| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
charity plant sales - plant licences?
I have got involved with a dog rescue organisation, and was thinking of growing a few plants for a sale or ebaying to raise a little cash for them. (I know it's a bit late this year, but I'm thinking about it now) Now, most of the things I grow are tough little sods or they would not make it through periods when I am not concentrating properly on gardening (horror!) In this category, I have an almost unkillable osteospermum, a specially tough (it appears) sort of bizzy lizzy, a few random geraniums and pelargoniums, the dratted ivyleaved toadflax, aquilegias, a creeping campanula, convolvulus sabatius, loads of ferns, a couple of sorts of strawberry, leycesteria formosa, not to mention the hawthorns and hollies that scatter themselves annoyingly about in a prolific manner. Now most of these things shlep around my garden making more of themselves pretty much unaided. I have so much of them I often have to howk them out and compost them. It seems like a good fundraising tactic to stick them in pots instead and flog them at a fair or a car boot or something like that. HOWEVER - I have no idea where I got many of these plants. Some of them were found already at this house, others I took with me from previous gardens I've owned or rented, or were given to me by their owners when I admired them in passing. But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them. Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just growing on seeds? Victoria -- gardening on a north-facing hill in South-East Cornwall -- |
In article , Victoria Clare writes: | | But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or | specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me | or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them. | | Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just | growing on seeds? If you aren't selling them as the named variety, no. An increasing proportion of those signs are bogus, but even the ones that do refer to genuine plant breeders' rights aren't likely to be enforced for unidentified plants at a charity sale. However, it isn't allowed in the latter case - though whether it applies to propagation by self-seeding is most unclear. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Nick Maclaren wrote:
: In article , : Victoria Clare writes: : | : | But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or : | specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me : | or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them. : | : | Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just : | growing on seeds? : If you aren't selling them as the named variety, no. An increasing : proportion of those signs are bogus, but even the ones that do refer : to genuine plant breeders' rights aren't likely to be enforced for : unidentified plants at a charity sale. However, it isn't allowed : in the latter case - though whether it applies to propagation by : self-seeding is most unclear. Currently it can NEVER Apply to seed. It only applies to vegetative propagation. Jim p.s. With the advent of Genetic engineering, I believe that seed bearing the patented GM gene is covered and you could not seed save and grow those. Though give the promiscuity of pollen, if you seed saved any brassica within a 10mile radius of a GM Rape crop you'd have some of the stuff in some of the seed! |
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , Victoria Clare writes: | | But some of them *probably* at some point came from garden centres or | specialist growers and originally had those scary 'do not propagate from me | or we will despatch our winged monkeys of death' messages on them. | | Is this a likely source of trouble? Would I be safer sticking to just | growing on seeds? If you aren't selling them as the named variety, no. An increasing proportion of those signs are bogus, but even the ones that do refer to genuine plant breeders' rights aren't likely to be enforced for unidentified plants at a charity sale. However, it isn't allowed in the latter case - though whether it applies to propagation by self-seeding is most unclear. Regards, Nick Maclaren. I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety -- Sue Begg Remove my clothes to reply Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! |
In article , J Jackson writes: | | Currently it can NEVER Apply to seed. It only applies to vegetative | propagation. Ah. I wondered. But see below. | p.s. With the advent of Genetic engineering, I believe that seed bearing | the patented GM gene is covered and you could not seed save and grow | those. Though give the promiscuity of pollen, if you seed saved any | brassica within a 10mile radius of a GM Rape crop you'd have some of the | stuff in some of the seed! That does not apply in the UK. You can't patent a gene. Yet. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
In article , Sue Begg writes: | | I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they | would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be | pure to the 'protected' variety It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers think. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , Sue Begg writes: | | I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they | would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be | pure to the 'protected' variety It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers think. Regards, Nick Maclaren. There's probably a 'committee' involved there somewhere - and we know what sanity they produce :-)) -- Sue Begg Remove my clothes to reply Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! |
Nick Maclaren wrote:
:: In article , :: Sue Begg writes: :::: :::: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then :::: they would have possibly crossed with something else and would :::: no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety :: :: It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane :: person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers :: think. God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane of glass. - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for example) you won't get your collar felt. -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
Phil L wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote: In article , Sue Begg writes: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then they would have possibly crossed with something else and would no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers think. God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the result of years of experience and training. like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane of glass. It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the law for me or my representative to read. I smell straight bananas, wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded pages of the Daily Mail. - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for example) you won't get your collar felt. That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a few plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe a bit of beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop, and I begin to lose sympathy. -- Mike. |
"Phil L" wrote in message k... Nick Maclaren wrote: :: In article , :: Sue Begg writes: :::: :::: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding then :::: they would have possibly crossed with something else and would :::: no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety :: :: It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane :: person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers :: think. God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane of glass. It's not illegal to replace a light switch. The new rules on electrical work require the Local Authority's building control department to be told about most electrical work but NOT repairs, replacements and other maintenance work. Neither do they have to be told about the addition of extra power or lighting points or other alterations to existing circuits unless these are in a kitchen, bathroom or outside. This "you need an electrician to change a bulb" stuff is a myth! -- Neil Visit my Peak District walking website - www.peakwalking.co.uk |
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote: Phil L wrote: God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the result of years of experience and training. It requires neither to stick such a notice onto a variety that has been grown since time immemorial and, unfortunately, there is no law against such deception. I have seen such notices on varieties that I know were not covered by a valid Plant Breeders' Right. That is a consequence of a one-sided law. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article , Mike Lyle wrote: Phil L wrote: God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the result of years of experience and training. It requires neither to stick such a notice onto a variety that has been grown since time immemorial and, unfortunately, there is no law against such deception. I have seen such notices on varieties that I know were not covered by a valid Plant Breeders' Right. That is a consequence of a one-sided law. I did say "Well..." I don't want an American drug company stealing the rights to the neem tree any more than you do. There are limits, though. -- Mike. |
Mike Lyle wrote:
:: Phil L wrote: ::: Nick Maclaren wrote: ::::: In article , ::::: Sue Begg writes: ::::::: ::::::: I would have thought that if they were spreading by seeding ::::::: then they would have possibly crossed with something else and ::::::: would no longer be pure to the 'protected' variety ::::: ::::: It doesn't matter what a gardener, biologist or other semi-sane ::::: person thinks; what matters is what the bureaucrats and lawyers ::::: think. ::: ::: God forbid anyone should take any notice of them!....I noticed a ::: capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the ::: supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just ::: another 'jobs for the boys' ruling :: :: Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to :: stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is :: somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the :: result of years of experience and training. So? My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the government to pass a law stating that all DIY decorating should be banned. :: ::: like the ones where it's now ::: illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane ::: of glass. :: :: It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the :: law for me or my representative to read. I smell straight bananas, :: wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded :: pages of the Daily Mail. You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing....it's all safety and who can argue against that? - maybe decorators *will* get a law passed, based on the stupidity of the average person who thinks he can reach 'if I just stand on this box....' :: ::: - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand ::: scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for ::: example) you won't get your collar felt. :: :: That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a :: few plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe a :: bit of beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop, and :: I begin to lose sympathy. Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid? -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
Phil L wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote: Phil L wrote: [...] I noticed a capital P on a label stuck in some lobelia seedlings in the supermarket the other day...the P is for protection! - it's just another 'jobs for the boys' ruling Well...but I hope you don't want plant breeding and selection to stop altogether because it doesn't pay. That "job for the boys" is somebody's by no means risk-free living, and is very likely the result of years of experience and training. So? My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the government to pass a law stating that all DIY decorating should be banned. You are certainly far too intelligent to imagine that I'm not intelligent enough to see why that's a load of dulux. So who is your target audience? like the ones where it's now illegal to replce a lightswitch in your house, or replace a pane of glass. It is? OK, Officer, I surrender: you no doubt have a copy of the law for me or my representative to read. I smell straight bananas, wrapped (unhygienically and so perhaps illegally) in discarded pages of the Daily Mail. You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass... Where? Since when? By whose rules? it's going the same way as plumbing....it's all safety and who can argue against that? - maybe decorators *will* get a law passed, based on the stupidity of the average person who thinks he can reach 'if I just stand on this box....' - To the OP, do what you want, unless you are doing it on a grand scale (anything larger than supplying a couple of greengrocers for example) you won't get your collar felt. That at least is almost right. Nobody's going to hassle you for a few plants from seed sold for a registered charity or even maybe a bit of beer money; flog rooted cuttings to a High-Street shop, and I begin to lose sympathy. Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid? Again, if you follow urg you're surely far too intelligent to imagine that that is what plant breeders' rights are about. So why say it? -- Mike. |
Mike Lyle wrote:
:: Phil L wrote: ::: Mike Lyle wrote: ::::: Phil L wrote: ::: So? ::: My dad was a painter and decorator but he didn't pay the ::: government to pass a law stating that all DIY decorating should ::: be banned. :: :: You are certainly far too intelligent to imagine that I'm not :: intelligent enough to see why that's a load of dulux. So who is :: your target audience? :: I don't know what your talking about here - I'm saying that DIY is a free-for-all, whether it's decorating the lounge or taking cuttings from your neighbours plants. ::: You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and ::: be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass... :: :: Where? Since when? By whose rules? :: In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations. http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html ::: ::: Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and ::: decide to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm ::: has been done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid? :: :: Again, if you follow urg you're surely far too intelligent to :: imagine that that is what plant breeders' rights are about. So why :: say it? Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant breeders rights are, if they are anything like songwriters' copyrights etc, then I don't think they have a leg to stand on, once something (whether it's Elton's new track or a brand new bloom) is out 'in the wilderness', it's a free-for-all again - you can't stop people from collecting seeds or taking cuttings so why try? -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
On 9/5/05 20:59, in article ,
"Phil L" wrote: snip Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog 12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular supplier has lost a few quid? After 20 years, you might be in the clear! But plants with Plants Breeders Rights on them are exactly like inventions with a patent on them. You must not produce copies (cuttings) of them. My husband has PBR on a couple of things and I can tell you that to the breeder some plants are worth a lot of money, depending on the demand and popularity. So, having done the work and paid for the PBR and the trials and everything else that has to be done, which can also cost a thousand or two, a plant breeder would have every right to stop you selling his plants for your gain. And these things *are* followed up to my certain knowledge. Now, all that said, nobody is going to go after anyone who takes a few cuttings to give to friends or sell at a charity stall - the rip off would have to be on a much larger scale than that. But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original breeder and it is quite possible that the breeder would take a dim view of that if it became known. I know we certainly would. PBR is there to protect the interests of the person who has done all the work, used their time and their skill, spent their money, paid for the trials and licences, so effectively, you would be taking their money away from them. I knew the man who invented the Black & Decker workmate and some years ago he told me that never a month went by without his agent having to fight some case over others trying to rip them off with copies - as it is for large 'solid' objects, so it is for PBR plants. Just because they're plants and easier to copy (propagate) doesn't mean it isn't illegal to do so. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
In article ,
Sacha wrote: But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original breeder ... No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights. Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though, as I said, I have seen them abused. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On 10/5/05 9:29, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Sacha wrote: But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original breeder ... No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights. Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though, as I said, I have seen them abused. To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird' brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its breeder. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
In article ,
Sacha wrote: But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original breeder ... No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights. Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though, as I said, I have seen them abused. To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird' brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its breeder. You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia 'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so. I am happy to agree that people shouldn't propagate such varieties improperly, but not that the royalty holder loses one fee for every such plant so propagated. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On 10/5/05 9:59, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Sacha wrote: But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original breeder ... No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights. Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though, as I said, I have seen them abused. To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird' brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its breeder. You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia 'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so. We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their* profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a yoghurt tub. snip -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Phil L wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote: [...] You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass... Where? Since when? By whose rules? In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations. http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth. There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site: Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my life, give or take a detail or two. It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out and check. On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are rules, and everybody in the business knows them. [...] HTH, -- Mike. |
In article , Sacha writes: | | We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a | plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And | if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their* | profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, | they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is | their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR | specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a | yoghurt tub. Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking about facts. I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct. If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, ... That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt that you actually know mine on this matter :-) But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales. They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder. Some may, but typically only a small proportion. If they had not done that, you would NOT have seen a comparable jump in profit, neither in the short term nor the long. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On 10/5/05 10:56, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Sacha writes: | | We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a | plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And | if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their* | profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, | they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is | their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR | specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a | yoghurt tub. Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking about facts. I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct. It is correct enough to allow the breeder or his agents to stop those who are breeding from the mother plants without licence to do so. If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully, ... That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt that you actually know mine on this matter :-) Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply will cease to come along. It costs someone money to produce them on a small scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid for their work through royalties. I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it once before when this came up but I might be misremembering. But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales. They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder. Some may, but typically only a small proportion. You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the supplier which get passed back to the breeder. While I agree absolutely that a few plants sold here or there doesn't bother anyone, the fact is that those plants are sold illegally, just as the rip-off copies of the Workmate would have been. Just recently we found somewhere selling Bluebird and enquired of the agent as to whether these people had paid for the right to sell it. They hadn't and were asked to stop selling it or to obtain future plants from the wholesalers. This was a small nursery so the numbers being sold ran only into hundreds or possibly thousands, not just a few at a plant sale. As I say, it would have to be someone very pernickety who objected to that. snip We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants almost certainly would. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
In article , Sacha writes: | | Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to | anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply | will cease to come along. Which is why there were so few new varieties developed before that law was passed? Oh, come now! | It costs someone money to produce them on a small | scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or | someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid | for their work through royalties. That is true. | I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it | once before when this came up but I might be misremembering. No, I have never expressed it on Usenet, let alone on this group. It is not what you think, and the reason I have never posted it is that my views on the matter are too complex and philosophical for such a medium. | You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available | locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it | will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite | often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the | supplier which get passed back to the breeder. Yes, I am. What you say is true, but you are assuming that all 144 people really want that variety - and remember that the context was that it was being sold as an UNNAMED variety. I doubt that, of those 144, more than a dozen would buy the named variety if they had not bought the unnamed one in a charity sale. | We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us | all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few | PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but | making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants | almost certainly would. Oh, yes, quite agreed. That is a very fair summary. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... snip there's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site: Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my life, give or take a detail or two. Whats the site? I've just replaced a number of internal doors, would be interesting to see what regs apply to a door! I wonder if a door purchased from a DIY store would anyway meet the regs? And how would someone buying my house in say 5 years time know if they had been replaced/met the regs? -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Tumbleweed wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... snip there's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site: Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my life, give or take a detail or two. Whats the site? I've just replaced a number of internal doors, would be interesting to see what regs apply to a door! I wonder if a door purchased from a DIY store would anyway meet the regs? And how would someone buying my house in say 5 years time know if they had been replaced/met the regs? The site is: http://www.fensa.co.uk/faq.html#1 I can't imagine what relevance it might have to _interior_ doors. Well, I suppose there must be something to stop idiots using ordinary glass at child height in interior doors, but you wouldn't have done that. I don't know when you last sold a house, but these days purchasers' surveyors are extremely picky and own-arse-covering (I bear the psychological scars a year later!) It helps a lot if you've got evidence of Building Regs approval, too; a certificate from a FENSA member is apparently equivalent. -- Mike. |
Janet Baraclough wrote:
:: The message :: from "Phil L" contains these words: :: :: ::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant ::: breeders rights are, :: :: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue :: about? Is that the Royal 'we'?....don't presume that you speak for anyone else on this group or any other because you don't, no - one does. I advised the OP to take no notice of 'the winged monkeys of death' notices, if there are any...she asked whether there would be 'trouble', which obviously there will not...from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ever. -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
On 10/5/05 19:15, in article
, "Phil L" wrote: snip from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ever. "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise other people on a potential legal question. Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What will deter individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume and intention and the reaction of the plant breeders' agents to both. -- Sacha (remove the weeds for email) |
Sacha wrote:
:: On 10/5/05 19:15, in article :: , "Phil L" :: wrote: :: :: snip ::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing ::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do ::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, ::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ::: ever. ::: :: :: "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise :: other people on a potential legal question. OK, what I should have said is, "go ahead and do what you like, no one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for infringing these PBR's" Wake up and smell the coffee Sacha! - imagine if the OP is at her Charity sale and the owner of the PBR *himself* walks past (the one person out of 60 million in the UK) what is he to do? - phone the police?....even without the astonomical odds of this happening aside, do you think that: A) the police either know or care about this law? B) can spare the manpower to deal with it? C) would attend the scene at all if there were no firearms involved? :: Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What :: will deter individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume :: and intention and the reaction of the plant breeders' agents to :: both. As I said earlier, can you point me in the direction of an *individulal* being sucessfully prosecuted in the UK? The OP was talking about a car boot sale or similar, hardly Kew Gardens is it? IMV these laws are aimed at companies and other nurseries stealing the copyright or PBR of another, once they are sold to the general public, no one has *any* kind of control over what happens next and rightly so. -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
Thanks all.
Sounds like I can get on with potting up my surpluses. I'n not planning to take cuttings of anything that I know to be a specific named, protected variety, or sell any plants as named types, but, for example, I know I have at least four different 'named varieties' of strawberry plant in the garden, plus a couple of things which probably had names once but not by the time I got them. Given the habits of strawberry plants and the regrettable inattention I have paid them over the last 8 months ;-), I have no idea which the ones that have generously planted themselves all the way down my bark path are. I'm fairly sure one of the varieties had a label threatening winged monkeys of death (or similar), but I don't know which one is which. Now I know that no-one is likely to be checking, or bothered about it, I can just mark them 'strawberry' (which will at least be accurate, if brief) and leave it at that. Now I think about it, I think the 'winged monkey' protected strawberry was also described as an old French variety. Surely it can't be a traditional variety and a protected genetic variant ??? Victoria |
On 10/5/05 22:03, in article
, "Phil L" wrote: Sacha wrote: :: On 10/5/05 19:15, in article :: , "Phil L" :: wrote: :: :: snip ::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing ::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do ::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, ::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ::: ever. ::: :: :: "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise :: other people on a potential legal question. OK, what I should have said is, "go ahead and do what you like, no one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for infringing these PBR's" Wake up and smell the coffee Sacha! - imagine if the OP is at her Charity sale and the owner of the PBR *himself* walks past (the one person out of 60 million in the UK) what is he to do? snip I clearly said that I doubted anyone would worry about a few plants at a charity sale BUT that if you intended to make yourself a business out of someone else's property, you could be in trouble. If you have reading and comprehension difficulties I'm afraid that's not my problem. -- Sacha (remove the weeds for email) |
In article . 10,
Victoria Clare wrote: Now I think about it, I think the 'winged monkey' protected strawberry was also described as an old French variety. Surely it can't be a traditional variety and a protected genetic variant ??? That is precisely what I was referring to as bogus claims. There is (in general) no law in the UK against false advertising, false claims of legal constraints and so on. And it is a hell of a lot cheaper to make such claims than it is to do the work to justify them! For example, "shrink-wrap licences", most of the Web pages that say "By clicking on the button, you accept ..." are void in law. There is no valid contract, and therefore no licence. But there is no law against making a claim that there is, and precious little against actually persecuting you on bogus grounds. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Phil L wrote:
You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing.... You don't, in most domestic cases. What about greenhouses? it's all safety and who can argue against that? There are lots of arguments against over- or inappropriate regulation. |
Janet Baraclough wrote:
:: The message :: from "Phil L" contains these words: :: ::: Janet Baraclough wrote: ::::: The message ::::: from "Phil L" contains these words: ::::: ::::: :::::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant :::::: breeders rights are, ::::: ::::: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue ::::: about? :: ::: Is that the Royal 'we'?.... :: :: No, it's the plural "we" . Several people other than myself :: noticed your cluelessness in this thread, concerning PBR, glazing :: and electrical regulations, and corrected your wrong information. :: Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows nor install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and covered by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs for the boys' jibe. ::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing ::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do ::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, ::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ::: ever. :: :: PBR legislation applies equally to individuals who propagate for :: commercial use without a licence. :: I have not said otherwise, only that nothing will happen if she (the OP) does - try reading the OP - she asked for opinions on whether she would be in trouble, not legal advice - that would have been sent to uk.legal and not a gardening group - opinions - IE 'has anyone ever heard of anyone getting dusted?', my answer is a resounding NO! and I've yet to hear from anyone in here that they have heard of it happening either. -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
Mike Lyle wrote:
:: Phil L wrote: ::: Mike Lyle wrote: :: [...] :::::: You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work :::::: and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass... ::::: ::::: Where? Since when? By whose rules? ::::: ::: ::: In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations. ::: http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html :: :: Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth. :: :: There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, :: and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a :: member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement :: installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to :: meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A :: sample from the site: :: :: Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed :: to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved :: Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). :: It's not just replacement windows (IE frames) it's glazing in general, the actual frames are never going to fall out and kill someone, but if you install ordinary glass (as opposed to toughened) below a certain height and someone falls into it and cuts themselves or worse, you can go to jail, unless of course you are a member of FENSA, pretty much like the members of CORGI, they are covered, both insurance wise and from those above who carry out 'investigations'. :: And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical :: work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my :: life, give or take a detail or two. :: :: It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should :: approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to :: self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out :: and check. What I'm saying is that these pieces of legislation are in place for no other reason than to line the pockets of those who pushed to get them introduced. :: :: On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are :: rules, and everybody in the business knows them. :: But the general public just download whatever music they like without fear of the law. -- If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs. |
Phil L wrote: You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...it's going the same way as plumbing.... You don't need to be in anything to replace glass. But if you replace a whole window you either need FENSA or a building control application. |
Phil L wrote:
[...] Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows nor install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and covered by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs for the boys' jibe. I don't quite understand why you keep saying this. The man in the street is in no way restrained from glazing his own windows, or installing his own electrics. He can also rip out all his windows and doors and fit entirely new ones if he wants to; but he has to comply with Building Regs, and, apart from anything else, may have trouble getting a purchaser's surveyor to OK the house if he doesn't. That isn't new. An authorised professional window fitter can self-certify his materials and installation, thus saving everybody time and money -- that's the reverse of "jobs for the boys", though I don't personally trust it. from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want. ever. PBR legislation applies equally to individuals who propagate for commercial use without a licence. I have not said otherwise, only that nothing will happen if she (the OP) does - try reading the OP - she asked for opinions on whether she would be in trouble, not legal advice - that would have been sent to uk.legal and not a gardening group - opinions - IE 'has anyone ever heard of anyone getting dusted?', my answer is a resounding NO! and I've yet to hear from anyone in here that they have heard of it happening either. But everybody with an opinion on it has been agreeing with you, very clearly, in the case of the OP's small-scale charitable project. They -- we -- also went on to describe circumstances in which a breeder would, and in one case did, invoke his or her legal rights (nothing to do with the Police or "busting", by the way: this is Civil Law). You're not one of those rare people who finds being agreed with just as distasteful as being disagreed with, I hope. I find them very difficult to talk to. -- Mike. |
Phil L wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote: Phil L wrote: Mike Lyle wrote: [...] You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass... Where? Since when? By whose rules? In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations. http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth. There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements, that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site: Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). It's not just replacement windows (IE frames) it's glazing in general, the actual frames are never going to fall out and kill someone, but if you install ordinary glass (as opposed to toughened) below a certain height and someone falls into it and cuts themselves or worse, you can go to jail, unless of course you are a member of FENSA, pretty much like the members of CORGI, they are covered, both insurance wise and from those above who carry out 'investigations'. Sorry: didn't see this before posting my last. No, I can't necessarily go to jail for it: nobody mentioned the criminal law. I can be sued, of course, and serve me right; but that costs money, not liberty. And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my life, give or take a detail or two. It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out and check. What I'm saying is that these pieces of legislation are in place for no other reason than to line the pockets of those who pushed to get them introduced. I see no pocket-lining mechanism here. If anything, it may be a tax-saving measure by reducing the need for building inspectors; so I suppose it lines your pockets and mine a little bit. On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are rules, and everybody in the business knows them. But the general public just download whatever music they like without fear of the law. No doubt, and the industry doesn't like it. But start selling pirate discs on a market stall, and things may get more exciting. -- Mike. |
In article , Sacha
writes snip We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants almost certainly would. I think you're both agreed on that. But what Nick seems to be saying is that just because someone has illicitly propagated and sold 1000 plants doesn't mean to say you have lost 1000 sales. Not all of those who bought the 1000 plants would otherwise have approached you, by mail order or otherwise. You could argue that you have lost 1000 'royalties' ... except that, had the other guy been licensed, he'd probably have had to sell the plants at a higher price to cover that, and so may only have sold 850 of them, not 1000 ;-) -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
"Phil L" wrote in message k... Janet Baraclough wrote: :: The message :: from "Phil L" contains these words: :: ::: Janet Baraclough wrote: ::::: The message ::::: from "Phil L" contains these words: ::::: ::::: :::::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant :::::: breeders rights are, ::::: ::::: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue ::::: about? :: ::: Is that the Royal 'we'?.... :: :: No, it's the plural "we" . Several people other than myself :: noticed your cluelessness in this thread, concerning PBR, glazing :: and electrical regulations, and corrected your wrong information. :: Not wrong information at all, the man in the street cannot glaze windows nor install any electric sockets etc unless he is 'trained' to do so and covered by various bits of legal claptrap....if you pay the government the asking price, you can get all kinds of everyday stuff outlawed, hence the 'jobs for the boys' jibe. I've done both of those, in two houses, together with building a brick garage and altering the house. When can I expect to go to prison? -- alan reply to alan(dot)holmes27(at)virgin(dot)net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter