/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>775438
36" balloons are pretty round. Maybe you could paper mache (or something) a 36" balloon.

If it's illegal where you are, please immediately move. Sure, you wouldn't want to make something, sell it, and it breaks and kills someone, but I don't see how it could be illegal to make (unless you steal the bikes). It makes me sad to even hear that.

>>775438
to make the frame or skeleton you need to be able to bend tubing or cut out pieces of sheet steel ( probably a plasma cutter ). everything else is just having a light source and tack welding.

there are some custom gears on there with skulls and such you would need a CNC plasma cutter to make but everything can be done with plain bicycle gears.

>>775442 If it's illegal where you are, please immediately move. Sure, you wouldn't want to make something, sell it, and it breaks and kills someone, but I don't see how it could be illegal to make (unless you steal the bikes). It makes me sad to even hear that.

Maybe I wrote it a bit confusing, I meant if it is illegal to replicate this sculpture idea.
Like the artists would be upset if I did this and "steal" their idea! (hope I could write it less confusing)

also
>>775443
>>775444
Thanks for the suggestions, I will immediately look for them!

So, I looked for your suggestions, but I doubt I could bend tubes or such... :(
Maybe there are already such skeletons for sale? How would you call them?

And my mother doubts that the light would look like that in the photos if I just use a light bulb. Is she right?

>>775446
Oh I understand now! Sorry haha :)

>>775444
I'm not a welder, but..

If OP can't buy and operate a plasma cutter and bend metal tubing into a sphere, why wouldn't a paper mache sphere work, if it's just tack welding them together?

>>775468
well, well, that sounds great! But exactly do you mean that I tack weld them together then? :)

Like:

>create the paper mache sphere
>lay the cogs on the dried paper mache
>and then?
>tack weld them together like 1) or 2)? (Picture related)

Thank you very much!! ^__^)/

>>775476
I *think* welding just the teeth should work, but I'm not a welder. I'm sure someone else can answer though! Good luck!

>>775486
Thanks! The boyfriend of my mum just came home and said it would be difficult, but we could do it if we have patience and the neccessary material :D

I'll buy a lampshade frame so that the light will come through too and make these beautiful patterns on the wall :)

I still have the question...
How on earth can you bend the cogs so that they still look round and not like you tested a gold coin on its validity? anyone has an idea? :>

I am grateful for every answer you guys make!!! ^_^

Did the article specifically show someone making it out of old bike parts? It could just be cardboard or balsa wood, carved into cog shapes, then painted with a worn metallic finish. Would explain the more outlandish looking cogs on there.

>>775489
That would make very much sense! But in the article, they only told about how gorgeous this idea is and stuff, unfortunately... :(
Also, they said all of the cogs are real, and the outlandish are designed to reflect the town's history.

>>775446
FWIW, it absolutely is illegal.

Copyright is less about what something is, and far more about how it came to be.

If you'd have woke up one day and thought "hey, one of those paper lanterns would be really cool if you replaced the paper with gears", then there'd be no infringement and no problem.

However, what you did was to look at a work wherein copyright resides, and think "hey, that work is really neat. But I don't want to buy one, so I'll make my own copy". This makes your version a derived work, even though it's identical to the hypothetical one you thought up yourself.

It's the process that counts.

The good news is, though, that although your chandelier plagiarises the original artist and infringes his copyright, artists are poor and can't afford lawyers, and copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the artist has standing to sue you.

>>775531
oh, do fuck off already.

Have you ever read patent LAW? If you did (and you haven't otherwise, you'd know, you can look up any patent you like, and copy it, abc -> abc. As long as its for PERSONAL USE ONLY.

Do you see anything in the OP that suggests non-personal use, anything at all? No? - thought not - now GTFO patentfag. A true artist would be flattered, as long as youre not selling it/passing it off as your own original work.

With apologies for the Caps, but, srsly. Furthur so, OP, and ignore the idiots, please.

>>775531
I could see what you're saying if OP wanted to sell it, but give me a break.

The artist was probably inspired by other upcycled work. Maybe saw a table made from a bike rim, or someone made a shape with gears. Then they made a sphere with gears. Everyone builds on other ideas and whatnot.

So now OP wants to make a SIMILAR item, but it would be smaller and look much different having mainly identical gears, yet it's infringement? Puh-lease

>>775540
the op can make an IDENTICAL copy for himself and it would be fine.

If you look closely you can see the bent square tubing into a sphere, and then spot welded the gears to the frame and each other. The hardest part would be bending the tubing.

>>775531
>But i don't want to buy one
unfortunately, they only did it as an art project for public. If they sold it, I would totally think of buying one. But since I live in Germany I'd also be afraid that the chandelier gets broken while shipping...

>>775539
>>775549
thanks, you kind anons! :) I appreciate your help/defending!

also, bumping a bit but I already have kind of an idea how I do this, if I find enough cogs ^^
Maybe I'll also post results if I won't forget it!

>>775543
>bending the tubing
well, my mum kind of recommended skeletons of actual lamps (don't really know how they are called right now) so i'll look how far I come with that one, if the lamp thing can't hold the cogs, I will probably have to bend those tubes...

>>775547
That might possibly work but it would also depend on the type of material used in the "lamp shade skeleton", some metals dont bond together that well. You could possibly buy 1/8 inch steel rod and bend it around other house hold objects, or build a circular structure the the dimesions you want and bend it around that to make your frame for the lamp shade then weld your gears/cogs to that.

>>775547
>>775491
>>775488
Enough with the fucking smilies already, this is not facebook.

>>775543
Oooh yeah you're right. They started with that and then you can tell the edges of the big gears were welded to the frame, the little gears then welded to the bigger ones.

>>775556
Exactly

>>775547
That's a good idea and will be cool too. Making a lamp shade like this but from gears. The sphere would be tricky. So like a tube shape. Much easier I'm sure

>>775488
Why not metal epoxy glue between the teeth?

>>775539
Sculpture is copyright, not patent. It has no function.

Further, it's clearly you that doesn't know patent law: patents absolutely do prohibit personal use. Patents actually give the owner the right to prevent others from offering to sell, selling, importing, making, or even *using* the patented method or apparatus, *no matter the scope or reason of the use*.

The only reason you can get away with infringing a patent for personal use is if the holder doesn't find out or declines to sue you. There's absolutely nothing stopping them.

This is basic shit. You should know this already if you're to have any kind of informed opinion on IP law.

>>775540
OP explicitly said that he saw someone's work and wants to make his own version. If that work hadn't existed, OP would never have made his version. Therefore OP's version can't exist without the original, therefore OP's version is a derived work.

It doesn't matter what could have happened; all that matters is what did happen.

>>775544
You shouldn't thank people for bad advice, even if it's what you want to hear, especially if it pertains to law.

>>775542
That's a different right (the right to make copies); one that's also reserved to the copyright holder.

>>775531
BULLSHIT
the copyright is on the particular expression or performance of an idea
a photo of an art piece is a new piece of art.
seeing as how the guy discussing this is unlikely to be using exact copies of the gears used or the exact technique -- he's good to go.

>>775438
looking at the picture of that -- it looks like the gears have been shaped to follow the curvature of the sphere -- will take some effort and hammering to repeat that -- personally, I think the many flat surfaces created if you left the gears straight would look appealing

for all or y'all arguing about IP law:
in general

Trademark: a signature or a brand-- must be defended or can be lost. only applies to your 'type' of product. 'Barbie pink' wouldn't apply as a trademark for grenades

Patent: a method for implementing something, that is non-obvious to an expert in the field. this is god mode for IP -- anyone who implements your idea in close to the same way is infringing

Copyright: an exclusive right of copying for an expression or performance. a photo of a painting is a new work. a recording of a live performance is a new work--

That being said, many of these IPs are constantly being expanded in scope and in longevity, combine with ruinous litigation if it's just maybe possible that a court will rule in favor of the copyright holder. Fair use is a big exception to copyright, but at least in america, there are major campaigns to 'educate' every one that any idea inspired by someone else must pay up. There's no good legal reason to cover up or substitute brands in films, however that behavior allows them to receive $$ from sponsoring brands (anytime you see a recognizable brand in mainstream entertainment, it's a paid-for advert).

//soapbox away. I may be incorrect on minor technicalities but anyone calling the above totally wrong, is either drinking the koolaid, or passing it out

>>775651
So a photo of a page of Harry Potter is a new piece of art?

Awesome! I had no idea there was a hole in copyright law you could drive an oil tanker through.

I'm off to go write some Twilight fanfiction! Maybe I'll get it turned into a book!

>>775659
>a photo of a painting is a new work.
You need to use a less ambiguous word than "new". New implies it's an original work, which it isn't:

If it's done in a creative way (and the threshold for creativity is very low) then it's a derivative work. Creating derivative works is one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder, and if you infringe that right, he can sue you.

If it's not done in a creative way, i.e. it's done with a view to reproducing the work as accurately as possible, then it's still the same work. See the Wikipedia/National Gallery lawsuits for an example of this.

>a recording of a live performance is a new work
A performance was never a work in the first place: it's not fixed in a medium, so it's not a work but a performance*. The recording of the performance is the only work.

* performing a work in public is (you've guessed it) another reserved right.

>>775668
Not quite mate. You know Superman? Hes copyrighted (and trademarked but thats another can of worms). You know the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from the 40s? They aren't copyrighted. Well, most specifically their copyright was *separate* from the main Superman copyright and they was not renewed at the same time as the main copyright and they expired. So, if you wanted to make a new Superman cartoon you would need to contact the original copyright holder. If you wanted to reproduce the original Max Fleischer Supermans you could do what you like because that copyright is free. You couldn't make directive works based on it though, only reproduce the 'original;

What I'm trying to say is if you took a picture of Harry Potter you would own *that picture*. Its your work and it is separate from Harry Potter. You couldn't sell it because you didn't own the copyright to Harry Potter but at the same time they couldn't prevent you from taking that picture for your own use. They could sue you if your wrote and distributed a fanfiction using their copyrighted characters and settings without their permission but they wouldn't own the work you did. If you charged the names and the settings you would be free and clear.

>>775659
"Barbie-pink grenades" is one of the worst examples you could have thought up for limitation of field of trademark. Once a trademark is sufficiently well-established, it becomes a kind-of "super-trademark", and as well as it being assertable in its field, the holder can sue people in completely different fields for diluting or tarnishing their trademark.

"Barbie" is a great example of a "famous" trademark, and "Barbie-pink grenades" would be a cracking example of a use that would attract a tarnishment suit.

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#8

>>775673
So I could take a picture of every page of Harry Potter, and then sell Harry Potter, and keep the pictures for my use, and there'd be no problem with that?

>>775632
A sphere made of bike gears already existed before OP's source made theirs. So they should be sued? Faggot ass

>>775705
Point being, everything is derived and/or compounded on other ideas

>>775677
Unfortunately no. Your right to keep the copies is only in place if you still have the original. Once you sell the original you no longer have a right to that copy and must destroy it or transfer it to the person you sold it to.

There is a hole here though; public performance. If the holders of the copyright made a public performance of the book and you took pictures of it, then you would be able to keep them without owning it. Same deal with movies. If you record a cable broadcast of Harry Potter with your DVR then you own *that* copy. You couldn't then legally rip the DVD though, because thats a different performance. Same deal with music played on the radio. If you record a public broadcast then you own it legally. You can't turn around and copy it and sell the copies though because your rights end at that original copy.

Look, we don't need a patent attorney to figure out it would be legal for OP to even sell these things. No one has a patent on "all 3d shapes made of bicycle gears". Give me a fucking break. OP wouldn't even be making the SAME exact thing. It would be made from the same size bicycle gear. Completely different from the OP's picture. There is no debating this. Anyone talking shit is just a pissed off starving "artist". You can't patent "sphere made of trash". Fuck all of you

Guys, let me just point some things out.

>I asked if this would be legal, but if it is so difficult to find out, I will try it anyways.
>I also pointed out, that I would NOT sell it. I just wanted to have an unique chandelier for my flat, since I will soon move and thought it would be cool to have this as something like my "first funiture in my home"
>I will also not have these skull and heart shaped cogs in my chandelier since I don't even have something to cut them out like >>775444 suggested.
>My chandelier will be WAY smaller since the flat is small too and art is always bigger if it is made right and the neccessary materials are there.

>>775632
Commercial and noncommercial use

In most European countries, the exclusive exploitation rights granted by a patent are restricted to commercial exploitation. A private person who builds the patented invention in his own home for his own personal goals cannot infringe on a patent. The reasoning behind this is that such a situation cannot harm the patent holder.

US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal. Of course, since patent infringement lawsuits are very expensive, a private person is rarely if ever prosecuted for using the invention in his own home.

- With maybe 10% apologies for being only 90% right - I am European - YOU CANNOT BE FUCKING SUED FOR USING ANY PATENT OR INFORMATION THEREFORE DERIVED FOR PERSONAL USE. in europe.

In Murrica, as stated above - "a private person is rarely if ever prosecuted for using the invention in his own home."

SO, FUCKING BELLEND - DONT FUCKING *EVER* TELL PEOPLE THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHEN YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NO FUCKING IDEA, NONE, NULL, NADA & FUCKING ZIP - THE ONLY CLUELESS ASSHOLE HERE IS YOURSELF. As amply demonstrated, every time you open your mouth.

And as for copyright on sculpture, I cant even.. just, just, fuck off already, as suggested. You seriously are one really annoying cunt, really. WTF.

OP - Please, carry on. Normally /diy/ is, more or less, totally asshole free, honest - but you seem to have personally annoyed this *one* example - in which case, definitely carry on.

>>775717
You don't need a patent attorney at all: it's a sculpture, not a functional object.

Creative, non-functional works are protected by copyright, not patent.

If you don't even know that, why are you handing out legal advice?

>>775778
I don't know where you got the idea that "Europe" had some kind of personal use exception for patent infringement, but I'm gonna have to ask you to cite your sources.

Your claim is bizarre, and I've made a good-faith effort to corroborate it and can't.

>>775815
Your "good-faith" efforts didn't extend very far..

http://presse.dpma.de/docs/broschuerepatente_en_bfrei.pdf

PDF (in English..) linked above is from dpma (dpma - German Patent office - Germany also being home of the home of the *European* Patent Office) - Official enuff sauce for 'ya? Or, do you want to argue that as well?

Page 5

"However, patented products and processes may be used for personal use or research."

In fairness, they dont exactly publish the fact in 8-foot high neon letters - but, that *is the Law*, trust me.

I was using patents originally as an example.
I *know* patents have nothing to do with the question at hand.
I am starting to regret using this particular example, however, it holds, personal use is fair use.

Which is additionally about the only thing remaining in the Patent system that is not absolutely broken - and, as noted, you'd struggle to find many examples of anyone ever prosecuted for US Private use Patent Infringement - in Europe at least, this (theoretical) restriction does not exist.

>"bizarre claims".. Indeed.