On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Gerardo @neorigami.com < [email protected]> wrote:
> For example, we could see this fold design as just an original way to fold > a leaflet, emphasis in "way"; since it's rather simple there's no good > reason for others not to take advantage of it. Know what I mean? I'm just > trying to see it from another perspective so I can take a clear position on > this subject. Might it be OK for them to just keep on using it? > One way to look at the question, for me, anyway, is to consider whether you feel (or defined in contract) that the job for which the company hired you was to create some specific items for them, or whether they hired you to make *and* to show them how to make a leaflet fold. If you're hired to give them the design, not just the batch of already-folded pamphlets, then that seems reasonable. And, a quick reminder of the US copyright law premise: Copyright can exist for "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.." But: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102) Generally, this has been interpreted to mean that copyright covers creative works, not practical/useful works, although a copyright CAN exist in the aspects of a work that are separable from their utility. (Weird concept, maybe; think of it like this: if you came up with something creative about a box - the decorative aspects, the shape or structure that was independent of its fundamental useful box-ness - you could have a copyright in those things, but not the box-ness. This is generally considered a "thin," in the sense of "weak," copyright.) I also find it helpful to recall that the point of the law was to find a way to encourage the creative arts by rewarding the creators by giving them control over the copying/distribution of their works. It's an attempt to balance the good of the few (creator:"I want to control my work") and the good of the many (society:"I want more stuff to have and do what I want with.") It is an artificial construct, not any kind of moral statement about ownership rights. Anne (who is not a lawyer, but married to one, and the breakfast-table conversations are just full of this stuff... anyone coming over for breakfast?)
