[bolger] Rights and simplifying the world
Dept. Valiant Efforts:
Dear Pippo (since you asked), and all you folks who have taken it upon
themselves on the web to feed the 'Bolgeristi''s thirst for more
information, thanks for all that work. We hope you're having as much
fun as it looks. Good to see confirmed the spirit of voluntarism
helping out - at least until Bolger & F. get their own web-act
together...
Dept. 20/20 vision on 'RIGHTS':
Statement of Facts:
- WE HOLD THE INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS TO EVERY DESIGN/SET OF PLANS OF (-)
WE'VE EVER CONCOCTED.
- The late Elrow LaRowe commissioned a few designs to which he would
have the right to sell copies, but no exclusive rights. Part of the
agreement was for him to build a prototype to each design. That
responsibility was only partially met. Royalty payments were straight
though, as far as we remember.
- CSD (CSB?!) are the de facto successors to LaRowe with the right on a
very few designs to sell - NON-EXCLUSIVELY -, assuming the already
minimal royalty payments are met, which has NOT been the case for while.
- DUCKFLAT has in the past dealt with CSD in the fashion we've touched
on in earlier statements. We understand that they are selling
'versions' of our TENNESSEE and WYOMING designs. These versions are
NOT FROM US. They are NOT AUTHORIZED in any way. We draw no royalty
from them. And the name and creativity of Bolger are being 'taken for
a ride'- again. Since we will not pay for OUR plans, modified by
others, we'll likely never see how far they've gone to adulterate the
underlying concept of the two types. Is it ok. to do this? We don't
think we've never been asked!
Why are these people behaving this way? Your guess is as good as ours.
Phil has always been very generous and relaxed about making a hard
buck - look at the general design emphasis on affordability/doability.
Writing for SMALL BOAT JOURNAL and now MESSING ABOUT speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, instead of enjoying this friendly approach to business
and respecting it for the sake of peaceful creativity - here and in
your shop -, above mentioned parties seem to have felt the urge to
'expand the envelope' even further, hoping, with some success, that at
least for a while we won't see the whole picture - nor the public for
that matter! The approach is short-sighted, has in its various
iterations deeply violated Phil's sensibilities, has cost serious
income, and has cost legal fees.
We trust that 'world-wide' transparency will reduce the likelihood of
this continuing to any serious degree.
Are respective parties unhappy about this transparency? Certainly.
Some of the responses have been quite memorable - to put a good spin on
it... With few exceptions they have ranged from cheeky to absurd.
Some day we might share some 'golden chestnuts'!
We'd rather, there were no 'ugly under-belly' of respective
proceedings.
We all make mistakes, occasional errors in judgement. Fine. But if
their view of reality consistently clashes with facts and
responsibilities, it is worthy of note. If damaging behavior is done
with an air of apparent ease and self-styled matter of course, it gets
a bit much.
Nobody gets rich in this business - at least not yet... But if certain
broker's scheme is to make more from our labor than we'll ever do,
things get questionable.
We have spent endless time dealing with inquiries on plans of ours
bought elsewhere. We continue to have our name associated with
fourth-rate copies with our name on it. And,perhaps worst, is bad
counsel given to unsuspecting builders in respect to modification,
small to desastrous, causing ripples back to Gloucester - at least in
terms of yet another dumb bad boat out there, having often cost more
effort if not money than the good one... Having a Bolger boats on the
water that does not work well anymore is good for nobody. If we screw
up, we'll be quite upfront about it, as shown in print in the past.
But being associated with White Elephants is quite painful.
These brokers style of self-promotion using the name and work of Bolger
should not be misunderstood by anyone out there as good for us at PB&F
or as being muc good to any boat builder. The less such distractions we
have, the better for creativity and fun and games.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
- THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION ABOUT Dynamite Payson's INTEGRITY.
- THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION ABOUT WOODENBOAT's INTEGRITY.
To repeat:
We hold the intellectual right to every design we've ever concocted.
And nobody speaks for us. Nobody is authorized to speak for us.
Are we done with this subject of fundamentals ?! Is this a clean slate?
Dear Pippo (since you asked), and all you folks who have taken it upon
themselves on the web to feed the 'Bolgeristi''s thirst for more
information, thanks for all that work. We hope you're having as much
fun as it looks. Good to see confirmed the spirit of voluntarism
helping out - at least until Bolger & F. get their own web-act
together...
Dept. 20/20 vision on 'RIGHTS':
Statement of Facts:
- WE HOLD THE INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS TO EVERY DESIGN/SET OF PLANS OF (-)
WE'VE EVER CONCOCTED.
- The late Elrow LaRowe commissioned a few designs to which he would
have the right to sell copies, but no exclusive rights. Part of the
agreement was for him to build a prototype to each design. That
responsibility was only partially met. Royalty payments were straight
though, as far as we remember.
- CSD (CSB?!) are the de facto successors to LaRowe with the right on a
very few designs to sell - NON-EXCLUSIVELY -, assuming the already
minimal royalty payments are met, which has NOT been the case for while.
- DUCKFLAT has in the past dealt with CSD in the fashion we've touched
on in earlier statements. We understand that they are selling
'versions' of our TENNESSEE and WYOMING designs. These versions are
NOT FROM US. They are NOT AUTHORIZED in any way. We draw no royalty
from them. And the name and creativity of Bolger are being 'taken for
a ride'- again. Since we will not pay for OUR plans, modified by
others, we'll likely never see how far they've gone to adulterate the
underlying concept of the two types. Is it ok. to do this? We don't
think we've never been asked!
Why are these people behaving this way? Your guess is as good as ours.
Phil has always been very generous and relaxed about making a hard
buck - look at the general design emphasis on affordability/doability.
Writing for SMALL BOAT JOURNAL and now MESSING ABOUT speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, instead of enjoying this friendly approach to business
and respecting it for the sake of peaceful creativity - here and in
your shop -, above mentioned parties seem to have felt the urge to
'expand the envelope' even further, hoping, with some success, that at
least for a while we won't see the whole picture - nor the public for
that matter! The approach is short-sighted, has in its various
iterations deeply violated Phil's sensibilities, has cost serious
income, and has cost legal fees.
We trust that 'world-wide' transparency will reduce the likelihood of
this continuing to any serious degree.
Are respective parties unhappy about this transparency? Certainly.
Some of the responses have been quite memorable - to put a good spin on
it... With few exceptions they have ranged from cheeky to absurd.
Some day we might share some 'golden chestnuts'!
We'd rather, there were no 'ugly under-belly' of respective
proceedings.
We all make mistakes, occasional errors in judgement. Fine. But if
their view of reality consistently clashes with facts and
responsibilities, it is worthy of note. If damaging behavior is done
with an air of apparent ease and self-styled matter of course, it gets
a bit much.
Nobody gets rich in this business - at least not yet... But if certain
broker's scheme is to make more from our labor than we'll ever do,
things get questionable.
We have spent endless time dealing with inquiries on plans of ours
bought elsewhere. We continue to have our name associated with
fourth-rate copies with our name on it. And,perhaps worst, is bad
counsel given to unsuspecting builders in respect to modification,
small to desastrous, causing ripples back to Gloucester - at least in
terms of yet another dumb bad boat out there, having often cost more
effort if not money than the good one... Having a Bolger boats on the
water that does not work well anymore is good for nobody. If we screw
up, we'll be quite upfront about it, as shown in print in the past.
But being associated with White Elephants is quite painful.
These brokers style of self-promotion using the name and work of Bolger
should not be misunderstood by anyone out there as good for us at PB&F
or as being muc good to any boat builder. The less such distractions we
have, the better for creativity and fun and games.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
- THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION ABOUT Dynamite Payson's INTEGRITY.
- THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION ABOUT WOODENBOAT's INTEGRITY.
To repeat:
We hold the intellectual right to every design we've ever concocted.
And nobody speaks for us. Nobody is authorized to speak for us.
Are we done with this subject of fundamentals ?! Is this a clean slate?