Barnfield Asks... Are Clark Blank Specs Private or Public Property

Industry Talk
1

Aloha Swaylockians

Swaylockians seem to shoot for a pretty high standard regarding craftsmanship, environment, business standards and fairness for themselves and others. That said, I have been watching what seems to be an emerging problem that maybe we should talk about. I am not picking on anyone below here, just sighting an example

Quote:

Swaylockian A said:

“So, with that in mind, do you think they can really duplicate that 6,2C?”

Then Swaylockian B said:

I don’t know about that. But we can

Then Swaylockian A said:

“So are you guys saying that they can actually scan and duplicate the specs on the 6,2C? SNIP I love 6,2Cs. If they can duplicate it, I can buy it.”

Then Swaylockian B said:

“Yes we can duplicate it.”

Then Swaylockian C said:

“So, just to be clear, when you say you can duplicate a Clark blank’s specs, do you mean the deck roll and all or just the rocker, foil and outline template.”

The Clark Blank Specs that these guys are talking about are really the intellectual property of the blank designers and while the digital age makes it easier to rip off this data, I think we need to find some measure of fairness in this. Just because a large part of a blanks specs has been published to aid surfboard shapers in their choices of blanks available from a particular supplier, it doesn’t mean they were intended to be copied and marketed by others as though they were part of the public domain.

Of course, we all know that no one can precisely copy blanks from the Clark Foam Data Sheets, so lets not make that argument then… that because they aren’t absolutely perfect, that now marketing and selling blanks that are clearly copied and promoted using the Clark Foam Catalogs impact, is somehow OK or fair to the the actual Blank Designers. Especially since the amount of data available including the blanks name and its successful reputation in the marketplce, is exactly what the new blank company is counting on to produce, popularize and sell their blanks.

Each Clark Blank is produced by a Designer who has faithfully poured his years of experience and skill into each Blank Design so he and other shapers could access its benefits. (Through the proper channels of course)

Each Blank has a name and a reputation based on the success of the Blank Designers years of experience and skill and tapping into this for commercial gain, without proper agreements with the Blank Designers is in appropriate.

At the risk of putting words in their mouths, I am sure Toby Sullaway and Jim Callaham are flattered that their Blank, the 62C is so popular. But I doubt that they would feel it fair, that every one jumping into the Commercial Production of Blanks, will now simply copy their specs, blank name and all the earned reputation that goes along with it and then use this intellectual property to promote duplicate products created by companies that these Blank Designers have no knowledge of or any, property rights agreements with.

It wouldn’t seem unreasonable, that anyone looking to benefit commercially off of any exising Blank Designers; blank designs, names or reputations, should in fairness, seriously consider compensating the Designers appropriately for it.

2

Quote:

The Clark Blank Specs that these guys are talking about are really the intellectual property of the blank designers

not exactly. i’m not directly familiar with the business relations between Clark Foam, Inc. and the designers of the plugs used to create the blanks, but i’d imagine that the plugs were property of Clark Foam, Inc. i looked through every publication from Clark Foam i could find and didn’t come across any indication of copyright protection. hmmmmmmmm…

3

Are Clark blanks the intellectual property of its Blank Designers or Clark Foam?

Did Clark Foam financially compensate its Blank Designers for their designs, names and reputations? If so, how much?

It’s arguable that most good blank/board designs belong to no one because they’re created through the collective consciousness of surfing’s better shapers.

4

Bill,

We are talking business here so what’s fair or moral doesn’t come into it. It’s all about what you can do without risk of being sued.

That’d be a tough one legally - the design of a finished product can be protected by copyright, but the law allows close replication with different names. You can buy a knock off of an Eames chair that will be very close to the original, but it will be called something else - most people couldn’t pick the difference. So people could do this with Clark blanks too. Then you’d have the fact that a Clark blank isn’t a finished product - its a component, it doesn’t have “utility”, I’m not sure whether copyright extends to such things or not. Then you’d have the issue of who owns the copyright - if there was no contract between Clark and say Rusty - then I guess Rusty would own the copyright to the blanks he designed. But like I said, someone could copy the blank but make it slightly different and if they called it the R67 instead of the 6’7"R they’d be ok.

5

and the legalese Cobra raised it’s head above the edge of the basket

swaying in sync with the mellow tone of the flute player.

amidst he wailing of the mourners about the bedside

a talcum white face appeared from the mound of bleack clothing

followed by another and then another,

the words formed…‘what about the silver and the gold?’

the words were not audible

the collective mind congealed alltogether at once…

the maddening rush began to accelerate to uncontrolable frenzy

what hands would be he first to touch the silver tray,

the tea service …the candlesticks…

the higher mind of the deceased hovered

to watch the show writhing

like earthworms on the ground in the wetspot

where the rock lay undisturbed for so long

no longer the safe haven to suck mud and chew cud

the worms started to leap and dance.

erasmus foam fume

permeated the death valley haze

he blanks drying in the morning shade

radiated a secure aire

the new 6’1.4672

eclipsed that ol 62C

the court battles embroiling the liltigants in nevada

has been going on for years

the 6’1.4672 was revolutionary

the vacant space amidships

for the bladder plate

revolutioalized surfing for the first time in 40 years.

the change was so simple

it had to happen

the rights to the intelectual property had shifted.

a better can opener?

when no one used cans?

like delivering newspapers,

gone and who cares…

look in this old book at this picture

see the wooden wheel puller for the Calistoga wagon?

if we only drove a calistoga wagon …

do we own our reactions to the clark foam experience?

send a buck to south laguna

with a note,thanks gordon

and another to Irvine…Die Ming you Mercilous cad…

by the way who does you hair?

the meeting of the rules comittee

will convene two weeks to the day after

the comittee is selected by secret ballot

at the a&w in freemont shopping center

behind the wells fargo bank

at the promotional surfing members only meeting.

we must put an end to this vile anarchy

wear your brown shirts with the black arm bands/////

and march in an orderly fashion.

…ambrose…

mizuna cilantro mushroom salad

with sonoma goat cheese with lavender pollen

and lime garlic dressing

what else could be responsible for such maddness?

6

Interesting thoughts soulstice

Quote:
i'd imagine that the plugs were property of Clark Foam, Inc.

Having made several plugs… I can tell you that after use, the plugs are returned to the owner/designer.

Quote:
i looked through every publication from Clark Foam i could find and didn't come across any indication of copyright protection. hmmmmmmmm......

Publication is a Copyright.

Of course, some might argue that that only protects the sheet of printed paper from being copied.

A better understanding of Patents and Copyrights is that they are primarily designed to confirm the realities that already exist, not to create or be realities without the original reality existing first. Therefore, ownership is established by what is or has been. The paperwork just makes it official and easier to defend should a situation arise where someone might later decide, they want, what someone else has created

Of course, my original question was more about fairness and nobility among friends rather than legal battles in court. So I ask again what about fairness to the blank designers??

Would most shapers happily pay 2 bucks more for a blank knowing it went to bless the original designer, seeing as how that designer has willingly handed over much of his personal private knowledge in the form of the blank which then makes the shapers job so much easier and potentially more successful?

7

Reasonable questions ParkerDavidson

Quote:
Did Clark Foam financially compensate its Blank Designers for their designs, names and reputations? If so, how much?

Clark gives a few blanks to the designer of the plug. The amount is just a token of the value of the blanks to Clark and to the shapers who get access to the great blanks from great designers. The plugs are eventually returned to the owner/designers.

Parker wouldn’t you be willing to pay 2 bucks more for a blank, as a token of appreciation to the designer that has made your shaping so much easier, as long as you knew the designer was going to get it

Quote:
It's arguable that most good blank/board designs belong to no one because they're created through the collective consciousness of surfing's better shapers.

I can go with you a bit on board designs being a collective evolution but not on the Blank designs. That is a very small pool of successful designers of blanks. The collective has virutally no contribution to them. For example my first blank for Clark the 79B sat at Clark’s for months because they thought it was too thin. It was too far ahead of its time and well beyond the wisdom of the “collective” that you speak of. My 106B was challenged by other shapers of note at the time who all thought it was too thin. The “collective” of course knows little of Waimea Guns. Of course, awhile later, everyone was making thinner big wave boards like I had been doing for my riders for years.

Successful Blank designers create what few other can imagine and they do it well in advance of what others see the need for. The “collective” you speak of, isn’t at that party.

8

Aloha Pinhead

Quote:
We are talking business here so what's fair or moral doesn't come into it. It's all about what you can do without risk of being sued

SNIP

then I guess Rusty would own the copyright to the blanks he designed. But like I said, someone could copy the blank but make it slightly different and if they called it the R67 instead of the 6’7"R they’d be ok.

Of course there is no legal recourse that would be practical. Only the lawyers would win.

But that wasn’t my point. Do we need lawyers to clarify whether this is taking a things a bit to far… “Hey new blank maker dude, make me one of those 62Cs that Clark used to make. I liked it because it was easy to shape and the boards I made out of it always worked good.”

“Ok shaper dude, we have that exact blank but we call it a C62 but don’t worry, it is copied right from the Clark Catalog and the Designers Specs, of course, we have no regard or concern for the kindly shaper/desiger dude who actually came up with all the right combinations of numbers which make all our lives easier, and our new blank company profitable. But what do we care, we changed the name so are lawyers said we are protected.” "Fair… what does that word mean, it has no place here, this is business!

Could we agree that there a reasonably good chance that the designer of that blank and also it’s close reproduction by the new blank maker, just might be responsible for the how well it shapes and boards from it work?

If so, couldn’t the “Collective” that Parker mentioned and the new blank maker, agree to some small compensation to that designer since they are all riding on his contribution and efforts? It doesn’t seem unreasonalble does it?

9

From the point of view of a backyarder with only 9 boards to my name and who can no longer get clark blanks the question seems a bit late in coming. The blanks i now use may well indeed be clark rip offs, but i don’t know and they certainly don’t come with any of the shapers comments or recomendations like the in the clark catalogue. It certainly isn’t impacting on my shaping but i would probaly still be buying clark if i could solely because of the wealth of experience there and i prefer to buy quality when i can.

I would be asking the question why do shapers design blanks for clark when all they get for thier troubles are a few blanks? If you are the designer of a sucessful blank surely this is going to generate good publicity for you and your skills as a shaper which in turn will lead to more board sales for you. This would be good compensation for designing a blank. An imitation blank is not going to have your name on it and although may wel be the same dimensions isn’t going to generate the same good publicity for your name as a shaper.

Personnally i think some compensation would be fair but no more than was given by clark intially, ie a few blanks.

Is this the type of compensation you are asking would be reasonable Bill? A few imitation blanks from these other manufacturers, it hardly seems worth the effort to me!

Also i think pinhead’s point is valid, buisness is buisness and compensation is unlikely to be forthcoming.

So Bill as someone who has designed blanks what sort of compensation would you think was resonable?

Cheers KS

10

Bill, if Grubby had given $2 for each blank he sold from a given plug, there would be a few MUCH MUCH richer shapers. Now, it is great that he is your buddy, but it comes off tres insincere suggesting the blank makers contribute money to the original plug makers when Grubby took their IP and used it as the basis to get filthy rich.

But of course he didn’t. He published fairly detailed specs for free for years. Despite this, the original specs belonged to the shaper, because Grubby didn’t pay him to make the plug either.

Worked out great for Grubby.

Now, you are right, these plugs are protected by copyright. If someone wanted to copy the shape, it would possibly be a derived work, in the copyright sense.

In normal cases, you would define how much of the original is used, and what would its impact be on the original copyright holder, and the potential market.

So, there is no longer any potential market. The original copyright holder will benefit just as much from these copies as he did from the original provided his name is recognized as having made the plug.

Its gonna be REAL hard to win a copyright suit. As to the issue of fair play, I would say make real sure to list the original shaper every time you sell one of his blanks, that way he gets just as much recognition as he did originally. You give him the same deal he had with Grubby.

And, really, the new blanks should have more tail rocker cut out anyway, as the EPS density doesn’t vary with distance from the mold, you can sell the modified 6’2C with a nearly finished bottom rocker. Then it is a new work defined by having different finish materials AND a different shape to accomodate that.

Really, Grubby was granted the IP for free years ago…the cat is out of the bag. And there is no use crying over spilt milk.

11

Hey Billy, it’s 4 to 6 feet tomorrow! and i got an old mylar sail for Zippy to try out at the wed. nite race!.. . so i can’t sleep, too much wind and rain…and fun!..

Blanks… i got a 10’-3" blank that was glued up with the stringer backwards…the tail lifted instead of the nose, the computer couldn’t understand the thing so it wasn’t of any value to the computer man and he sold it to me…it was a little confusing, but the board came out very right…i do like the consistancy of having the same blank to use, and i always wondered who got compensated for making the molds… i think i saw Brian Hinde make a plug for Ted Wilson in 1973, and we glassed some plugs for somebody for the clark guys…i always thought it was the ego thing that you and i talked about a few times that was the driving force for putting all that work into making plugs, not the few blanks of payment…i still think you should have taken those two Barnfield blanks that Boscoe gave me, and hung them in your shop… so what a huge ego boost to have someone want to copy a copy of something that was made, and stopped being made, No?..it’s a good question though, i was a little offended when i saw those posts too… maybe i’ll see ya tomorrow when i check on your soap supply!.. danny

12

Gee Bill,

Doesn’t this fall under the heading dispensing legal advice without a license? If not it’s dangerously close. So I won’t comment on this thread. However, I can suggest a reading.

Read this.

http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

Let me know if anything clicks with you. Mark

13

Good question!

well i could add a lengthy ethical discussion on this matter but im short on time so here’s some quick thoughts:

  1. I own a Clark Cat and honestly, there’s not a hell of a lot of difference between plug designs. Jeez, every R blank is virtually the same.

  2. because of #1, I think the virtues of blank design is WAY overrated. sorry, but I cannot buy into the “years and years of refinement argument”…the argument is valid and some might agree with that argument, but as a designer myself, Im not buying it.

  3. some of those blank designs are very very old (point?)

  4. new board tech makes many of the designs obsolete

  5. as a board maker, as soon as you shave 1/16 off the blank, all plug bets are off

  6. any board/blank maker willing to pay royalties for plug designs would be doing it voluntarily. Forcing the issue is futile.

  7. Forcing the issue would also involve lawyers. Wonder what Mr.Clark thinks of them…HA!

Just some random quick thoughts…

14

AND…

when will thruster board makers pay all royalties due to Simon A.?

15

What royalties?

16

No, Clark returned the plug masters to the designers

17

Hi Bill,

As one of the culprits in the exchange quoted in your original post, I’d like to add my 2 cents.

As with most things on Sways, your post is really addressed to 2 audiences. The guys like myself who build boards for friends and family as a hobby and then there are the guys who are making a living (or at least some income) off their boards. For the backyard guys, the benefits of having a proven blank from a thoughtful designer are obvious. With just a hint of competence in the shaping room, it is fairly hard to take a close tolerance blank and come out with a finished board that won’t work to some degree. To the professional shaper, the blank should in theory be more of just a starting point. A basis from which to explore different design features. I think the vast number of custom (and mostly private) rockers for each clark blank shows that to be true. So would a shaper who simply skins, templates, turns the rails and slaps his label on a close tolerance blank owe more to the blank designer than the shaper that methodically adjusts rocker, foil etc to fine tune performance? In the most rational world, I’d say yes, but that is not the precedent that has been set over the last 40 odd years.

So on whole, I have to agree with blakestah that the genie is out of the bottle as far as clark blank reproductions are concerned. Right or wrong, they are the legacy of a system where the designer was compensated with prestige and not money for their intellectual property and I don’t see how any clark blank designer can now reclaim what they have already given away. I think most people knew this or realized it when Clark alledgedly destroyed the molds instead of giving them to the designer who created the plug. I think this might also be part of the reason that people feel so free to replicate clark blanks. Since the designer never received monetary compensation in the first place and since the original product is no longer being produced anyway, they don’t feel that they are taking money out of anyone’s pocket. And the fact that they are employing some new expertise in order to produce their product may make it seem like they are not making a direct copy, but simply replacing a commodity that no longer exists.

So what can be done? I for one am all in favor of compensating creative people for their work. Hell, I think everyone should send you a couple of bucks for your thread on rail banding! Since the whole industry is in a state of flux, maybe now is the time to try a new business model. There have been a multitude of EPS blank makers pop up since Clark’s closure. I suspect a few of these might not have a clue about what they are doing, but only time will tell. In the EPS and CNC hotwire world, the molds have become obsolete, but a good blank design has not. If a blank designer wanted compensation for his designs, why not hook up with one of the new EPS blank cutters and form a business relationship? The blank cutter could advertise that their blanks are designed by some well known shaper and compensate that person for the distinction that its brings to their product. In that way, ultra close tolerance blanks with exact (and proven) bottom rockers could be brought to the marketplace for us less competent hobbists. Would that fly? only the market can decide. Would copies ensue? Probably, but I for one would rather buy from the company who is compensating the actual creator. The professional board builder can now design his own blanks, have them cut by one of these companies and never release the specs. to the public if he doesn’t want to. His royalties are that his designs give him a competitive advantage if his boards work well. In the long run, the relevancy of clark replicates in EPS may be lost if what worked in PU doesn’t work as well in EPS.

Rob

18

The Clark Blank Specs that these guys are talking about are really the intellectual property of the blank designers and while the digital age makes it easier to rip off this data, I think we need to find some measure of fairness in this. Just because a large part of a blanks specs has been published to aid surfboard shapers in their choices of blanks available from a particular supplier, it doesn’t mean they were intended to be copied and marketed by others as though they were part of the public domain.

========================================================================================

The Foam Depot has acquired all of the Clark Foam blank specs and is currently cutting boards for some shapers. We currently have a Hot Wire CNC machine that we are using to cut the blanks and we can cut about 250 blanks a day. We can cut board blanks of up to 9 feet with the current machine. Automatic Control Solutions has finished the design work on another machine that The Foam Depot will be putting into production that will allow us to cut up to 16’ blocks of EPS. With the additional machine and the capability of the added machine, we can produce up to 750 boards a day. I have attached a picture of some common board blanks for your review. Our catalog will be available shortly and can be forwarded to you if you would like a copy. Clark Style Blanks new

======================================================

/font]

I’d say acquired is another way of saying taken. As a handshake businessperson, this issue has clear lines drawn. Of course small, independent shapers do what is immediate for there own survival, but to market blanks as Clark rip offs is unethical.

Yesterday I saw the Clark truck dropping off the plugs that were designed by the Masters here. Standing in front of them, I felt as if I was in a museum, looking at historic treasures. The notations, specifications, and signatures on them put real value on there importance of use over a long period of time. I know it’s easy to discard that by some, but if it had been some “real” industry, other than poor boy surfing, the lawyers would be all over it. I bet places like the Foam Depot will soon be changing their wording on how they market there blank specs.

I’ve got it bookmarked for future reference.

19

kinda off topic, but this cracks me up. This guy is selling photocopies of the Clark catalog and telling potential buyers to beware of imitations…an instant classic.

http://cgi.ebay.com/…QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

20

Barnfield:'The Clark Blank Specs that these guys are talking about are really the intellectual property of the blank designers and while the digital age makes it easier to rip off this data, I think we need to find some measure of fairness in this."

Strictly speaking the blanks specs are only the intellectual property of the designers if they first register a particular blank ‘design’ as such before the blank is sold. Several designers have contributed to the present state of surfboard design, although I don’t know any instances where a major design (eg. the thruster) has been registered as such. While it is unlikely that SA would have been granted a patent for his tri fin design, he probably could have been granted ‘design protection’ within a limited scope(he had to register the design before it became public of course…).