Let’s say I own a Copeland Low D (or any whistle or flute). Why don’t I 3D map it and 3D print my Copeland in polymer (delrin)? 
Any copyright laws in play?
Just thinking aloud.
We’ve discussed this before, a few times. You can do a search.
I am not a lawyer. I do make whistles the old fashioned way. And I have been dabbling in 3D printing whistles as well and using the drawings to produce molds. I prefer to work from my own designs.
Basically, I would argue that what you describe it is not good form. Laws may be another matter.
Michael is still alive and he is still making whistles. I do run into him every year or two but not as often as I once did. He would be harmed if you copied his work I would think. And I think he would be successful if he had to argue that in court. Why wouldn’t you ask him about doing that and split the profits and rights to the resulting drawings, files, etc.?
Let’s say you were to take a Generation head, even tweak it a bit and then model that. I would not think that is good form either. Might not be against a law but Generation whistles would suffer and be materially damaged. I would expect legal action.
If you have a Rudall-Rose flute and scan that it might be another matter. Someone may own the rights to the design but I do not know. Drawings are available of several 19th century flutes. The makers are long gone. Who are you gonna harm with that?
But … we all stand on the shoulders of giants. As Chris Abell said,
I would think that laser or CT scanning and computer aided manufacture are not what he had in mind though.
Most of us start off by emulating an existing design. I based my earliest whistles on an article written by Glenn Schultz where he described his whistle making process and where shared some of his design specifics. If you do things the old way you will realize that it is darned hard to actually copy the work of a master. There is a lot to it, a lot to know and learn. The tiniest things matter.
You might still have a hard time copying the work of the master using micro-computed tomography. But that route to the same end is far more likely to create better results than you might by hammering away at brass tubing in your basement. Some have tried, few have succeeded.
If you are going to do it, do it from scratch and learn something about how the instrument actually works along the way. And if you already know how to use solid modelling software why wouldn’t you just do your own drawings from scratch?
Anyone can walk up to the machine and press the copy button.
Just my opinions.
Feadoggie
It’s more likely that patent rather than copyright law would apply.
If anything, the scan would be copyrightable (by the scannist), not the whistle being scanned.
Design copyright or design patents in the U.S have extremely limited terms. So, figure scanning a 20-year-old whistle, and one is probably in the clear, legally.
Well, well, well. Some folks assume the worst. I was not talking about resale. Get off your high horse.
Copyright is explicitly about resale. You’re the one who brought it up. If you’re not reselling, copyright does not apply
To address one part of the discussion …
A careful examination of the various mass produced whistles will reveal they have been copying each other down to a few thousandths of an inch for decades. Although there are somewhat different external shapes, the internal geometry is nearly identical, and the injection molding tooling design is exactly the same.
There’s clearly no intellectual property ownership that remains in these designs. There are no patents, and there’s no indication anyone has ever tried in a systematic way to keep anyone else from creating nearly identical whistleheads.
It bears mention here, Freeman tweaked whistles are far more different from unmodified Generations and Feadogs than Generations, Feadogs, Waltons, Oaks, Clares, etc. are from each other. The mass produced whistleheads have features that are only part of the design so they could be injection molded in one piece, some of which I change when I tweak them. Because of that, my designs couldn’t be mass produced the same way.
Feadoggie posted a link to an interesting project the University of Connecticut has been doing. Their Digital Musicology Group uses high precision CT scanning technology (one micron resolution) to 3D image and replicate historically significant woodwind instrument parts, including original Saxophone mouthpieces made by Adolphe Sax himself.
As it happens, The University of Connectucut campus where that work is being done is seven miles from where I live. Since December, I’ve been working with Drs. Richard Bass (music theory) and Sina Shahbazmohamadi (engineering) to create similar 3D computer images of my whistlehead designs. I will be able to manipulate the resulting CAD files using 3D modeling software and then get 3D prototypes made. It will allow me to work on design elements I can’t achieve by tweaking, and eventually it will provide the basis for Freemanwhistle mass production tooling.
That’s the most fascinating whistle news I have heard in a long time, Jerry. Looking forward to seeing the results.
I am NOT a whistlemaker, and at least in my own opinion no better than an average player. Still, I guess I know a little about musical theory and history. People have been trying for centuries to copy Stradivarius instruments, and to date no one has fully succeeded, at least to my knowledge, Any device or tool, including a musical instrument is not like a printed page. Anyone could copy a volume of For Whom the Bell Tolls and print it under his own name, and in every way but the knowledge of experts it would be indistinguishable from Hemingway’s volume. Once the craft has been applied once, it is immutable. However a physical object, or at least one based on artistry, is not just a copy. Even Generation cannot produce a perfect copy of their own whistles, as witnessed by all of the musicians who obsessively collect them looking for the “perfect” instrument.
My own belief is that a copy, no matter how exactingly reproduced, still lacks the “touch” of the first maker - something expressed in intangibles of ‘feel’ and quality. It would be a sad thing if technology does eventually manage to reproduce perfection. If that happens, it will be the end of innovation and progress. And just from my own POV, the door to a hell of universal homegeneity.
My own belief is that a copy, no matter how exactingly reproduced, still lacks the “touch” of the first maker - something expressed in intangibles of ‘feel’ and quality. It would be a sad thing if technology does eventually manage to reproduce perfection. If that happens, it will be the end of innovation and progress. And just from my own POV, the door to a hell of universal homegeneity.
That is so true. it is the human touch that makes a great instrument. The intersection between a great ear, great musicianship and master craftmanship is where magic is created.
Along the same lines we sometimes have the discussion Can a good craftsman who can’t play very well make the perfect instrument? Well, you know my thoughts on that one. The point is though: you need all elements to fall into place to get something really nice.