> I was wondering about the legality of copying a commercially
> built kayak and making a modified woodstrip version for personal use.

A boat design is not necessarily covered by copyright or patent. This is a legal gray area. If you start to sell them, you might get the company's lawyers interested in suing you. If you sold them with the company's name on them in any way, perhaps by calling it a clone of their boat, the chances of getting sued go to nearly 100%. If you make ANY modifications to the hull you would stand a real good chance of winning the court case, but I can assure you that you will lose many $$$ doing so. (The lawyers always win) On the other hand, if you build one or two on your own, particularly with modifications, you will probably never hear a word about it.

Face it. Their hull is undoubtedly derived from someone else's design. Kayaks have been around far too long for anyone to patent them. Copyrighting the design just protects your right to PUBLISH the design on paper (or online). It has nothing to do with whether you actually produce something from the design.

The general principals of designing kayaks and other small boats are common knowledge and in the public domain. Look in the catalogs at the number of boats with practically the same specs. I could probably find several sets of plans for a 17 foot kayak (give or take a foot), with a 25 inch beam (give or take a few inches here), a depth of 4 inches (give or take a couple), and rocker ranging for 0 to 4 inches. What do I have here? The definition of probably 80 % of all kayak plans.

Take just one case: Racing boats MUST be very similar. It is in the race rules. The boats can't be any longer or narrower than certain limits, so everyone builds to those limits. Only slight modifications set these things apart. Finally, is there any place on this boat where it clearly says the design is protected in any way? If not, they'll never sue you for making your own modified copy. If they can't show that they are making an effort to protect the design, they actually lose their rights to it. That's why Dow is so protective of the word Styrofoam (tm). Same for the Kleenex and Xerox companies who do not want their names to be used for generic facial tissues, or generic copy machines.

> This came up when I got a kevlar Necky Tesla last year from somebody
> who bought it new, used it a couple times, and discovered he hated
> kayaking. Why he didn't start with a plastic boat I can't imagine.
> I can't complain since I got it for less than half price. Even though
> I already owned 7 kayaks I couldn't turn it down.

Sounds like you got a great deal. Now, tell me: If you got hole in the hull would you be able to patch it without infringing on the manufacturer's ( or designer's) rights? Think about it. You were not the original purchaser of this boat. If the original purchaser had some deal with Necky, are you bound by that agreement? Were you compensated in any way for such an assumed agreement? You would be making modifications (a patch) to their design. If you used duct tape instead of Kevlar for the patch you would be using a totally different material. Would this constitute an alteration to their design? Absolutely. Would they bother you about this? Absolutely not. What if the bow cracked off and you built a new one by copying the old part? What if the cockpit coaming cracked and you made a better one from some rain-forest-grown hardwood? What if after 15 years of continous sue there was not a single inch of the original boat that had not been changed by your hands? ( Sounds like the Russian MIR space station, doesn't it) Where do you draw the line between making repairs and improvements to a boat you legally own and infringing on any legal rights they may have to the design?

> Along with my wife and various friends, I have built strip boats
> for years and since I really like the Tesla's design I started wondering
> about modifying and stripping it. It is a high volume boat and I am
> a high volume person (6'2"/220lbs) but it isn't overly large
> like some other high volume boats I've tried. I am very comfortable
> in it, especially after I installed my own seat, and it handles very
> well. I was looking to build another boat this winter and I started
> wondering if it would be legal to build a modified Tesla.

> The boat is a good starting point but I think I can make it much
> better. I would change the hull design a bit taking out some rocker
> and moving some volume further forward.

At this point you have a totally new design. Different displacement, different center of gravity. You might as well go ahead and change the shape of the cockpit and coaming, too. Congratulations, you now have a boat that not only looks different, it handles differently, too. Hopefully it handles better.

> Probably make the deck shape
> differently also. It would still be based on a Tesla though hence
> my concern about copyright laws.

And the Tesla was based on a design created by some unknown aboriginal tribesman who died centuries ago. Has anyone taken up a collection for sending money to Greenland, or the Aleutians to support the descendants of these unknown geniuses? Not that I know of.

>I certainly don't want to be accused
> of stealing anything from Necky. How much of a change constitutes
> a new design?

Well, don't think of it as stealing, and don't make a big deal about it, and don't post you plans on the internet, and nobody will accuse you. Any changes you make constitute a new design. This is particularly true if you are building from scratch with totally different materials.

> Can you legally start out with someone elses design
> at all no matter how much you change it?

In many cases, yes.

Glad you asked about the legal aspects and not the ethical and moral aspects. They are different. I don't want to judge your morals or ethics ( or those of anyone else) but in general, if you are going to feel bad about doing this, don't do it. Otherwise, your conscience is going to bother you so much that you will not enjoy this boat.

Compromises abound. For example, you might write to Necky, praise their product, ask to talk to the designer, tell him/her that you, too, build kayaks, and ask pointed questions about the changes you wish to make. Ask if their design is protected. Ask if you can make a modified version.

They may tell you to get lost, or they may tell you that if you want certain changes, you are free to make them. You can go one better. Tell them you are interested in certain modifications and offer to sell them a copy built on YOUR design, which would fit beautifully into their line as it would complement the boats they currently produce. If they say yes, rush to a lawyer to protect YOUR rights in selling this to them.

Consider another case. The Smithsonian sends an anthropologist out to visit eskimo villages to study their way of life, and record it before it is destroyed by culture clash. As part of his study he acquires a native boat ( a quayak, or an umiak). Now, is the scientist permitted to measure, this boat, record the way the natives create it, and then write an article publicizing all these secrets of their trade? Once the Smithsonian acquires this boat, in the name of the people of the United States, is anyone free to build from these plans? For that matter, was anyone ever forbidden from building from these plans?

My opinions, (slightly modified from the views of several major religions) and more questions for you to answer. Hope they help you decide what you want to do here. Paul Jacobson

> An extreme example; how about a car? Could somebody legally build
> a wooden Volkswagon Beetle for their personal use? If so what's the
> difference between that and cloning a boat?

> I realize that if someone were to mass produce and sell the strip
> versions or publish plans of a Tesla (or a Volkswagon) there could
> be a huge problem. Realistically I can't see Necky wasting time and
> money taking one person to court for a boat made stricly for personal
> use but you never know these days.

> It is an interesting question, any thoughts?

> ~Edgar Kleindinst