Keycap designs and legal questions - help?

[Niomosy]

I'm going to be a bit lengthy in the first post as I've had all kinds of varying thoughts on both sides of this topic.  What are the legal rights with regard to keycap set design?  I'm speaking specifically of keysets, not artisan keycaps such as Clacks, Bro, etc.  This would be more for your typical set with associated color scheme and potential novelties.  The discussion popped up in an IC thread and that's really not the right place to have this discussion.  I thought creating a new topic here would be a better choice.

I'd like to delve into this matter a bit to get a better understanding of it as I've been working on a set design of my own and have wondered about the legalities one way or another on sets.  The topic has come up several times in discussion, typically regarding sets that won't be re-run because of designer request.  With my wife, an art design graduate, we've had some discussions on this and it's led me to questions on where sets fall within the legal realm.

What I've heard, both here and on other keyboard related sites, is that, as the set and various images for mock-ups, are a completed, it is a completed work and thus protected.  I've wanted to confirm this and while I've read that copyright law, which is typically agreed upon by much of the world via the Berne Convention, is that while there are works that are protected, there are also lists and descriptions of items that are not covered despite being completed works.

All I'm really looking for is an understanding one way or another as my research has merely led to more questions rather than answers.  Things like colorization of a product are specifically called out in US copyright law as uncopyrightable material.  Further reading has noted that patterns on clothing are not copyrightable.  The easy question is; has anyone submitted an official request for copyright of their set and, if so, what was the outcome?  Again, artisan caps are out of the equation here.  I'm looking more at something like PuLSe, Penumbra, etc.

Clarification on this one way or another would be wonderful.

[Hak Foo]

IANAL, but there's also very limited protection on the "functional" aspects of a design, font variations, and "familiar designs".  This is going to push most of the leycap labels off the table.  (Possibly some extremely weak case could be made for the fanciful legend choices in things like Galaxy Class-- calling Shift "Pattern Enhance" shows a minor degree of creativity, but does it rise to a level worthy of legal defense?)

The only things I could see being easily defensible on most keycap sets would be a very custom graphical legends-- something like the mountain graphic in that Alps modifier set, or the more exotic designs on the 23 Commando set.

[BrewCaps]

Signature Plastics will license your work and pay 5% royalty.

[Niomosy]

Signature Plastics will license your work and pay 5% royalty.

Sure, but that doesn't really answer the question of whether or not the work is copyright protected in the first place.

[rowdy]

Signature Plastics will license your work and pay 5% royalty.

Sure, but that doesn't really answer the question of whether or not the work is copyright protected in the first place.

I read somewhere that SP will refuse to make a set if it contains something that is trademarked or copyrighted.

[SpAmRaY]

There have been a few people who mostly copied others sets and in my opinion that is pretty crappy but typically that doesn't happen.

[njbair]

At the hobbyist level, this is more of an ethical concern than a legal one. At the corporate level, Chinese manufacturers simply have no reason to care about U.S. copyright law.

[rowdy]

It could also be a question of quantity and profit.

If I make one, say, Coke-themed keycap for my own personal amusement, no-one's going to care.

If I make 100 of them and give them away - that is distributing unauthorised merchandise.

If I make 1000 of them and sell them - that is making money off someone else's trademarked design.

[Niomosy]

In terms of sets, it sounds like they don't fall under protection and it's more a community thing in wanting to differentiate from others.  That makes more sense to me given the number of color combinations already out there produced by multiple companies. 

For novelties that are using material from others, the companies may just let it go for the free publicity.  It may also be items we associate with something but that don't actually fall under copyright (though that could just be a matter of luck than anything).

For SP, yes, it makes sense that they would not produce something with copyright material on it.  I believe that's why they review any images sent to them; the images are the copyright concern for them as those might contain copyrighted or trademarked material.

[SamirD]

At the hobbyist level, this is more of an ethical concern than a legal one. At the corporate level, Chinese manufacturers simply have no reason to care about U.S. copyright law.

This is the unfortunate and hard truth.  International laws don't respect copyrights, especially developing nations.

Case in point is the company Pit Bull who makes motorcycle stands.  They very carefully guard their prototypes, register all their copyrights and patents, and still find Chinese copies of their unreleased products within days of beta trials with motorcycle race teams, even when closely guarded.  The global economy has made copyright and patent law difficult to enforce outside the western nations.

As a photographer, I've had to do quite a bit of research into copyrights, copyright registration as well as infringement prosecution.  In the end, it's not too pretty in terms of photographs, and I'm sure similar rules will apply.  Although a product is more protected by a patent (which I've also had experience with, so I'll go into that in a bit).

Copyrights are automatically generated the second a work is created.  Technically, this post is copyrighted by me and is licensed to gh for free as a part of their terms and service agreement (as are all of our posts).  But because this post is not registered with the copyright office, there are limits to what remedies can be found through the legal process.  And then there's the 'innocent infringer' loophole that exist where someone can just say 'oops, my bad', and basically get off without any real penalty (been there, done that).  And people are ruthless about walking over authors of creative work.  I had a newspaper publish several of my photos on the cover of their sunday sports section without even a copyright statement.  When I contacted them about it, they stated they weren't going to do anything about it and that I could basically go f myself.

Patent law is better designed to protect an actual product vs a published work.  But a patent is very expensive.  The one patent attorney I know needed a minimum of $7500 to start the filing process.  And the key to a patent is to make it loose enough that derivative works get caught as infringement, but when it's too loose it gets thrown out as being too blanketing.  It's a delicate balance.  If there's any existing patents on keyboard sets (I didn't check), that would give you some idea on how one would need to be constructed.

Most patent applications require some sort of mockup of the product as well.  A one-off set of a key set would work to satisfy that particular requirement.

[Niomosy]

At the hobbyist level, this is more of an ethical concern than a legal one. At the corporate level, Chinese manufacturers simply have no reason to care about U.S. copyright law.

Copyrights are automatically generated the second a work is created.  Technically, this post is copyrighted by me and is licensed to gh for free as a part of their terms and service agreement (as are all of our posts).  But because this post is not registered with the copyright office, there are limits to what remedies can be found through the legal process.  And then there's the 'innocent infringer' loophole that exist where someone can just say 'oops, my bad', and basically get off without any real penalty (been there, done that).  And people are ruthless about walking over authors of creative work.  I had a newspaper publish several of my photos on the cover of their sunday sports section without even a copyright statement.  When I contacted them about it, they stated they weren't going to do anything about it and that I could basically go f myself.

I'd like to focus on your quote I've bolded.  That statement is not quite fully true.  The material must be copyrightable for that to be the case.  If the item in question is uncopyrightable, it would not receive copyright upon creation.  The US copyright site has a lot of info on items that are not copyrightable.

One that might be of importance to Oobly and those working on the new SA font, that I've noted in reading about copyright, is that the new font would not be copyright protected.  Typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are specifically called out as uncopyrightable.

[SamirD]

At the hobbyist level, this is more of an ethical concern than a legal one. At the corporate level, Chinese manufacturers simply have no reason to care about U.S. copyright law.

Copyrights are automatically generated the second a work is created.  Technically, this post is copyrighted by me and is licensed to gh for free as a part of their terms and service agreement (as are all of our posts).  But because this post is not registered with the copyright office, there are limits to what remedies can be found through the legal process.  And then there's the 'innocent infringer' loophole that exist where someone can just say 'oops, my bad', and basically get off without any real penalty (been there, done that).  And people are ruthless about walking over authors of creative work.  I had a newspaper publish several of my photos on the cover of their sunday sports section without even a copyright statement.  When I contacted them about it, they stated they weren't going to do anything about it and that I could basically go f myself.

I'd like to focus on your quote I've bolded.  That statement is not quite fully true.  The material must be copyrightable for that to be the case.  If the item in question is uncopyrightable, it would not receive copyright upon creation.  The US copyright site has a lot of info on items that are not copyrightable.

One that might be of importance to Oobly and those working on the new SA font, that I've noted in reading about copyright, is that the new font would not be copyright protected.  Typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are specifically called out as uncopyrightable.

What you're saying seemed like common sense as if it couldn't be copyrighted, it wouldn't get one at any point in time.

It is most definitely true in the US as long as the item is able to be covered under copyright law.  I've dealt with this legally so this part I'm pretty certain about it unless it has changed in the last 5 years.

[Niomosy]

At the hobbyist level, this is more of an ethical concern than a legal one. At the corporate level, Chinese manufacturers simply have no reason to care about U.S. copyright law.

Copyrights are automatically generated the second a work is created.  Technically, this post is copyrighted by me and is licensed to gh for free as a part of their terms and service agreement (as are all of our posts).  But because this post is not registered with the copyright office, there are limits to what remedies can be found through the legal process.  And then there's the 'innocent infringer' loophole that exist where someone can just say 'oops, my bad', and basically get off without any real penalty (been there, done that).  And people are ruthless about walking over authors of creative work.  I had a newspaper publish several of my photos on the cover of their sunday sports section without even a copyright statement.  When I contacted them about it, they stated they weren't going to do anything about it and that I could basically go f myself.

I'd like to focus on your quote I've bolded.  That statement is not quite fully true.  The material must be copyrightable for that to be the case.  If the item in question is uncopyrightable, it would not receive copyright upon creation.  The US copyright site has a lot of info on items that are not copyrightable.

One that might be of importance to Oobly and those working on the new SA font, that I've noted in reading about copyright, is that the new font would not be copyright protected.  Typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are specifically called out as uncopyrightable.

What you're saying seemed like common sense as if it couldn't be copyrighted, it wouldn't get one at any point in time.

It is most definitely true in the US as long as the item is able to be covered under copyright law.  I've dealt with this legally so this part I'm pretty certain about it unless it has changed in the last 5 years.

It may seem like a basic thing that uncopyrightable things aren't covered but I was reading on copyright and ended up on site that deals with clothing patterns, I believe.  The gist was that the site had plenty of dealings with people trying to claim copyright on things that were not copyrightable.  That or arguing that they were.  So now I'm a bit more careful with regard to that kind of discussion

[Oobly]

This is a very interesting topic and could well become a large and never-ending debate.

A set design is more than a colourway. It's specific colours used on specific keycaps with a specific profile per keycap, specific legends per cap, etc, and as such constitutes a "design". This set of choices is recognisable as a complete design and therefore is copyrightable. For instance, if I say "Hack'd by Geeks", people recognise and know that it's a sculpted SA profile set in 3-1-2-3-4 with Gorton Modified font, in GX, GE and OAS colours from Signature Plastics ABS colour range. It's a "thing" in the same way as a painting made by selecting particular colours and arranging them in particular positions on a canvas is a "thing", although it requires less skill to create and is more limited in the possible positions of colours and the actual colours that can be used.

However, it's not altogether relevant. In the real world it's all about how the designers and manufacturers use them. Allow me to elaborate:

SP recognises set designs as "designs". They separate and identify them that way. They require designers to sign documents licensing the design, etc. In this sense they recognise the designer's rights to a design, but they don't control the possibility of copying / plagiarism, they simply require that the designer is not breaching copyright with their design. This is up to the designer. If there is an actually registered copyrighted / trademarked element that they want to use in their design they are required to get a letter of permission from the copyright / trademark owner to create a derivative work. As long as this criterion is covered, they will make any design. An example is what's happened in 00Zero's Out of the Vault series 3. The Nuka Cola legend required a letter of permission which was refused... GB busted.

I am creating a new font to be used with SA keycaps. This font will not be copyrighted. It's a free and open thing, but SP will consider me the "owner" of the font if I submit and pay for the whole project. I plan to make all the contributors co-owners, at least in terms of control rights (any person who contributed to the cost can give permission for it's use). This is how SP does things. It doesn't stop some Chinese company copying the font and making keycaps with it, but if a designer uses it in their design and submits it to SP, SP will require permission for it to be used. I want to make this as open as possible, so it will be an inclusive agreement (still need to confirm how to do this in a legal way, but it shouldn't be too difficult), which means it requires only one person to give permission, even if some others refuse permission. This is to make it so one or two disgruntled "owners" can't prevent it being used by the community, as that is what we're creating it for.

In terms of designs and plagiarism, usually at the interest check stage, someone will mention any similar designs. Depending on the design similarity and the designers themselves, they will usually come to some sort of arrangement where nobody steps on the other's toes. This is a community-level process / discussion, no legalities involved. An example is what happened in the Classic Space IC. One of the original renders was very similar to Cospar / Godspeed. This similarity was noticed, mentioned and dealt with. Now we have two different designs, both moving forward, and designers (all three) happy with the designs and differences.

[SamirD]

It may seem like a basic thing that uncopyrightable things aren't covered but I was reading on copyright and ended up on site that deals with clothing patterns, I believe.  The gist was that the site had plenty of dealings with people trying to claim copyright on things that were not copyrightable.  That or arguing that they were.  So now I'm a bit more careful with regard to that kind of discussion

Gotcha.  I see where you're coming from now.  Makes sense.

I plan to make all the contributors co-owners, at least in terms of control rights (any person who contributed to the cost can give permission for it's use). This is how SP does things. It doesn't stop some Chinese company copying the font and making keycaps with it, but if a designer uses it in their design and submits it to SP, SP will require permission for it to be used. I want to make this as open as possible, so it will be an inclusive agreement (still need to confirm how to do this in a legal way, but it shouldn't be too difficult), which means it requires only one person to give permission, even if some others refuse permission. This is to make it so one or two disgruntled "owners" can't prevent it being used by the community, as that is what we're creating it for.

This is going to be a HUGE challenge.  I've seen issues just in normal Limited Liability Companies with multiple members--at some point it can go sour even after decades of everything being fine.  From what I recall, I don't think a company could be the 'rights holder', but if that is possible, then your solution is a bit easier--form a company, you're the appointed/elected member to represent the company, you word in your entity formation paperwork that all other members have equal say so in terms of design copyrights held by the entity, and that should do everything you want.  But I'd run this idea by two attorneys--one specializing in entity formation, and one specializing in intellectual property rights.

[Niomosy]

This is a very interesting topic and could well become a large and never-ending debate.

A set design is more than a colourway. It's specific colours used on specific keycaps with a specific profile per keycap, specific legends per cap, etc, and as such constitutes a "design". This set of choices is recognisable as a complete design and therefore is copyrightable. For instance, if I say "Hack'd by Geeks", people recognise and know that it's a sculpted SA profile set in 3-1-2-3-4 with Gorton Modified font, in GX, GE and OAS colours from Signature Plastics ABS colour range. It's a "thing" in the same way as a painting made by selecting particular colours and arranging them in particular positions on a canvas is a "thing", although it requires less skill to create and is more limited in the possible positions of colours and the actual colours that can be used.

For legal purposes, though, a set design is only the color.  The rest of what you describe is part of the keyboard itself which is considered a useful article and does not fall under copyright protection so the definitions of cap profile and font are not part of the copyright evaluation.  With regard to the law and copyright, the colorway is the only element considered for the keycap sets.  This ends up the big problem against us; the keyboard itself cannot be considered and US copyright seems protective of color, not wanting color usage locked up into monopolies.  See US copyright law section 906.8.

906.8 Functional and Useful Elements

The copyright law does not protect useful articles, utilitarian designs, or any functional portion of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. However, the decorative ornamentation on a useful article may be registrable if it is separable from the functional aspects of that article. For example, a lamp is a considered a useful article, because it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, namely, to provide lighting. By contrast, a three-dimensional floral design affixed to the base of a lamp or a two-dimensional garden design painted on a lamp shade does not have a useful purpose. The U.S. Copyright Office may register those design elements if they are separable from the functional aspects of the lamp and if they are sufficiently original and creative. Fabrica, Inc. v. El Dorado Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1983) (“if an article has any intrinsic utilitarian function, it can be denied copyright protection except to the extent that its artistic features can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art”).

For a general discussion of the legal standard for evaluating useful articles, see Section 924.

There's another problem.  Common geometric shapes aren't protected either.  See US copyright section 906.1.

906.1 Common Geometric Shapes

The Copyright Act does not protect common geometric shapes, either in twodimensional or three-dimensional form. There are numerous common geometric shapes, including, without limitation, straight or curved lines, circles, ovals, spheres, triangles, cones, squares, squares, cubes, rectangles, diamonds, trapezoids, parallelograms, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, and decagons. Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative.

Example:
Gloria Grimwald paints a picture with a purple background and evenly spaced white circles: The registration specialist will refuse to register this claim because simple geometric symbols are not eligible for copyright protection, and the combination of the purple rectangle and the standard symmetrical arrangement of the white circles does not contain a sufficient amount of creative expression to warrant registration.

The other problem we get into is that if we assume copyright does exist, color changes would not be sufficient differentiation for protection - colorization of black and white movies don't fall under separate copyright, for example, they're considered a derivative work.  Thus all keycap designs might be in violation of some older keyset.  Certainly those sets looking to copy the color of the C64 (Retro SA), Olivetti, and Data General Dasher colorways could be in definite copyright violation if sets are copyrightable.

There's an example from the US copyright in section 924 as well.

Colette Card registered a fabric design called “Baby Girl Fabric,” which contains a pink background with stylized images of cribs, rattles, and pacifiers. Colette then created a fabric design called “Baby Boy Fabric” that is identical to the “Baby Girl Fabric” design, except that the background color is blue instead of pink. Colette attempts to register the “Baby Boy Fabric,” disclaiming the prior registration for the “Baby Girl Fabric.” The registration specialist will refuse to register the blue variation because it is identical to the preexisting “Baby Girl Fabric” design aside from the mere change in background color.

The other side is that, possibly, some sets might get protection and some might not.  It does not appear that anyone has tried to submit for official copyright from their national copyright office.  If we had that, we might have a better scope of things.

[Oobly]

Very interesting, but it really doesn't matter. We don't register our designs for copyright and I can't see any reason why we should.

The profile CHOICE is part of the design, not the keycap shape itself. A geometric shape cannot be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them can, since it's art. In the same way, the keycap profile arrangement and font choice are part of the design. With either of these changed it is not the same design. They are an integral part of the work of art that is the set design.

Also, in most of Europe, typefaces can in fact be copyrighted. USA may actually be the only country that doesn't allow it. Anyway, just because the typeface itself is not copyrighted, it doesn't preclude any work that uses it from the same. It's a completely separate issue. It's the choice of font that matters, not whether the font itself has any legal copyright or not.

As I said, we can argue the issue on and on, but it's of no real consequence.

About the font ownership issue, again it's all about what the manufacturer deems sufficient, not a court of law. It could be as simple as "Hi Melissa, here's the list of contributors. Please allow any of them to give permission to use the font, regardless of denials from other contributors (except myself). I want the font to be used by the community." or as complex as a fully legal document drawn up by an attorney. Depends on what's good enough for SP. I put in the "except myself" clause in case of any possibly unforeseen future mess. I hope never to have to use it.

[SamirD]

About the font ownership issue, again it's all about what the manufacturer deems sufficient, not a court of law. It could be as simple as "Hi Melissa, here's the list of contributors. Please allow any of them to give permission to use the font, regardless of denials from other contributors (except myself). I want the font to be used by the community." or as complex as a fully legal document drawn up by an attorney. Depends on what's good enough for SP. I put in the "except myself" clause in case of any possibly unforeseen future mess. I hope never to have to use it.

If it's just clarity with the manufacturer, that's pretty easy.  Just have them execute their normal release documents with every single person that is authorized.  Then they simply check like they normally do for authority.  Doesn't matter to them if everyone knows each other or not.

[Niomosy]

Very interesting, but it really doesn't matter. We don't register our designs for copyright and I can't see any reason why we should.

The profile CHOICE is part of the design, not the keycap shape itself. A geometric shape cannot be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them can, since it's art. In the same way, the keycap profile arrangement and font choice are part of the design. With either of these changed it is not the same design. They are an integral part of the work of art that is the set design.

Also, in most of Europe, typefaces can in fact be copyrighted. USA may actually be the only country that doesn't allow it. Anyway, just because the typeface itself is not copyrighted, it doesn't preclude any work that uses it from the same. It's a completely separate issue. It's the choice of font that matters, not whether the font itself has any legal copyright or not.

As I said, we can argue the issue on and on, but it's of no real consequence.

About the font ownership issue, again it's all about what the manufacturer deems sufficient, not a court of law. It could be as simple as "Hi Melissa, here's the list of contributors. Please allow any of them to give permission to use the font, regardless of denials from other contributors (except myself). I want the font to be used by the community." or as complex as a fully legal document drawn up by an attorney. Depends on what's good enough for SP. I put in the "except myself" clause in case of any possibly unforeseen future mess. I hope never to have to use it.

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.  If we know for a fact a set has received copyright, we know that set cannot be touched and it means there's a stronger chance that similar designs would fall under protection.  Similarly, if a set is rejected for copyright, we know that it has no legal protection and can be copied at will, most likely meaning similar sets would end up in the same situation.  Thus, I contend that receipt of official copyright status is quite important.  In short, we should register them to see if they even qualify.

For profile, let me try to rephrase.  The keyboard is considered a Useful Article.  It is not considered in terms of copyright status of a work.  Only the artistic elements of the keyboard are considered.  As caps fall under Useful Article status, it is only their coloration that seems to qualify given the caps themselves are of standard and limited option.  The selection of which to use is much the same as the selection of font which is similarly not normally considered.

With regard to the font, some parts of Europe do seem to allow it.  Others have limitations and restrictions on that.  I believe Switzerland does not protect fonts.  Denmark seems to be mixed on it.  Even the US has some allotment for fonts under very specific guidelines but the tendency for the US and at least some European countries is to favor avoiding copyright on fonts and typography to keep them in the public domain.

[SamirD]

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.

While I agree with you that this would provide insight into the legalities, the practical truth is that it wouldn't matter since the enforcement is really the 800lb gorilla--no enforcement, no real copyright protection.

[Niomosy]

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.

While I agree with you that this would provide insight into the legalities, the practical truth is that it wouldn't matter since the enforcement is really the 800lb gorilla--no enforcement, no real copyright protection.

There is a sad truth there.  That's not even taking manufacturers in countries like China into the equation.  Though thus far they've been pretty mellow on cap production, sticking to the higher volume stuff.

[Oobly]

Very interesting, but it really doesn't matter. We don't register our designs for copyright and I can't see any reason why we should.

The profile CHOICE is part of the design, not the keycap shape itself. A geometric shape cannot be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them can, since it's art. In the same way, the keycap profile arrangement and font choice are part of the design. With either of these changed it is not the same design. They are an integral part of the work of art that is the set design.

Also, in most of Europe, typefaces can in fact be copyrighted. USA may actually be the only country that doesn't allow it. Anyway, just because the typeface itself is not copyrighted, it doesn't preclude any work that uses it from the same. It's a completely separate issue. It's the choice of font that matters, not whether the font itself has any legal copyright or not.

As I said, we can argue the issue on and on, but it's of no real consequence.

About the font ownership issue, again it's all about what the manufacturer deems sufficient, not a court of law. It could be as simple as "Hi Melissa, here's the list of contributors. Please allow any of them to give permission to use the font, regardless of denials from other contributors (except myself). I want the font to be used by the community." or as complex as a fully legal document drawn up by an attorney. Depends on what's good enough for SP. I put in the "except myself" clause in case of any possibly unforeseen future mess. I hope never to have to use it.

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.  If we know for a fact a set has received copyright, we know that set cannot be touched and it means there's a stronger chance that similar designs would fall under protection.  Similarly, if a set is rejected for copyright, we know that it has no legal protection and can be copied at will, most likely meaning similar sets would end up in the same situation.  Thus, I contend that receipt of official copyright status is quite important.  In short, we should register them to see if they even qualify.

For profile, let me try to rephrase.  The keyboard is considered a Useful Article.  It is not considered in terms of copyright status of a work.  Only the artistic elements of the keyboard are considered.  As caps fall under Useful Article status, it is only their coloration that seems to qualify given the caps themselves are of standard and limited option.  The selection of which to use is much the same as the selection of font which is similarly not normally considered.

With regard to the font, some parts of Europe do seem to allow it.  Others have limitations and restrictions on that.  I believe Switzerland does not protect fonts.  Denmark seems to be mixed on it.  Even the US has some allotment for fonts under very specific guidelines but the tendency for the US and at least some European countries is to favor avoiding copyright on fonts and typography to keep them in the public domain.

So you're saying artisan caps are not copyrightable since they're "part of the keyboard"?

I think keycaps are in a bit of a grey area here. There are many different profiles and profile row choices and although they're a functional part of the keyboard assembly, they're not part of the keyboard itself. The choice of what to use where is free and based on both personal preferences and artistic value. For instance a designer could choose to use all Row 1 caps. It's not practical and would suck to type on, but if it suits his design from a conceptual point of view, that's fine. It's not just base profile that's chosen, but placement and positioning of particular shapes. This is copyrightable, just as placements of geometric shapes are. And font CHOICE is not the same as font design. The font itself may not be copyrighted, but the choice of which font to use is part of the art of the design. A good example of this is movie posters. The font is essential to the design and part of the copyrighted art work. Changing the font creates a derivative work. It's not the same any more.

I think you've got a bit lost in the legal mumbo-jumbo. And I will say again, that this is all arguable and can be discussed forever, since it's essentially a discussion about what constitutes "art".

And I disagree about clarifying which set designs and what part of the designs can be copyrighted making the situation better. I think it would make it worse. At the moment colourway disputes are handled in a very dynamic and flexible way, with agreements made between the designers. This is usually done in some public discussion forum, at least in part. This gives both visibility and responsibility to the designer of a disputed work to settle the issue. If it remains unsettled and the designer goes forward with the design, it becomes obvious to the public what has happened and the design will either be blocked by the manufacturer or boycotted by the community, depending on whether they consider the dispute to be valid or not.

By making it a black and white issue with particular designs, it takes away this "gentleman's agreement" option and turns it into a legal farce. If a design can be freely copied from a legal perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean it's ethical to do so. In the same way, if a design is "protected" and someone makes something similar, just how do you decide if it's truly a derivative work or not? And what if the original designer likes the other design and gives his consent for it? I don't think they'd be happy that they have to write a legal document just to give this consent. It's just not the way things should be done in a community like this one, IMHO, and in fact in any community, country, etc. No offense meant to Niomosy or any US citizens, but I think this kind of thinking is part of the problem with USA in general. It takes away responsibility and accountability, erodes common sense and promotes greed, IMO. It doesn't help build the sense of community we should be aiming for, with common sense and decency being integral parts of that.

[SamirD]

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.

While I agree with you that this would provide insight into the legalities, the practical truth is that it wouldn't matter since the enforcement is really the 800lb gorilla--no enforcement, no real copyright protection.

There is a sad truth there.  That's not even taking manufacturers in countries like China into the equation.  Though thus far they've been pretty mellow on cap production, sticking to the higher volume stuff.

It pained me to even post that.  Sad world we live in when someone can rip off your idea and make their money off of it before you can even think about a lawsuit.

[SamirD]

At the moment colourway disputes are handled in a very dynamic and flexible way, with agreements made between the designers. This is usually done in some public discussion forum, at least in part. This gives both visibility and responsibility to the designer of a disputed work to settle the issue. If it remains unsettled and the designer goes forward with the design, it becomes obvious to the public what has happened and the design will either be blocked by the manufacturer or boycotted by the community, depending on whether they consider the dispute to be valid or not.

While this method works on a small scale, it starts to break down with scale.  What defines the community?  Post counts?  'likeability' of a user?  Participation?  If you start to define the 'characteristics' of a community, that's not much different than being a 'citizen' of a community.  Expand that further, and you have citizens and governments.  And then you have to have laws and the enforcement of them because some bad apple will decide that while being a citizen, they don't want to follow the 'gentleman's agreements' and there would need to be some mechanism for justice.

I really believe in the concept of the community that you present, but let's be realistic here.  There's 3 different sites just for the community that I know of.  If we were all one community bound by gentleman's agreements, why doesn't the community's medium reflect this singularity?

[Niomosy]

Very interesting, but it really doesn't matter. We don't register our designs for copyright and I can't see any reason why we should.


The profile CHOICE is part of the design, not the keycap shape itself. A geometric shape cannot be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them can, since it's art. In the same way, the keycap profile arrangement and font choice are part of the design. With either of these changed it is not the same design. They are an integral part of the work of art that is the set design.


Also, in most of Europe, typefaces can in fact be copyrighted. USA may actually be the only country that doesn't allow it. Anyway, just because the typeface itself is not copyrighted, it doesn't preclude any work that uses it from the same. It's a completely separate issue. It's the choice of font that matters, not whether the font itself has any legal copyright or not.


As I said, we can argue the issue on and on, but it's of no real consequence.


About the font ownership issue, again it's all about what the manufacturer deems sufficient, not a court of law. It could be as simple as "Hi Melissa, here's the list of contributors. Please allow any of them to give permission to use the font, regardless of denials from other contributors (except myself). I want the font to be used by the community." or as complex as a fully legal document drawn up by an attorney. Depends on what's good enough for SP. I put in the "except myself" clause in case of any possibly unforeseen future mess. I hope never to have to use it.

Receipt of copyright status would give us better information to go on in terms of what is legally protected and what is not.  If we know for a fact a set has received copyright, we know that set cannot be touched and it means there's a stronger chance that similar designs would fall under protection.  Similarly, if a set is rejected for copyright, we know that it has no legal protection and can be copied at will, most likely meaning similar sets would end up in the same situation.  Thus, I contend that receipt of official copyright status is quite important.  In short, we should register them to see if they even qualify.


For profile, let me try to rephrase.  The keyboard is considered a Useful Article.  It is not considered in terms of copyright status of a work.  Only the artistic elements of the keyboard are considered.  As caps fall under Useful Article status, it is only their coloration that seems to qualify given the caps themselves are of standard and limited option.  The selection of which to use is much the same as the selection of font which is similarly not normally considered.


With regard to the font, some parts of Europe do seem to allow it.  Others have limitations and restrictions on that.  I believe Switzerland does not protect fonts.  Denmark seems to be mixed on it.  Even the US has some allotment for fonts under very specific guidelines but the tendency for the US and at least some European countries is to favor avoiding copyright on fonts and typography to keep them in the public domain.

So you're saying artisan caps are not copyrightable since they're "part of the keyboard"?


I think keycaps are in a bit of a grey area here. There are many different profiles and profile row choices and although they're a functional part of the keyboard assembly, they're not part of the keyboard itself. The choice of what to use where is free and based on both personal preferences and artistic value. For instance a designer could choose to use all Row 1 caps. It's not practical and would suck to type on, but if it suits his design from a conceptual point of view, that's fine. It's not just base profile that's chosen, but placement and positioning of particular shapes. This is copyrightable, just as placements of geometric shapes are. And font CHOICE is not the same as font design. The font itself may not be copyrighted, but the choice of which font to use is part of the art of the design. A good example of this is movie posters. The font is essential to the design and part of the copyrighted art work. Changing the font creates a derivative work. It's not the same any more.


I think you've got a bit lost in the legal mumbo-jumbo. And I will say again, that this is all arguable and can be discussed forever, since it's essentially a discussion about what constitutes "art".


And I disagree about clarifying which set designs and what part of the designs can be copyrighted making the situation better. I think it would make it worse. At the moment colourway disputes are handled in a very dynamic and flexible way, with agreements made between the designers. This is usually done in some public discussion forum, at least in part. This gives both visibility and responsibility to the designer of a disputed work to settle the issue. If it remains unsettled and the designer goes forward with the design, it becomes obvious to the public what has happened and the design will either be blocked by the manufacturer or boycotted by the community, depending on whether they consider the dispute to be valid or not.


By making it a black and white issue with particular designs, it takes away this "gentleman's agreement" option and turns it into a legal farce. If a design can be freely copied from a legal perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean it's ethical to do so. In the same way, if a design is "protected" and someone makes something similar, just how do you decide if it's truly a derivative work or not? And what if the original designer likes the other design and gives his consent for it? I don't think they'd be happy that they have to write a legal document just to give this consent. It's just not the way things should be done in a community like this one, IMHO, and in fact in any community, country, etc. No offense meant to Niomosy or any US citizens, but I think this kind of thinking is part of the problem with USA in general. It takes away responsibility and accountability, erodes common sense and promotes greed, IMO. It doesn't help build the sense of community we should be aiming for, with common sense and decency being integral parts of that.

Artisan caps can be considered for copyright.  The artistic piece, the sculpture, can be removed from the keycap and evaluated separate from the cap as art.  They would most likely qualify as sculptures and fall under protection.  The modification of keycaps via minor dimensional changes as we would see in profile changes would not count.  That is still a part of the cap and we can't really remove it from the cap as we can a sculpture adorned on a cap.  It's much like the lamp example.  The lamp can come in many shapes and sizes, that doesn't matter in terms of copyright.  What does matter are the artistic adornments to the lamps that add no practical value and are purely aesthetic.  Those would be evaluated for copyright.


Basically, remove the cap from the equation and you are left with color and possibly some novelties on your typical set design.  The law gets very protective here.  With the only modification to the useful article being color, the law tends to avoid allowance of this but will under certain circumstances. 


What we CAN copyright is the artistic ornamentation of the useful articles such as was noted in the lamp example I posted earlier from the US copyright site.  Thus the artisan keycaps, being essentially small sculptures that fit onto a keyboard, are covered.  They are almost certainly covered because we can remove the sculpture from the keycap and are left with a sculpture.


As for the gentlemen's agreement, I agree that it exists but that relies on everyone working toward that goal.  I don't see that remaining and I'm simply wondering when and how it will fade away.  It could be via manufacturer but who knows how that would go.  The Chinese cap makers have some high production quantity customers or are making them for their own keyboards.  A smaller shop could come along and re-use the colorways of popular sets but thus far, they're remaining demand based and letting others request orders from them.  Another possibility is that technology will advance enough in the future that something like 3d printing a full set of caps will be feasible.  In which case, anyone can have any color combination made.

[Oobly]

Again, I must disagree. An artisan cap IS a cap. It cannot be removed from the cap, since they're a single piece. It acts as a functional component of a keyboard when in use.

And again, I don't really think it matters. A design is recognised as a combination of colour choices, profile choices, font choices, legend designs, etc. and stands as a complete design only with all these elements in place. It's not the individual elements that are the design, it's the whole shebang. How would you address my example of a copyrighted movie poster?

...
As for the gentlemen's agreement, I agree that it exists but that relies on everyone working toward that goal.  I don't see that remaining and I'm simply wondering when and how it will fade away.

Oh you pessimist you How about we wait 'til this happens and start up this discussion again then. Until then I'll keep designing, ordering and enjoying keycap sets

[Niomosy]

Again, I must disagree. An artisan cap IS a cap. It cannot be removed from the cap, since they're a single piece. It acts as a functional component of a keyboard when in use.

And again, I don't really think it matters. A design is recognised as a combination of colour choices, profile choices, font choices, legend designs, etc. and stands as a complete design only with all these elements in place. It's not the individual elements that are the design, it's the whole shebang. How would you address my example of a copyrighted movie poster?

...
As for the gentlemen's agreement, I agree that it exists but that relies on everyone working toward that goal.  I don't see that remaining and I'm simply wondering when and how it will fade away.

Oh you pessimist you How about we wait 'til this happens and start up this discussion again then. Until then I'll keep designing, ordering and enjoying keycap sets

The artisan cap is a sculpture on a cap or, at least, it would need to be argued that way for copyright protection.  Under that argument, it would seem easily sufficient to pass the copyright examination as art separate from a useful good.  Think of it this way; the same as you would remove the ornate decoration from the lamp and evaluate it on its own, so too would you basically cut the top off the keycap to evaluate the sculpture on its own.  I realize it's built into the keycap but many decorative features are similarly built into the other useful goods.

I agree that a design is recognized as the entirety.  However, for legal purposes it is NOT evaluated as a whole.  The US copyright law is very clear on this.  Only the artistic portions of the design are considered.  All practicalities of the useful item are discarded.  While you may not want to separate things out, for legal copyright, they are separated out and all useful elements discarded in the copyright claim.

As for me being pessimistic, I'm trying to look at the possibilities so pessimism enters the equation.  The reality is that mechanical keyboards are growing in popularity.  There may come a time where these sets end up being produced.

We agree on your last sentence.  Now we just need to get MassDrop working on things for Troubled Minds... though given the SA backlog, I'm guessing they're not in a huge hurry.

[BlueNalgene]

I was thinking about this issue the other day actually. 

My solution would be a repository of non-legally binding copyright claims to design features.  I had it all thought out when I originally thought of it, and it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent issues between well-intentioned Western artisans, mostly as a way to prevent douchebaggery by having evidence of when you called dibs to a certain claim. 

There is no good fix for China though.  Well, none that wouldn't get you arrested or elected.

[Niomosy]

I was thinking about this issue the other day actually. 

My solution would be a repository of non-legally binding copyright claims to design features.  I had it all thought out when I originally thought of it, and it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent issues between well-intentioned Western artisans, mostly as a way to prevent douchebaggery by having evidence of when you called dibs to a certain claim. 

There is no good fix for China though.  Well, none that wouldn't get you arrested or elected.

They would be more design claims than anything.  Useful for designers that want to differentiate their sets from others before them or, possibly, take inspiration from other sets as has sometimes been the case.

Keypuller seems to be trying to capture all the known produced sets out there so that, at least, can be helpful.  Trying to capture all the designs that flash through the IC forum but never get produced might take a bit more work.  There was a site doing it but they seem to have stagnated and not updated for some time now.  /r/mechanicalkeyboards was trying to track this as well though theirs was a bit more difficult to find, buried in the wiki.

China doesn't seem a huge problem at the moment.  The makers themselves are focused on larger quantities.  Though some makers like Tai Hao are getting more into the enthusiast buys lately.  They seem to want to focus more on demand-based production so it would take someone requesting a run of an existing design.

[BlueNalgene]

I was thinking about this issue the other day actually. 

My solution would be a repository of non-legally binding copyright claims to design features.  I had it all thought out when I originally thought of it, and it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent issues between well-intentioned Western artisans, mostly as a way to prevent douchebaggery by having evidence of when you called dibs to a certain claim. 

There is no good fix for China though.  Well, none that wouldn't get you arrested or elected.

They would be more design claims than anything.  Useful for designers that want to differentiate their sets from others before them or, possibly, take inspiration from other sets as has sometimes been the case.

Keypuller seems to be trying to capture all the known produced sets out there so that, at least, can be helpful.  Trying to capture all the designs that flash through the IC forum but never get produced might take a bit more work.  There was a site doing it but they seem to have stagnated and not updated for some time now.  /r/mechanicalkeyboards was trying to track this as well though theirs was a bit more difficult to find, buried in the wiki.

China doesn't seem a huge problem at the moment.  The makers themselves are focused on larger quantities.  Though some makers like Tai Hao are getting more into the enthusiast buys lately.  They seem to want to focus more on demand-based production so it would take someone requesting a run of an existing design.

It would serve the function of drawing the line where an homage ends and infringement begins. 

Consider a Brobot, it is a robot cap.  What does BroCaps hold claim to?  Is it the robot?  Is it the robot face?  Is it the rectangularized robot face?  There is no way of knowing.  All that the picture archivists provide a reference material.  It does not relate what the artist finds unique about his/her design.  Infringement is based on being able to "just know" when something looks copied. 

It doesn't seem too important before the fact, but a divisive stance could hurt the community. 

Let's pick on Krytone this time.  Krytone has a cap that has a brain sticking out of a skull.  Suddenly ArtyMcCopy starts to sell a zombie looking cap with a brain sticking out, and Krytone isn't happy.  Krytone asks the community to refrain from buying the ArtyMcCopy caps because it infringes on his copyright.  About half of the community agrees, but the other half of the community doesn't see it the same way.  Since there was no claim made of the uniqueness of the design, the community has suddenly become divided.  Half of the population denies themselves a cap they want to support Krytone, and the other half of the community buys the cap - undermining the boycott. 

According to an interview with K3KC, many of those who espouse that he is just some copycat shill have still purchased from him.  So my little Krytone story is more than just an empty parable. 

And this is ignoring the arguments (I hate drama).

--------

Sorry for using other people's "real" names.  I'm not claiming a stance for or against anyone used in my examples.

[Niomosy]

I was thinking about this issue the other day actually. 


My solution would be a repository of non-legally binding copyright claims to design features.  I had it all thought out when I originally thought of it, and it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent issues between well-intentioned Western artisans, mostly as a way to prevent douchebaggery by having evidence of when you called dibs to a certain claim. 


There is no good fix for China though.  Well, none that wouldn't get you arrested or elected.

They would be more design claims than anything.  Useful for designers that want to differentiate their sets from others before them or, possibly, take inspiration from other sets as has sometimes been the case.


Keypuller seems to be trying to capture all the known produced sets out there so that, at least, can be helpful.  Trying to capture all the designs that flash through the IC forum but never get produced might take a bit more work.  There was a site doing it but they seem to have stagnated and not updated for some time now.  /r/mechanicalkeyboards was trying to track this as well though theirs was a bit more difficult to find, buried in the wiki.


China doesn't seem a huge problem at the moment.  The makers themselves are focused on larger quantities.  Though some makers like Tai Hao are getting more into the enthusiast buys lately.  They seem to want to focus more on demand-based production so it would take someone requesting a run of an existing design.

It would serve the function of drawing the line where an homage ends and infringement begins. 


Consider a Brobot, it is a robot cap.  What does BroCaps hold claim to?  Is it the robot?  Is it the robot face?  Is it the rectangularized robot face?  There is no way of knowing.  All that the picture archivists provide a reference material.  It does not relate what the artist finds unique about his/her design.  Infringement is based on being able to "just know" when something looks copied. 


It doesn't seem too important before the fact, but a divisive stance could hurt the community. 


Let's pick on Krytone this time.  Krytone has a cap that has a brain sticking out of a skull.  Suddenly ArtyMcCopy starts to sell a zombie looking cap with a brain sticking out, and Krytone isn't happy.  Krytone asks the community to refrain from buying the ArtyMcCopy caps because it infringes on his copyright.  About half of the community agrees, but the other half of the community doesn't see it the same way.  Since there was no claim made of the uniqueness of the design, the community has suddenly become divided.  Half of the population denies themselves a cap they want to support Krytone, and the other half of the community buys the cap - undermining the boycott. 


According to an interview with K3KC, many of those who espouse that he is just some copycat shill have still purchased from him.  So my little Krytone story is more than just an empty parable. 


And this is ignoring the arguments (I hate drama).


--------


Sorry for using other people's "real" names.  I'm not claiming a stance for or against anyone used in my examples.

Ahh, artisans.  That's a different topic and one I hadn't meant to cover.  My apologies as my first reply to you was with regard only to sets, not artisan caps.


With artisan caps, they're most often basically a sculpture on a stem compatible with Cherry / Topre / Alps switches.  In many cases, it would seem that they're protected.  A comprehensive list of artisan caps could be helpful to those wishing to make that style of cap.  I do agree.

[BlueNalgene]

Ahh, artisans.  That's a different topic and one I hadn't meant to cover.  My apologies as my first reply to you was with regard only to sets, not artisan caps.


With artisan caps, they're most often basically a sculpture on a stem compatible with Cherry / Topre / Alps switches.  In many cases, it would seem that they're protected.  A comprehensive list of artisan caps could be helpful to those wishing to make that style of cap.  I do agree.

Oh crumb.  This was about sets?  That's on me.  Didn't mean to derail your conversation.  Carry on.

[Oobly]

My bad, actually.. I mentioned artisans as a specific case about keycap profile.

There is also this: http://keyset.me/

All this discussion has proven to me is that US copyright law is a big mess and that you shouldn't even try to apply them to keycap sets. Like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

And now we're getting to the heart of it. A keycap set design should be covered by "design right", not copyright, trademark or patent: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

In most EU countries this is automatic, just like copyright. Looks like in the US you have to apply for a "design patent" and the terms and what is covered are a bit different. But in most cases, US has to respect foreign law in these matters, so if you want to protect your keyset design, post it inside EU or register it with UK or other EU country design registrations.

[Niomosy]

My bad, actually.. I mentioned artisans as a specific case about keycap profile.

There is also this: http://keyset.me/

All this discussion has proven to me is that US copyright law is a big mess and that you shouldn't even try to apply them to keycap sets. Like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

And now we're getting to the heart of it. A keycap set design should be covered by "design right", not copyright, trademark or patent: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

In most EU countries this is automatic, just like copyright. Looks like in the US you have to apply for a "design patent" and the terms and what is covered are a bit different. But in most cases, US has to respect foreign law in these matters, so if you want to protect your keyset design, post it inside EU or register it with UK or other EU country design registrations.

Now that's a good point worth looking into.  Given the US signed the Berne Convention, they would need to accept copyright from other countries.  One thing I did note on the UK design site (either in the link you posted or in another portion of that site) was that they refer to US patents for those that are in the US and need something similar.

That brings up an interesting situation.  While other countries do seem to have different requirements to be met, I'm curious about what the UK allows.  In the US, the patent might have problems because of the fact that you haven't actually designed the keycap  physicalities themselves but are simply declaring which ones you're using.  I'm not sure what the requirements are on that elsewhere.

My other concern on that is if the design is protected in other countries, where would that leave design infringement in terms of all the sets?  In many cases, the only differentiator is the color selection.  Would that be deemed sufficient?  In a design, I would be concerned about that.

I've only been able to minimally look into that thus far.  I'm curious to see what info is to be had there.

[Oobly]

Well... International patent and copyright law can get very complex. Patents only cover the country in which they're applied for (unless you've applied for a worldwide PCT patent application, but that only lasts 18 months and then you need to decide which individual countries you want to apply in anyway). You have to apply in every country you want to have protection. And patents are expensive (some countries even have patent costs which rise year on year). Design Rights are free and automatic. I would definitely not bother to patent a keycap set design.

In the UK, the "design" includes the 3D shape of the design... you're not protecting the keycap shape itself, but the choice of shape and which to use where, along with what colours they are and what designs are on the caps themselves. Again, it's not the font you're covering, but the choice of what characters in what font in what position in what colour. Individual custom novelty legends may get their own protection as well as being part of the overall design. Material choices and finishes are also included. All fair and logical, IMO.

[Niomosy]

The logic can be argued both ways, though.  Too many design restrictions and you're essentially in a rush to lock up designs and monopolize things.  I think that's why the US is very reluctant when it comes to granting rights restrictions under a number of circumstances.  We tend to have a history of companies trying to become monopolies and it doesn't ever work out well.  Though that doesn't seem to stop them from things like granting limited duopolies for things like internet access, etc.  But that's just me ranting.

You're right that patents are rather expensive and likely not worth it with keycaps.  With design, though, it seems like you'd need to go that route in the US.  Actually, one other thing I'm wondering is design protection and whether that's covered under the Berne Convention or not.

It seems the more information we get, the more questions we have which echoes the old saying; the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know (or at least it's something along those lines).

[SamirD]

It seems the more information we get, the more questions we have which echoes the old saying; the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know (or at least it's something along those lines).

And this is where professional advice from an experienced attorney would shed some light on the subject.  We haven't even touched on the subject of any case law that might point us in the direction of how these laws are interpreted in the judicial process (ie when things get ugly).

[Niomosy]

It seems the more information we get, the more questions we have which echoes the old saying; the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know (or at least it's something along those lines).

And this is where professional advice from an experienced attorney would shed some light on the subject.  We haven't even touched on the subject of any case law that might point us in the direction of how these laws are interpreted in the judicial process (ie when things get ugly).

Absolutely.  Case law would be very beneficial for knowledge on the matter. 

It only gets muddier as I started thinking more about the design aspect.  Is the design still considered when parts of that design are already owned by someone else?  While UK law does note overall design, my first thought is to wonder what the caveats are similar to my digging into US copyright and searching for more on what is not copyright protected.

[Oobly]

I think we're all wasting brain cycles with this. There's no point to it that I can see. If a designer sues another designer over a set design, then we can start discussing it again, with that particular case. IMO, it would always have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and since none of us are copyright infingement lawyers I don't see what's to be gained by discussing a generality that has no reference in reality.

As a designer, I'm happy to just make my design and get it produced, with any disputes being handled "internally". That's the best way for both parties to get what they want and it's already happening now and then. The keyboard enthusiast community is, in general, a generous and respectful group of people and well able to manage these kind of issues without "lawyering up".

[SamirD]

No one ever wants to get into legal entanglements, but sometimes you have to get what is rightfully yours.  If you're working with reasonable level-headed individuals that are able to be both sides to a story then it's really easy to avoid conflict.  But when you're facing someone who thinks that they are right in the face of what is obviously just, well, that's what the justice system was designed to correct.