I didn't want to raise this topic yet again but due to numerous emails and personal messages over the past few weeks I feel I must. It is not my intention however to get into a discussion.
I have no legal rights over my puzzles and cannot stop you copying them to sell. If however you respect my wishes and seek my permission then the following applies.
My puzzles fall into three categories. Firstly, original ideas like the Golden Cube that I almost certainly thought of and made first. Secondly, more obvious transformations like Icosahedron which I probably made first. And thirdly puzzles like 3x3x5 which have been made by several people around the same time. I would ask that puzzles in category 1 (UPDATED LIST NOW ADDED) are definitely not copied for personal gain. (Size and sticker variations do not exempt you from this request). I would also ask that puzzles in Category 2 are not copied although these are in more of a grey area. Puzzles in Category 3 in my opinion are fair game as long as my puzzles are not directly used to make the moulds for new parts. Once again I would urge people to work on the many many puzzles that have yet to be made instead of copying those that already exist. 3x4x5 for example.

ADDED ON 8th SEPT 2007
Since the subject continues to be raised in various threads (way after the original statement) I have decided from time to time to add extra comments here. In that way I can refer those people still confused to this thread. Please note that the replies to this thread were made before these updates were added.

8th Sept 2007-
Many people have suggested that my only reason for this announcement was to avoid the cost of getting patents. I guess in some way they are right. However to those people I would say that to get world wide patents on four or five puzzles a year would cost an absolute fortune and take a huge amount of my time. I only make a few (25 or so) of each puzzle and it simply wouldn't be worth it. Every normal business has to go through these steps so why not me? Well, since it would not be worth it my choice is to either make the above polite request or ultimately stop making puzzles.
In addition I would ask those people why they do not mug little old ladies. Is it because they believe it to be wrong or because it's illegal? Do I have to get patents for all my puzzles in order for them not to be copied or will you respect my right not to get ripped off? Ultimately the decision is yours. I have set no rules and made no laws, I am simply stating what I would prefer.

8th Sept 2007-
How can I make such an announcement and then make things like the Gigaminx and White Megaminx?
I personally don't want people making and selling my puzzles since it will affect my business. Tyler however is quite happy for people to make and sell his Gigaminx since he is in a different position to me. In fact he sold a set of master pieces to me for this very reason. Is that hypocrisy? I don't think so.
But what about the White Megaminx?
Many have said that it is a copy. Yes of cause it's a copy. I have never denied that. My argument is that it is also a transformation which means I had to buy one black Megaminx to make one white one. Sure there are parts left over but I can't make another puzzle from them so I am not ripping anyone off. In addition I have permission from the maker of the Megaminx to transform it.
I still believe it's better not to copy but that doesn't mean it's always wrong. If permission is given and no one is being ripped off then I don't see what the problem is. That is something I will always abide to and would expect others to as well.

2nd Dec 2007-
New puzzles added to the lists are, Bicone, Rhomball and Nesting Cubes to 1st catagory. I will add my Deltoidal Icositetrahedron to the 2nd catagory since it is a known though unusual shape. Hexaminx goes in catagory two also though some may argue three is more correct. I may change my mind on that one. Icosahedron from Megaminx goes in catagory three. Although I was working on this puzzle before I had even heard of Jurgen Brandt I was certainly not the first to finish one so claim no rights whatsoever. I personally consider this puzzle to be "owned" by Jurgen. Before I started selling mine I made sure that he was happy for me to do so. In fact he is happy with anyone making his puzzles.

14th April 2008-
I have now updated and added the list below. I have changed some of the puzzle positions. It is difficult to be totally consistant since there are not three completely different puzzle types.

CATEGORY 1 (Please don't copy to sell)

TWISTED ASSEMBLY PUZZLE
OPEN TWIST BALL
OPEN PETAMINX
OPEN GIGAMINX
TRIAMESE VOID PENTAGONS
U-VOID
SIAMESE VOID PENTAGONS
EXTREME HOLEY MEGAMINX
SUBATOMIC CYLINDER CUBE
PEEKABOO CUBE
UNIQUE 3
7x7x7 OPEN BANDAGE
OCTRIGNIS
6x6x6 V-DOME
CUBES ON A DISK
4CUBES
HOLEY MENTAL BLOCK
HELICHOP
CURVIMINX
GEAR CHANGE
SLIDING PUCKS
JUNIOR TRUNCATED DOGIC
7x7x7 BARREL
BALL IN A CUBE
GOLDEN CUBE
OVERLAPPING CUBE
PUCKUBE
RHOMBALL
CUBIE CHAOS 1+2
MENTAL BLOCK
NESTING CUBES
SKEWBRICK
TRUNCATED CUBOCTAHEDRON
UNIQUE 1 + 2

CATEGORY 2 (please don't copy to sell though more of a grey area)

SIAMESE 4x4x4s (my style)
TRIPLE FUSED PETAMINX
PUCKABALL
GIGAMATE
TRUNCATED GOLDEN CUBE
VOID SKEWB
6x6x6 RHOMBIC DODEC
ICOSIDODECAMINX
DELTOIDAL ICOSITETRAHEDRON
BICONE
HEXAGONAL PRISM (Skewb)
CUBOMINX
CYLINDER CUBE (3x3x3)
DINO-TRUNC
DODECAHEDRON (3x3x3)
FISHER CUBE
HEXAMINX
ICOSAHEDRON (Skewb)
ICOSIDODECAHEDRON
OCTAMINX
TRUNCATED OCTAMINX
RHOMBIC DODECAHEDRON (5x5x5)
RHOMBIC DODECAHEDRON (Skewb)
SIAMESE 5x5x5s (both) and 6x6x6s
TRIAMESE 5x5x5s (both)
SIAMESE 3x3x3s
SIAMESE SKEWBS
TRUNCATED ICOSAHEDRON (Dogic)
TRUNCATED OCTAHEDRON (Skewb)


CATEGORY 3 (I make no claims over these puzzles though other people might)

MASTER SKEWB
FLOP EASY
7x7x7 BALL and other balls
CROSS CUBE
CONTAINERS
4x4x4 BALL
4x4x4 BALL (2008)
ALL CUBOIDS
GIANT SKEWB
GIANT 3x3x3
DODECAHEDRON (Skewb)
ICOSAHEDRON (2x2x2)
NANO CUBE
PYRAMINX ULTIMATE
RHOMBIC PRISM (3x3x3)
TETRAHEDRON (Skewb)
WHITE MEGAMINX
COMBINED OCTAHEDRON AND CUBE
CASE CUBE

If I wanted to make a puzzle for myself, but not to sell, what would your opinion be about that? It can be unbelievably difficult to find originals of your puzzles...

Exellent image, by the way.

Tony, I can totally understand where you are coming from... I totally believe that you have the right to do that. I also have the same question as qqwref... but I think the answer is that you could make one for yourself because it is for yourself and you give credit to Tony for that idea...

Tony, are your category 1 puzzles copyrighted/patented? If they are not, why shouldn't people make knockoffs?

It's a little thing called "respect." I'm not sure if you've heard of it though.

The real world doesn't work that way. If Tony doesn't patent his inventions (if he hasn't already) someone else is going to steal them.

Read the second paragraph of Tony's post. He can't stop someone from selling copies of his puzzles, but if they do the only conclusion is that they have no respect for his work.

I completely agree with Tony here. He has done some amazing things in the past and he deserves all of our respect. One question, I know echnically yuo may have made it first, but why is the siamese 3x3x3 in category one. It is one of the most commonly made mods out there, especially for the beginners, and I personally do not see why it can't be copied?

I could't understand well.
Does it mean you don't want me to make "the Overlapping cube" anymore?

Of course I respect your thought and works.

P.S. I thought someone has already made 3x4x5.
I was going to make it.
But now it's not in the priority.
Takfumi

Because these designs largely originated with Tony, it would be discourteous to copy or imitate his artistic expression against his wishes. And for those puzzles where he had to solve mechanical problems, it would probably be unethical to duplicate his solutions against his wishes.

Those aren't legal reasons, but there may be a legal issue too:

Under the currently Copyright Convention, novel expressions are presumed copyrighted unless the artist declares otherwise. (That's different from the old system, where the artist had to declare his copyright.) Because the Golden Cube embodies extremely novel artistic expression, for example, it should be presumed protected.

I am not well versed in the legal system. I think there is a reason that puzzles are protected by patents and not copyrights. Now, while the intent of the topic was not to have any kind of discussion, I would like to note that even patents are protected for only 17-20 years depending on the country and provided that they are paid for every couple of years or so. In this view I find it a little unreasonable to have some of the puzzles on the list.

I'm sorry Rubo d Cubik and Caleb, I regret getting pulled into a potentially-contentious ethics/legal debate. We don't need that.

Tony offerred his reasons "why not" clearly enough, and other reasons have been offerred. Individuals may accept or reject his request as they see fit. As Rubo d Cubik observed, there will doubtless be outsiders who will steal them anyway.

But judging from the responses above, many forum members intend to accept Tony's request. That's the subset of the "real world" to whom he addressed his message.

Exactly...

Of all the things Tony has contributed to the puzzle community, we should respect his wishes.

He's wrote many articles how to build mods/cuboids. It's not that he's being selfish. It's just something he cares about. I think it'll just make his drive diminish and we'd all be stuck not seeing any more Tony Fisher mods!

He himself respects this aspect as well. There are many other mods I'm sure he could make, but because they were made previously he chooses not to make them. Of course there were a few puzzles he made, but HE GOT PERMISSION from those builders first.

I'm sure he won't mind if you made it for yourself. But it's selling them and posing them as your own is what the issue is. Taking credit for someone else's work.

Like he said he can't stop you. But he is ASKING you for your corporation.

This is indeed a touchy subject, of which I tend to fall on the decidedly more liberal camp. Aside from stating that much I will say that this is a pretty big powderkeg we're standing on so I hope nobody lights a match.

Wait a second, so Tony has put Siamese cubes into category 1? Does this mean that if I am interested in learning to mod/create puzzles that I can't try this as my first simple mod? Or may I please have permission?

And if I can't do this, is there any other simple mod that people could suggest?

You're missing something. Please read carefully. You are asked not to make a mod to sell. You can make it if it's for yourself. Not to sell implies you can't trade them either, to my understanding. Now, like I said the places of some puzzles on Tony's list confuse me as well. And that's not couting that I, like some others here, belong to a liberal camp.

I don't think Fisher's cube should be a cat 1. It's such a simple mod of a 3x3 even I could make one.

It's called the Fisher cube for a reason. That was one of his first original mods.

In my opinion, Tony has every right to wish that his original designs are not copied for personal gain. It's his intellectual property, the marketing of which against the artists consent is illeagal.

Granted though, the Golden Cube has a truly original design and should not be copied by anyone.

Tony i agree with you about not wanting people to make and sell your idea for profit. i hope i have not in any way done this. to my knowledge i have not if i have i am sorry. I have tried to mimick your work but not copy them exactly. a good example of this is my Pretender cube. I went one step further then you and made all of the pieces visable. I hope that you are lucky in your wishes and that people stop profiting on your ideas and come up with their own.

by the way. i think the 2x2x2 Icosahedron is in a good category seeing that you and I basically came up with the same idea but i was the first to reveal one. i would say it might be in cat 2 but cat 3 is fine with me.

Some people say that "this world doesn't work like that" and "we must all use patents and copyrights" etc.
In my case, I am already in the procedure of patenting some designs. But that is my choice which I am forced to do because of people of "this world" who are waiting in the corner to "grab" any idea (I should use "steal", but I am trying to be diplomatic here).

In fact, in my book, this should work in both ways (i.e. regardless if the artist chooses to patent or not), and I will always respect the work of an artist as well as his/her wishes.

It is ok if someone makes a copy for himself/herself, but it is definitely not nice if someone uses the creativity of someone else to make money.

Because I want such artists to keep being happy and use all their energy in making more amazing master pieces!

Respect!!




Pantazis

Pantazis, realistically, patents are not much of a help unless you want to mass-produce your puzzles, get patents in many countries including China, and are prepared to protect your patents vigorously (failure to protect may may make the patent to lose its power). Just my very humble opinion.

Regarding Tony's list, I believe some puzzles on the list are to old and ubiquitous now to have them on the first or second categories. I think they might have been considered free now had he patented them and kept up with the patent payments.

You have some good points there. It is true that no patent is bulletproof, but I am just trying to protect my designs partially. Plus, it is cool to have a patent written in your CV!!!

And yes, I also agree that if a puzzle is old enough, then it should be alright to be used by others in any way.
For example, the patents have a 20 year duration, more than fair enough (in my opinion), because it gives you plenty of time to build the basis for a well known copyright.

If Tony places a puzzle on ebay, it will always fetch ten times more the price when it is done by someone else. Why? Because he is doing this for decades, and his experience and mastery provides a quality second to none. Reputation can sometimes be even better than having a copyright in this case LOL




Pantazis

As some of you might know I've build an overlapping cube. I got the tip from someone that before I sold it I contacted Tony. I did and then I was baffled by all this things. I have huge respect for mr Fisher and thus I put much effort in on adapting each sticker again so now I have an overlapping supercube which I thought would tackle the design issue since the purpose of the puzzle has changed. However now I see the part of Tony's post in: 'sticker variations'. So again I can't do anything with it and I'm not interested in solving it, I just made it in the hope it can give me a bit money and go to Budapest in October.
But actualy since I can't realy say this because I can't bring it publical. I'm confused!
Why can't we just sell (yes I know we can, but speaking for myself I respect Tony) the copies? If necesairy we give an x percentage of the profit to Tony? Cause after all it's a bit about the money too (no, not totaly! just a bit). And isn't it so that with the rubik's copies, if you cange the color scheme it is ok? Why not here?

Also there are huge numbers of rubik's copies but still people buy the real thing, because they know it's good quality even if it costs a bit more. Mod's like mine are not of Tony's great quality.

note: of course I haven't put the cube anywhere out of respect and I hope I won't get fuss by saying that I build the thing and and want to sell it and have disrespect etc. it's not going anywhere the way it is now though I still hope I can get rid of it...

While I respect your decision Mr. Fisher, I would ask that you reconsider it. While the puzzle community is small, it is still too big to give most of us any hope of handling / let alone owning onw of your mods. The best we can usually hope for is to watch a video of it.

Also similar to how some of your cubes would not be around had Eastsheen not found a different way to make a 4x4 / 5x5 than Rubik's. By you allowing other people to build your puzzles, you will encourage others to come up with new unique puzzles.

If it's about money, I would think some sort of royalty agreement would make sense.

Oh and seperate from what i have written above, I agree with others about the siamese cube. Seeing that it was mass produced over 20 years ago I would think that it is in the public domain at this point in time.

Joe Schmoe, Tony has a pretty good reason for this request to not copy his puzzles to sell. If he is not telling it openly, it''s his choice. I do however agree that not knowing these reasons leads and adds to at least some misunderstanding and possibly paints a wrong picture of Tony as being some sort of a snob. But that's completely not true!

What you call a money issue is a combination of:
- Perfect quality. No designer would want remakes that are not on the same level of quality as the originals. Only a few puzzle builders can match it now.
- Maintaining rarity and money issue. I put these together as you can only get high prices if the item is not not in large quantities. It's a very small world, and so even several dozen copies can make a difference and cause prices fall down significantly. Royalties most probably don't compensate for loss of that.

Please understand that designing new puzzles requires huge amount of time. You need to find that time somehow between your job that pays the living for yourself and your family, the precious time with your family and relatives, and simply the sleep and a chance to read a book or watch a movie once in a while. Would you want Tony to make more new puzzles or make less new puzzles?

Now, don't take me wrong. I have my issues with Tony's decision as I am more liberal about this. I would rather have royalties as well. After all I would never have gotten a puzzle I wanted for so long - Mental Block - if it weren't for another puzzle builder who made it for me. I am very grateful to him for this. I do believe that some puzzles on Tony's list don't belong where they are on the list, as I have already stated above. Yet I perfectly understand where Tony is coming from, and after all it's his decision, not mine or yours or anyone else's.

I also disagree with the placement of some of the items on the list, but Tony is entitled to his judgement on which puzzles are his idea and which ones are not. The only question that I have, is if I buy a Mental Midget from Jin, does that violate the intent of catagory 1?

I also have "catagories" for my puzzle designs, very similar to Tony's. Some of my designs will be entirely mine, and others will be freely distributed. One of my designs ended up being similar enough in appearance to one of Tony's Cat.1 puzzles that I altered the color of the design to make it different enough to not be confused with Tony's when I announce and sell it.

So at the first point, you make an argument which comes down to: you can not do it as good as he so you are not allowed to do it? (I'm not saying Tony said this)
Point 2: People want good quality for there money, I don't think Tony's puzzles will be worth less if people copy them (good or badly) we all know (almost) nothing can match a Tony Fisher mod. This has been discussed about an other subject on the yahoo group I think. Also if someone was just interested in a puzzle that Tont designed but doesn't has the money for it (yes they are expensive for a reason) or has no chance of seeing one ever in real life why not getting a 'less quality mod' from someone else?

Erik, I think we better make another tread for that somewhere else, if you do want to proceed with discussing this. But before doing that, please find a tread where we discussed these issues already. I think it was the thread in the Market section where Italrubik announced an eBay auction for his copy of CubieChaos puzzle. Also, I hope you realize that while I am justifying Tony's decision I am actually on a different side myself.

I don't like bringing up old threads especialy ones which are pretty old. Tony posted something and we are just replying on it, I don't intend to discuss, I just give my opinion, you can do with it what you want.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I apologize.

no need for that, I can sometimes be hard to understand since english is not my mother-tongue so some things can be taken a way I don't intend them to, I should appologies for that...

Thank you for your courtious reply. I however, still disagree with his stance, but will honor his request.

I have never been able to handle any of the cubes made by Mr. Fisher, but am convinced of their very high quality from others testimonies as well as the high price they demand. I understand that he would want only the highest quality remakes to be made, if he were to allow them to be remade. I believe the puzzle community to be small enough that the purchaser would know the quality of the puzzle they are purchasing, as the reputation of the creators becomes known very quickly.

While i do recognize that he often sells his creations, In my opinion he would make the same if not more $'s off of a royalty system than he would from his creations. This is a result of sheer volume. It is my understanding that he makes more than one of each of his creations, however he is still only able to produce a very limited quantity.

I do understand the time element. I would love to see Tony make new designs, and I would love to see him to be compensated his work. And I understand that one of the ways is him making multiples of his puzzles, I would like him to consider a royalty method as an alternative. That could potentially give him more time to spend creating new puzzles as he would not have to create as many multiples to sell.

In my honest opinion not allowing his designs to be reproduced hurts the puzzle community. With that said I am still in disagreement with that decision, but at the same time will honor his choice. As you said it is his decision to make, I just feel the need to express my opinion.

I can understand Tony Fisher (by the way, his skill deserves all my admiration), and if I builded puzzles, for respect of his work I wouldn't sell a T.F. replica made by me (maybe I would make one for me, I think that is ok).

This said, I can't fully understand why he doesn't patent/copyrights at least some of his creations: what if a big factory copyrights e.g. the amazing "Mental Block", and mass produce it (with certainly big profits)? It would be very difficult to legally prove some rights on it! A copyright/patent, besides protecting your work, is a good value that you can sell. I think this already happened with the Ultimate Skewb, am I right? So, why not also the Golden Cube or the beautiful Hexagonal Prism? Why not to copyright them?

From what I understand it takes lots of time AND money to copyright things.

Tony, what is your view on private transactions?
Say a builder making one for a friend, for free?
Or say a builder offering it by personal messaging to a single person?

Yes, but at least some of Tony Fisher's creations could really interest some mass producer, as they have an amazing appeal. So, maybe is worth the trouble - and the money - to patent them, and also to propose it for production, why not.

But maybe I am going a little off topic, sorry, the main point is a bit different.

I'm not sure about interest in mass production, they are truly great puzzles but I don't think there is a big market for them. I'ts not like an average Joe would like to have an Icosahedron for christmas...

I would agree with that, the mass market won't appreciate the various cubes. There are somecompanies doing injection molding for sort runs, but for that to be feasable would require a fairly low number of unique cubies.

I think one of the first category is this.

Say there is a person who really wants a Golden Cube (just for example. It could be any of his puzzles), and is willing to pay 1000 dollars for one. If they had the opportunity to buy a knock off for only 200 dollars, they most likely will. It may not be close to Fisher quality, and it's not an original, but they got a rare custom puzzle for a fraction of the price.

More and more of this would diminish his market to only a handful of people that would still pay 1000+ for his master pieces.


Also, keep in mind, that for 2 months of every year, his profession is just puzzle building. I believe he does this not only out of enjoyment, but also as a source for extra income perhaps.


That's what I have to say for now. I have other things to say, but they have either already been said, or will be kept to myself until Mr. Fisher posts. Although by the looks of it, he might have no intention of discussing anything in this thread, otherwise he would have most likely posted by now. Then again, you never know.

I'm wondering/thinking 2 things here:
1. Will the people who want to buy it for the '200 knockoff one' would've bought an orginal one in the first place? I'm not sure.
2. Will the people who do want to spend 1000+ on an original Tony puzzle be interested in a knockoff one?

1) Auctions are competitive. The might have lost the last auction, which come once in a long while. That or they might not have had the funds at that point in time.

2) They might want it for collections sake. Just to have a cool custom in their collection.




This is all speculation of course. I could be totally off. Just trying to see it from Tony's POV.

But we are still allowed to make Cat. 1 puzzles for ourselves, right?

Otherwise I would be violating this with Siamese Cubes.

Nah, it's to save £8000 to make a 9x9

I think that original T.F. puzzles are considered by collectors more as artist's work, than ordinary "original" puzzles, that's why the high price. A cheap replica is ok, but if I want the original one I am willing to spend much more. I think that the buyers (the targets) are different between the original and the replica, and the "market" is not spoiled because there are in fact two different targets.

Notice that Tony Fisher signs his creations: he is an artist, and he knows it! The collector is willing to pay high for that sign, and not for another/missing one.

But I would like to focus mr. Fisher POV too, we can suppose everything, but we don't know if we are right or wrong. In any case, if I can make a suggestion to mr. Fisher, I would remove "All cuboids" from his list: in my opinion that is a "weak point" among his reasons

I admire tony fisher, and his puzzles are lovely....I have many "t.f. replica" in my collection, and I partially agree with Tony.....but there is in my opinion something wrong when he tell that we need a permission for sell a cuboid... although I admire it I ask.....IS HE THE FATHER OF ALL CUBOIDS?? I think that if I build a different type of cuboid, obviously not his 3x4x5 or so on, I need no anyone's permission......
I tell that in a very friendly way to all puzzlefriends, there are so many things in this Universe that are more important....but puzzles are very nice too!

Italrubik,

Just for a clarification about the "All Cuboids" thing.

That is in category 3. Ergo he considers all of them 'fair game' as long as people don't use his parts to make molds.

So you could make a cuboid using one of his methods with out a problem. Long as you don't physically take one of his puzzle and use it to make molds to duplicate it.

So then for example if someone wanted to make a golden cube only for personal accomplishment and not for resale this would be ok with you TF?

Would it be something we could get permission to do if not for resale?

How about if someone wanted to build something, then trade it out to someone else for another puzzle through forums like these?

I used the example of the golden cube because it is the most obvious as being wholly yours always and no one else has made them.

I have been considering making miniatures of some custom puzzles. The "Tony Fisher Puzzles" list in the articles section of this forum is lacking quite a bit of the puzzles that you have listed above. Maybe you can get that updated so that people will have an easy place to refer back to in case they want to know what they can or cannot do.

This also allows people to have to come up with their own creative designs. I have a few of my own, however I haven't a clue how to get them into reality. (Maybe I can run them by you for some pointers).

As long as Tony is ok with allowing builders to make things for their own use, I think that is more than fair.

Tony explicitly says that the whole purpose of this is that his puzzles are not copied for personal gain. That includes selling for profit, and most probably trading.

In my opinion some of the puzzles are too old or became too common to justify their place on the first or second lists.