OK - here's my dissection FWIW
--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, JAMES GALLANT <middlearthling@...> wrote:
>
>
> Please feel free to correct me if I am incorrect in any of the
> following.
>
> Anyone can make a panel for their own use without royalty.
Yup - absolutely right.
> T. White's rotary design is an FPD file that can be found in the
> files section of this group and is for purchasing a professional
> quality panel from Front Panel Express - Schafer.
>
> T. White has given permission to Bridechamber for use of this
> design for a run of panels. These will presumably be painted and
> screened and therefore somewhat different in appearance from the
> FPD panels. There may be some other tweaks too.
This has been my assumption.
> S. Stites did the actual design of the Klee circuitry and I assume > that he (or E-M) own the rights to the Klee name and that E-M dot
> com is the only authorized source for the PCB's.
This is also to my understanding
> It is my understanding that the panel royalty kicks in due to the
> fact that Bridechamber is a for profit business which takes him
> outside of the personal use arena.
No - this is wrong. No "royalty" is applicable because, presumably, the originator of the panel design, Thomas White, has given Scott Deyo permission to use the design.
There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE" but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to register the term, or so I understand.
> Therefore Mr. Deyo needs and deserves to get something in return
> for his time and trouble beyond all of the thanks and praise that
> we heap upon him.
This is the nature of American Capitalism.
> As a result, since Scott D. will make (a tiny amount of) money off
> of this effort, it follows that Scott S. (aka E-M) who is the owner
> of the source intellectual property should reap some benefit too.
No - this is not correct. Whereas Mr. Stites completely deserves whatever he can get for the PCB, and deserves our praise and support for E-M, we paid for that already when we bought the PCB. That's the only point here.
If Mr. Stites had made an agreement with every buyer of the PCB such that, for instance, any panel made would mention the name KLEE and therefore owe him for the use of the name, then that separate agreement might take precedence over other aspects of the law - here I'm not really sure. I'd have to get my music/copyright/patent attorney on the phone.
Yes - and as Scott Warren just said, "A royalty obligation arises only if the owner of the intellectual property requires it in his terms of use, and of course only the owner could so require." Mr. White is the owner of the panel design.
So it's still conceivable that Scott Stites has some ownership of the name "KLEE." But, we're picking nits here.
I really want to make it clear that I'm in no way opposed to the support of E-M and Mr. Stites. Scott Stites has my deep admiration and support. A 20% donation to E-M is fine by me - in fact, it's great. And if Mr. Stites had needed more money for the PCB, I would have paid it in the first place.
As someone who makes a good deal of his living from real "royalties," I feel it's important to be clear about our terms here. There are no "royalties" owed - none at all - the law is crystal clear - so the term rankles. See what I mean?
It's not the money - it's the reasoning behind it that's essential.
Bill
>
>
> To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
> From: jason@...
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:04:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
>
>
>
>
>
> IMHO, the royalties for the Klee are paid when you buy the PCB.
> that's where the bottleneck is and should be.
>
> however, if people are willing to include a little extra for
> electro-music, then fair enough, but that should be an optional extra
> when you buy your panel. a little like funding campaign stuff from
> your taxes (ooh, topical).
>
> >That's what I was thinking too. Haven't others made panels for
> >their Klees? Are they expected to pay EM as well?
> >
> >-=john
>