CCSB threatens to sue! (Update re the 12-1/2)

[Steve Paskey]

For those of you who followed the lengthy thread relating to intellectual property rights and the Herreshoff 12-1/2 . . .

Last month I sent Cape Cod Shipbuilding a letter telling them that I intended to sell building plans for a boat based on accurate lines and offsets taken from an original wooden H 12-1/2 hull. I asked whether they believed this would violate their legal rights.

Today I received their reply: a two-page certified letter from their attorney.

The letter claims that CCSB purchased Herreshoff's "plans and molds" for the 12-1/2, the "exclusive right" to build the design and to use the name "Herreshoff 12-1/2," and the right to advertise themselves as the "exclusive builders" of the 12-1/2. (Funny thing about those "plans:" they keep telling people that plans don't exist!)

The key paragraph reads as follows: "If you do persist in attempting to misappropriate Cape Cod Shipbuilding's H 12-1/2 property rights, we will assert all rights that we have against you and hold you liable for damages which may be incurred by Cape Cod Shipbuilding, including, but not limited to, remedies under applicable state and federal copyright, trademark, and unfair competition laws."

It's clear from the letter that they're aware of the discussion in this forum, so I won't talk further here about my intentions. I will say this: the story is far from over.

[ 01-16-2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[ken mcclure]

Hmm. So call it something else.

Maybe the "I 12 1/2"

[Donn]

http://www.poster.net/picasso-pablo/picasso-pablo-don-quixote-2405070.jpg

[rbgarr]

Your nickel, Steve.

[WBW]

Don Quijote rides again!!!!

[Meerkat]

Two questions are of importance.

1. When did Herreshoff design the H 12-1/2?

2. When did CCSB purchase the rights.

If both dates are before 1923 or 1926, there's no issue - the copyright expired on the 50th anniversary of Mr Herreshoff's death.

If the rights purchase occurred after '23 or '26, then it can depend on whether or not the copyright itself was transfered, or merely an exclusive license. If it was only an exclusive license and the original copyright was before '23 or '26, then the rights expired on the 50th anniversary of Mr. Herresoff's death. If it was a transfer of a copyright made before '23 or '26, a transfer of rights does not increase the duration of the copyright. After '23 or '26, it's valid until at least 2018 since congress increased the after-death copyright limit to 70 years.

It's interesting to note that CCSB doesn't claim that they have the right to sell plans according to what you posted. At the very least, it doesn't sound like they're entirely forthcoming about exactly what their property rights are.

The quibble on whether it's 1923 or 1926 is because I don't recall the exact year covered by the '96 federal copyright extension.

I'm not a lawyer - don't procede on this advise. You should seek a qualified IP Rights lawyer. I've covered what I'm fairly sure is true, but even without being a lawyer, I can think of a few twists that could change the situation.

[Steve Paskey]

Meerkat: NGH designed the 12-1/2 in 1914. CCSB's website and other sources indicate that the deal with Herreshoff Mfg. took place in 1947.

[ 01-17-2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[Keith Wilson]

Interesting. From the part of the letter you're quoting, it appears they are only claiming rights to the exclusive use of the name "Herreshoff 12-1/2". I think (and again, I'm very far from an expert) that this falls under trademark protection law, which is another kettle of fish entirely. There is nothing in the part of the letter you quoted that asserts that they can prevent you from selling plans or building boats under any other name, just that they purchased plans and molds, which is of course true. If you'd like to post the entire text, it might be interesting.

From what little I know of trademark law, I think they may be correct about their rights to the name. Enlightenment from the knowledgeable would be welcome.

[On Vacation]

How many plans will it take to pay for proving a point? Try cruising the many sites of plans online. Check out the many claims of a better boat in the same lines. Try taking a tape measure to many of the fiberglass ones and tell me the difference.

[Jana Shaw]

Steve of la Mancha,

I will be here on the sidelines cheering you on. I would offer to contribute to your legal defence, but the best I can offer you is safe refuge here in Canada if you decide to flee.

I wonder if you did this as an incorporated business if that would protect you personally from any liability. Only the profits (if any) from this venture would be unprotected.

Cheers,

Jana

[Alan D. Hyde]

Although I can see two sides to this matter, and am not entirely convinced as to who is in the right, more of Herreshoff's designs should be built: they honor his memory.

Consider how to make this venture pay for itself. Are there commercially successful enterprises with similar interests with whom you can ally yourself, who may help defray part or all of the expense? Or should you simply call it a "Cap'n. Nat 12 1/2" and claim only that it was "inspired by" the Herreshoff design?

I don't have any silver bullet answers: just the questions.

If you wish to be lucky with this, remember Max Aitken's favorite saying: "Men who are always lucky are men who leave little to chance."

Consult with sympathetic counsel learned in these matters.

Alan

[ 01-17-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[ishmael]

While sympathetic to the aims I perceive, I wonder if there isn't a less confrontational way to go about this.

You want to draw up and market plans for builders of wooden 12 1/2's. That wouldn't seem to cut into the business of the keepers of the keys, much if at all. Why not negotiate a deal, whereby you could do just what you propose (except, perhaps, use the exact name, but you could include in your literature that this is identical to the original boat). You could even throw a sop -- given that you've likely alienated the hell out of them at this point -- whereby their firm would be mentioned in your study plans, for those wanting a glass boat.

At this point they're just PO'd; it has cost them money that they probably would just as soon not spend on a lawyer. That always gets my back up!

It also feels like you enjoy the legal cocksmanship a bit too much, and might need to pause and consider other ways. ;)

My two cents.

Jack

[ 01-17-2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Mike Keers]

This is only slightly off topic, but I wanted to relate this over in the longer discussion, and never got around to it.

I documented the history of one of the pioneers in fiberglass sailboat construction for a magazine, and there's an interesting parallel in that story, but since I wasn't sure how copyright laws may or may not have changed over the years, I didn't bother posting sooner.

In this case, back in the late 50's, there was a wooden boatbuilder in SoCal, and he approached a company making fiberglass camper shells, shower stalls, etc, with the idea of producing the boats in fiberglass. A deal was struck, and a mold was taken off the wooden hull--'splashed' is the term. The arrangement was that the FG people would cast the parts, and deliver them to the wooden boat builder who would assemble and finish the hulls, and sell them under his name. Also, the FG manufacturer had the right to sell the boat as well, and in fact, contracted with the wooden yard to finish out their boats, and sell tehm under the same name. A marriage made in heaven it seemed.

To cut a long story a bit shorter, there was a falling out, and the wooden boat people splashed their own molds from one of the fiberglass boats and started casting their own parts. The fiberglass people started assemblimg the boats themselves, and selling them under a different name.

There was soon a lot of ugly legal stuff and lawsuits about designs and intellectual property rights and each accused the other of some type of theft, and the case ended up in court of course. The FG people's position was that they had made the fiberglass molds, and owned them, so they owned the rights to the fiberglass version (the wooden boat crowd had stolen the 'design' from them is effect, by making their own molds from a fiberglass hull). The wooden boat designer-builder maintained the design itself belonged to him, and the FG people 'stole the design' and could not produce a boat made to that design.

The judge ruled--and since I don't know how the laws may have changed since the sixties, and don't really care, which is why I never bothered to tell this tale before--the judge ruled that (to paraphrase as accurately as I can) "a person could take a Corvette, and splash a mold from the body. The person could then proceed to build and sell cars with that body, he just couldn't call them Corvettes". GM would have no recourse in this case, nor could they expect compensation. The fiberglass mold was in effect a new creature, and the FG people did own the rights to it. There was no rights attached to the actual design--the 'shape'itself that is.

In the actual boat case, both sides continued to build fiberglass versions of this design, but the fiberglass company made some minor design changes, not to please the designer, but to differentiate their versions for marketing purposes.

I think the whole issue here is whether or not you want to claim the boat 'IS' a 12-1/2, or is 'based on it', or dervied from it. If it was me, I would have quietly taken the lines, drawn my own new plans, and said it was 'inspired' by the 12-1/2. You get all in CCSB's face, they gonna get back in yours I'm thinking.

I'm not going to get into any sort of debate over the merits or lack of same here, and I don't even know if the law has changed to stop stuff like this. I do know it was common practise for FG boat companies to splash competitors' hulls and produce their own differently named versions in the haydays of early SoCal fiberglass boat building. This case cited above gave everyone the legal go ahead in fact.

[Ian McColgin]

Cape Cod Shipbuilding appears most distressed that it may be called a Herrishoff. Think how much more interesting it gets if someone did a careful reconstruction of Herrishoff Manufactoring methods and scantlings (publicly available) such that one could fairly accuratly recreate the original - a lot more closely than a glass boat.

I don't see how they could stop one person on any project but there might be some interest at the sale of the boat or the sale of the book and plans . . .

I've mixed vibes on this as I believe deeply in honoring a creator, but I can't see people who didn't even do the creative work squating like greedy dragons on what they take to be their treasure.

[BrianR]

I would arm myself with more information before I made the next move. Why not thank them for their response, inform them that you have no intention to violate their rights, and ask them to send you a copy of the contract and assignment papers? It could well be that they are bluffing - or that they don't really understand what they bought......

The letter is clearly a knock-off, a standard form letter like those I send out of my office all the time. It is interesting that they have not provided you anything to substantiate your postion....

can't hurt to ask anyway....

[Michael]

Steve, if it goes the way of a class action lawsuit, I would like to offer that I myself have experienced an extreme amount of pain and suffering on this issue. My wife has threatened to leave me if I don't build her a H 12 1/2 and I have been reprimanded at work for spending too much time on this forum and wallpapering my quasi-cubicle with photos of this vessel.

Just forward me a check...

[Keith Wilson]

CCSB is not a very big company - 19 people in '99, and I'd bet thay don't have any excess cash to spend on lawyers. I would not feel good about anything that would do them damage; they make some of the nicest fiberglass boats around. And even though there isn't a little R next to Herreshoff 12-1/2 in their literature, it does look like they have a legal (and IMHO moral) right to the use of the name as a trademark. "Herreshoff 12-1/2" is as recognizable as "McDonald's hamburgers" among this crowd anyway, and they've been making them for a long time.

OTOH, if freshly drawn plans were not maketed using the trademark, labeled something like "Drawn from measurements of "Shadow", built in 1921 by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company of Bristol, RI", and listed CCSB as a source for fiberglass 12-1/2s, I can't see that it harms them at all.

[ 01-17-2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

When did Herreshoff die?

[htom]

[sigh]

12.5' = 150" or 381 mm

Buzzard Bay Boy's Boat -> B^4 150 or Before 381

Why are we trying to pick a fight with a company that's making a good boat, even if it is made in that other material? Geesh, if someone gave me one in good condition I'd keep it.

[Keith Wilson]

Nathaniel Greene Herreshoff 1848-1938

[Meerkat]

Well then, the copyright on the H 12-1/2 will expire in 1938+70 = 2008

[rbgarr]

Not to be a nit-picker, but it's spelled Nathanael.

[Keith Wilson]

Oops, sorry about the misspelling.

Meerkat - With all respect, we went over this in excruciating detail a couple of weeks ago.

Patents apply to ideas for useful things. Copyright applies to artistic works. Trademarks are things that identify one's product. There is a provision of the new copyright law that expands copyright protection to vessel hull designs in certain very limited circumstances, none of which apply to the 12-1/2. Other boat hull designs are not covered by copyright law.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Well the offer of refuge in Richmond hill is good... hence the first word in the name .. ya folla? :D

[Bayboat]

Did I miss something? Who sez that Capt. Nat, Herreshoff Manufacturing Co., or Haffenreffer ever held a copyright for H12.5 plans or design?
Who sez that CCSB bought a copyright along with the plans, molds, patterns, etc. they received from Haffenreffer? Just asking, not entering the debate.

[Steve Paskey]

Thanks to all who've offered support and refuge. (Keep the light on for me. ;) ) There's a certain irony in Donn's reference to Man of La Mancha -- I'd love to use the name of Don Quixote's mule, but ROZINANTE is already taken.

Brian: Your suggestion is excellent, but that's what I did in the first letter. I said very clearly that I had no intention of violating their rights, and that I wouldn't proceed if they could persuade me that creating and distributing plans based on lines and offsets from an original wooden hull would violate their rights. I also said that before I could be persuaded, I would like to see the contract and other relevant documents. You can judge their response for yourself:

"Be assured that CCSB has written documentation sufficient to support its claim. Your unilateral demand that we provide you with copies of CCSB's confidential and proprietary company documents does not create any duty on our part to do so."

Going back to the first quote: notice they don't actually SAY that they have any rights under copyright or trademark law. They simply say that they'll assert 'em if they've got 'em. As Brian said, it's a form letter, and if they paid for it they shouldn't have paid much.

I do appreciate Jack's comments: there's no need for this to land in court, and I'd be quite happy to work out a reasonable agreement. It remains to be seen whether CCSB is willing to do that.

[ 01-18-2003, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[On Vacation]

Twenty dollars of nothing is nothing. Twenty dollars received of extrotion money from your work is new found money. A crew of 19 employees building fiberglass boats, and how many are they building, and if the rights even run out in 2008, there is no selling the plans. After this issue, if they attempt to sell plans, the publicity may or may not discourge people from buying them?? Don't know. How much money each way would be spent? Send another letter with an fascilime intent check and contract for their attorneys to look at. That always get attorneys attention.

P.S. I have been on the end of CCSB in a lose way.

[ 01-18-2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

[rbgarr]

Oyster- Could you say that again a bit more clearly ? I don't follow you.

Steve- If CCSB sent you a form letter, how can you tell they've been following the threads here? Of course, my unilateral demand that you reveal the contents of the letter doesn't create any obligation on your part to do so. :D

[ 01-18-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: rbgarr ]

[On Vacation]

This company is receiving nothing from this design and it appears that plans don't exist for this boat. IS that correct? Then this company is loosing money from this great name, copywright or anything in between that exist. Someone here is willing to take it upon himself to create this product on his on time and at his own expense. How can any business be so blind not to see that this would be blind dividend without lifting a hand. The company has new found money of royalties in the name of a great compromise with Steve. If a 12' set of plans sell for about 100 dollars, then just pay them a 20 dollars royalty.

With no time comsuming and expensive litigation, its money in the bank. It appears that they are just sitting on whatever that exists and making nothing on the name or design. One thing for sure, these boats will never be mass produced in wood for a huge margin. Those days are gone forever, for many reasons.

[ 01-18-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Wonderfully put Oyster excellent business idea. It seems simple enough to me join rather than divide. I would love a set of plans if only to dream. Which is what most of us do with the plans we have. I look at mine as maps of my dreams. Truly works of art boat plans are.

[Meerkat]

Keith; whether or not the hull or hull lines are protected by copyright, the _plans_ drawn by Mr. Herreshoff would be covered by copyright. One could not sell copies of those plans without violating copyright law. If one drew up another set of plans, not derived directly(!) from Mr. Herreshoff's, then that particular creative expression (particular expressions are what copyrights protect) would be also protected by copyright law to the favor of whoever drew up the new set of plans. Making copies of those would be similarly protected (and more so if the copyright is registered).

It begins to sound more and more like CCSB has nothing but bravado and bluster going for them.

[Wiley Baggins]

What purpose is served by this confrontation? Fiberglass boats are available for those who do not wish to build in wood, and plans are available (http://web.mit.edu/museum/policies/access2.html) for those that wish to build in wood to the original specifications.

Edit [Apparently, complete plans are not available. Given that, I stand by my comments in the Copyrights for boat hulls (Herreshoff 12-1/2 and etc.) thread.]

[ 02-04-2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Wiley Baggins ]

[reddog]

Oyster;
I may be wrong,but,I believe plans are available for the 12 1/2.The table of offsets is blacked out.
Earl

[On Vacation]

Well, I am a little confused at the fuss, then. Is it that people that build small boats of that size are complaining about not being able to build off the incomplete plans? Is that what all the fuss has been about? Thats easy to correct.

There is nothing wrong and illegal with buying plans without the offsets, and paying someone to loft them out if its not possible to to do it themselves. If a person buys the plans and does the lofting, what is the difference of paying some else to do the job. What is Steve going to provide in his attempt to do lines of this boat?

I can do the lofting in about two hours on a boat of that size. You will have about 150 dollars in the complete project if the plans sell for as much as 100 dollars. NO rocket science to it.The first set takes the longest and after that it requires about thirty minutes to do a duplicate set of frames or jigs forms.

Someone please explain to me the fuss. We ae not building the Titanic. Maybe I am really thickheaded.

[ishmael]

I'm completely confuse now too. Seems a lawyer is needed to sort it out, dammit.

[On Vacation]

If the plans are for sale, you don't need a lawyer to build this boat. All you need is a little smarts or a little bit of money. Way to simple. There has to be more to this story. I won't go into the problem I ran into with regards to design, but there is too much made out of this issue if plans are avaliable.

[Tomcat]

I agree that by some measures this is a big fuss about nothing. Steve has his opinion about his rights, and also about how he would like to proceed. As regards the latter he would like to measure from a boat hull, rather than generate offsets from a lofting which I tried to convince him would be just fine in the other thread. I'm fine with his prefering to follow another path. And since he is a lawyer, I have no intention of trying to clarify all that for him.

The other point is that if this thing ends up clarifying the rights in planbuilder's favour, then a person using Steve's plans will feel fully free to produce these things in wood for sale. That would seem the ultimate compliment to the design.

[Steve Paskey]

Let's back up a minute. Mystic Seaport sells line drawings with the offsets blacked out. Those are the only "plans" available for the 12-1/2. MIT doesn't have any. (And, until they sent their letter to me, CCSB had repeatedly insisted that they don't have any plans either.)

If the goal is to produce the most faithful set of lines and offsets possible, there are two options. One is to measure a boat, loft it, and record the corrected offsets. The other is to measure the drawings from Mystic, scale it up, loft it, and record the results.

Which would be more accurate? If you measure the boat, you preserve any changes to the shape of that particular hull over the years (and your own errors in taking the measurements), except to the extent that they're smoothed out during lofting. If you measure the drawings, you preserve any changes to the hull that was measured and drawn, plus any errors made by those who produced the drawings. And those errors -- plus any errors in your own measurements -- get scaled up eight times or so.

Seems to me that measuring the boat is likely to be more accurate. Then again, the WB construction plans (with offsets) for Albert Strange's canoe yawl Wenda were created by measuring from published lines and redrawing the boat.

If you just want to build one boat for yourself, working from Mystic's plans is probably the way to go. However, if you're going to create and distribute full construction plans, there are other considerations. First, I wouldn't want to see anyone sell construction plans based on the drawings from Mystic without their approval, even if the drawings are not copyrighted. Second, anyone who creates and distributes plans will have to contend with the threat of legal action from CCSB, regardless of whether they measure a boat or the drawings from Mystic. But if the plans are based on Mystic's drawings, you'd risk having Mystic dragged into the dispute.

[ 01-19-2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[On Vacation]

Comment:
To me, IMHO, and experience would be to take the boat, do the lines, loft the boat full size, do offsets as near as possible and then produce your own set of plans. I am assuming that you have a boat to do this from? You have not, at that point sold anything to anyone. If it is your passionate desire to do this with upmost dignity and respect, you have not done anything wrong by doing this.

Many people, in a total update of many older boats will pattern off pieces of original boats and will keep the patterns and shapes in their garages or shops. Many family members have found many of these in a cleanout of houses after a family member's death.

At this time I would present the offer of royalty to CCSB. I am not an attorney, but have seen this done and have never heard of any legal case involving any redos of existing well known boats in the industry.

Ther is a company that advertises in Wooden Boat that is doing a cold mould Chris Craft, I think. You may wish to check this out and see how they handled this matter with any Chris Craft relatives or business related members in this issue.

Just to help me think through this issue, what is the draw to this issue? Maybe if you can explain this , I can have a better idea of how to address this matter. I was approached a couple years ago about the Chesepeake 20 in wood. I spoke to Hartge from Annapolis about this to a dead end street. I am not sure what goes through some of these minds in these businesses. That is another boat that has a following of loyal owners.

[ 01-19-2003, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

[Tomcat]

They are only more faithfull if you can accertain with certanty that the boat was built to spec (which you don't have, obviously) and has not changed dimensionaly in however many years. If there are any changes, then the erors in newly lifted plans will be fairly gross. For instance hogged timbers, or slackened fastenings, or wood that started out 1/16" too thick.

What you have to deal with with the lines drawing is basicaly measuring erors, so you can snug an accurate plan from those, it might not be exactly what Nat put on paper though. If, However, the lines can't be trusted, in other words if the plans offered by Mystic aren't to scale, just nice wallhangers, then there is a problem with those also.

Is it truly the case that nobody, no scholar for instance, can actualy get the offsets? That would seem a bit of a loss. If Mystic is blocking them out, then it would seem that they are still available in their collection. One wonders who has access to them. If Mystic is public, or take public money or benefits, and there isn't a copyright (etc..) issue then one wonders what right they have to sit on them. Some while back, there was speculation that they whited out the offsets in deference to the Clorox 12.5 people. But that was an assumption. Maybe they just need more money put in front of them, or their cage rattled, to shake loose the offsets.

[On Vacation]

In the past life of old timers in the design business, table of offsets had a slight tendancy to have numbers that were a little "off the mark" as you could say. That is the main reason for lofting in the older days. Sounds like a lot of fuss to me. Selling plans for a 12 foot boat is a limited profit bearing business. Its a great surplus, but there is more after the sale than sometimes the initial shipping of the plans.

Steve, is it your intent to gain the rights for future sale of the design, maybe? I would go a step further with someone to look at the overall potential P&L in a five year business plan of sales of only plans.

[Tomcat]

I don't think this is a profit thing.

I have done deals with builders, but I don't think that would make sense here since at heart the idea is that CCSB is no longer in possesion of exclusive rights (not my opinion, but part of the issue here as far as I can tell).

I agree that CCSB could probably make 20 bucks a plan or whatever, but evidently that isn't worth giving up their exclusive producer title.

[On Vacation]

I would never think they would give up any right. But in the time being , name or design in making them nothing. It might be fun for Steve, but can you even break even on plans? Many times here, we read about not being to speak to the designer or sales person on plans purchased. Can Steve handle the questions, or who will do this? This is a royal pain in the rear to deal with when selling plans to every joe blow stareyed backyard builder. I'm done.

[Bayboat]

Not being a "sea lawyer," I can't take sides nor add anything constructive to this debate. But I think it's mighty sad that there might not ever be any more wooden H12-1/2's built with the name "Herreshoff 12 1/2." It is just about the finest small boat design ever drawn, and the wooden version with that name should not die out. It's never pleasant when something beautiful and with such an illustrious history is being haggled over.

[ 01-20-2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Bayboat ]

[John Gearing]

Might I suggest that anyone contemplating reverse engineering a 12 1/2 might benefit from contacting these folks:
http://www.hardingsails.com/page10.html

What you will find at this site is another manufacturer of fiberglass 12 1/2s! So the question is: how does HE do it? Now, the backstory, as I understand it. Bill Harding had some fine experiences sailing wooden 12 1/2s. Some years ago ( I think I have seen Doughdishes advertised in Nat'l Fisherman for well over 20 years) he got the idea of making them in fiberglass. Yeah, verily, CCSB owned the "rights" and tooling. But, at that time, CCSB wasn't building the 12 1/2. Rather, they were building a slightly different version known as a Bullseye. Harding faired up a wooden 12 1/2 hull and used it to create a mold for his fiberglass version. According to Harding and to reviewers, his Doughdishes are about as close to the originals as you can get for a fiberglass boat.

I think it would be instructive for someone to contact Bill Harding and find out what his experience has been regarding CCSB and intellectual property law. I note that while Harding's boats are called "Doughdishes",his website copy makes clear that they are reproductions of Herreshoff 12 1/2s.

And by the way....check out Harding's "Stuart Knockabout"! http://www.hardingsails.com/page11.html

[fergie]

I ordered the 12 1/2 'NETTLE' plans from Mystic a while back. I just pulled them out last night to take a look. They are pretty nice, but as mentioned somewhere in the threads, the offsets are blacked out. I also found a note included with the plans that states that for permission to build, contact CCSB. If permission is granted, Mystic can then fill the order for the offsets.

[Billy Bones]

"First, I wouldn't want to see anyone sell construction plans based on the drawings from Mystic without their approval, even if the drawings are not copyrighted."

Why, for heaven's sake? In going to such extremes to recreate a very specific boat, you are obliged to be faithful to the original concept and only obliquely to the designer as a matter of homage, assuming the copyright has truely expired.

I am beginning to see why Joel White went to such extremes to design the Haven and Flatfish. Not only are they both very close cousins to the originals, but they are also legally speaking sufficiently unique as to clearly not infringe on the original design.

As an aside I have seen and gone over extensively one of CCSBs H12.5s and was decidedly unimpressed. That experience and this together provide a 'window into the soul' of a company we'd all be better off without.

[Keith Wilson]

As a complete aside, the name of Don Quixote's horse (Sancho Panza had a mule, or perhaps a donkey?) is a pun in Spanish. "Rocin" is an old word for a bad horse, something like "worn-out nag", and "ante" of course means before, previously. Hence Rocin-ante, she was a nag before, and is now transformed by Don Quixote's fantasy. Maybe a better name for a resurrected fishing boat than L. F. Herreshoff's masterpiece, but who am I to quibble?

[TomRobb]

Perception is everything. Or so I hear.
A galant steed for a great and noble knight, says I.

[ 01-21-2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: TomRobb ]

[fair&fair]

I know this is going to come as a shock here....but what's the fuss? Steve, why try to produce "the most accurate set of plans possible"? Who cares? Mystic offers a perfectly good set, and then of course there is the Haven, which is a decent boat which looks the part just fine. To be honest, I've never understood why people go so beserk over the 12 1/2. Sailing one of those things is about as exciting driving a dodge K car.

[johnw]

Why does Mystic black out the offsets? Isn't it because they don't want people building to the plans? Do they specifically prohibit building to the plans? If they are providing plans for builders with the intention of having boats built, this would be extremely excentric. Did they get threatened? I'd like to see ccsc selling plans & offsets with the stipulation that they are only for wood construction, and I don't agree that we'd be better off without the company.

[Bayboat]

Dear Fair&fair:
On an H 12-1/2, that pole sticking up near the front is the mast, the thingys like bedsheets hanging from it are the sails. The stick in the back part is the tiller, with which you steer the boat. If you pull on the right ropes, the boat will go. Now that you know these things, try sailing one again--you might like it. :D :D tongue.gif Cheers, Clint.

P.S.: What the fuss is about is that the old wooden H 12-1/2 is just about the best, if not the best, small boat design ever drawn, in the judgment of many wooden boat people who know what they're talking about. I've probably sailed close to a hundred different kinds of boats, from El Toros to an M-boat and schooners over 100'. Among boats under 20' I find the H 12 1/2 just about the finest sailer and the most fun to sail.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: Bayboat ]

[fergie]

JohnW, On the Mystic plans it states that "the sale of these plans does not convey any permission to build, construct, manufacture or sell any boat, or use the name Herreshoff, Nathaniel G Herreshoff, Capt. Nathanial Herreshoff, Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, or any derivatives thereof for any purpose."...plus it says you can't copy or reproduce the plans.

I guess they are for study only and/or for building scale models. However, from the above language, it doesn't really say anything about the size of the boat either.

[ErikH]

Well, good luck. In general lit sounds like you should win.

i have to agree with fair andfair though... not that the 12 1/2 isn't a great boat, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 15. Now THAT'S a great boat--for those of us who like pointy boats, that is ;)

[Billy Bones]

You mean one of these? Now that's a pretty boat. Just the thing I've been looking for too. Thanks for the tip, EricH!

http://www.marinebrokerage.com//info/data/24herreshoff15.jpg

[Bayboat]

Yep, the fifteen is also a great boat. Billy: is the one pictured a Cape Cod Shibbuilding plastic version? I wonder if there is the same mess about building a wooden fifteen as with the H 12 1/2?

[Pete Dorr]

I don't think anyone builds the 15's in production.

link (http://www.marinebrokerage.com/cgi-bin/data.cgi/24herreshoff15)

I like the gaff version of anything including the 12.5, 15, 25 ...

Pete

[ 01-24-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Pete Dorr ]

[Bayboat]

I gather that Cape Cod Shipbuilding did not purchase the exclusive rights to the "Herreshoff 15 (E Class)" from the Haffenreffers...?

[ 01-24-2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Bayboat ]

[Steve Paskey]

In the "history" section of their web site, CCSB claims that they purchased exclusive rights to all Herreshoff Mfg. Co. boats under 30 feet.
Incidentally, according to a broker's page I looked at, the 15 in that photo is a wooden boat built in 1996 by Bull House Boat Works in Kenebunk, Maine.

[ 01-24-2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[Bayboat]

Cape Cod Shipbuilding's claim that they purchased the rights to all Herreshoff designs under 30 feet (according to Steve Paskey's post, above) does not agree with the statement in "Guide to the Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection" published by the Hart Nautical Collections of MIT:
"A small number of designs are restricted. The original plans/offsets for four designs: S-class [first one #828], Fishers Island One-Design [first one #1212], Buzzards Bay 12 1/2 foot-class [the "Herreshoff 12 1/2," first one #744] and a 14 foot design, FARO [#1133, only one built and shipped to Racine, WI], were purchased in 1948 by the Cape Cod Shipbuilding Co., of Wareham, MA."

This would seem to explain why Bull House Boat Works can build and sell a wooden "Herreshoff 15 (E Class)" without being hassled by CCSB..?

[ 01-25-2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Bayboat ]

[John Gearing]

From the Center for Wooden Boats website CWB homepage (http://www.crb.org) here's a nice shot of their 73 year old H 12 1/2:

http://www.cwb.org/images_boats/Sara.jpg

[ 01-26-2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: John Gearing ]

[TomRobb]

As of las fall CWB's 12 1/2 is in the shop for an extensive rebuild.

[ErikH]

Well, a company in Rhode island built Watch Hill 15s, which were a H15 hull in FG, with a Marconi rig. thay're actually a great boat and perhaps superior for singlehanding since they have no running backstays--we used to have a 1935 H-15 and in decent winds it took two to switch the runners quickly and manage the jib and main when you changed tacks.

When I was last at that boatyard, about 6 years ago, they still had the H-15 hull mold lying around, though they didn't seem to be building any. Sigh. I miss our H-15 and want to buy her back but I can't afford to buy (or fix) her.... it's painful, because I drive by her owner's lawn often and she just lies under a tarp where she's been for years. Aapparently he can't afford to fix her, either). Best boat I've ever sailed. Hopefully I'll finish grad school, get a good job, and buy her back before he either gets money to fix her or sells her to someone else ;)