is considered "publishing".

The truth is most news agencies would not prosecute the case because it is not worth their effort and they are concerned about bad press if they did.

Your suggestions as to effectively get around this technicalities is the way the publisher wants you to handle it.

I just think it is funny that Harry who likes to talk about the need to honor intellectual property, is one of the biggest violators of stealing intellectual property. The news agency paid the author money to write the article because they want you and I to visit their site and click on a ad. When the article is cut and pasted, they lose the potential to get paid for their ad click. The news agency is hurt when an article is cut and pasted instead of a providing a link. This is not the same as going 71 in a 70 mph zone.

If I downloaded pirated music instead of buying the music and paying the musician and distributor for his music, I stand a very slim chance of getting caught. It does not make it legal, just because I think I will not get caught.

Copyright cases are often settled based upon the profit made by the "infringer" or the damages to the owner of copyrighted material. When the RIAA sued people using P2P network, the infringer was not profiting in any manner, but the RIAA sued for $100,000's of dollars and settled out of court for $1000's of dollars.

Do I think my post will make a difference, probably not. I just think it is funny that a "professional writer" would find it easier to "cut and paste" an article, than to provide a link.