another law-talking guy . .
While I am a lawyer, none of you are my client, this isn't legal advice, and you shouldn't rely on it in any way. With that disclaimer:
While in a
literal sense, one can argue that any embodiment of creative expression qualifies for copyright, the appliation of the law in courts is far narrower. While, as you point out, architectural designs receive copyright protection (not just the plans), that is a very specific protection. For example, it only covers permanent, stationary structures habitable by humans - a bridge, no mater how beautiful, would not qualify for such protections. As a general discussion, see Circular 41 at the Copyright Office website. And if you look at Circular 40, which covers copyrighting "visual arts", you see a discussion of the useful article issue:
A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle . . . Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not . . . Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.
So the Copyright Office itself doesn't seem very impressed by the idea of an actual piece of furniture being copyrightable. Now copyright law is a little more complicated that Copyright Circulars, but Wood or any other magazine or book would have a hard time claiming a copyright in the furniture produced from their plans. I certainly can imagine furniture which would have a better chance of supporting such a claim, but a mission or arts&craft style nightstand ain't one of them.
A separate but related issue, however, arises from contract law. If, in exchange for a license to the copyrighted plan, you agreed not to sell any furniture that you made from the plans, you may have a contractual limitation on your right to sell the furniture. (There is a sort-of doctrine of copyright misuse, but it isn't applicable here). And the plans themselves, of course, are protected by copyright.
Overall, an interesting question, but I don't think it holds much weight.
[And Per, before I became a law-talking guy, I was a 300-lb guy from the Oranges. With that as my credentials, Kevin (I believe) did make a good point above. Nolo books may give a reader some insight into some of the legal questions rasied by an issue, but are not a reliable legal authority. Nor is the internet. Much of law is state-based law, and states can vary widely. Really widely. Copyright is one of the few areas of laaw that lawyers from different states can even debate because it's federal law. Maybe only IP lawyers would find this funny, but I recently saw that, according to Wikipedia, most courts hold shrinkwrap and click-wrap license invalid. That's not really the case . . .]
The last person that referred to me as "Mr. Blankshain" was looking for their paycheck. We are a "Family of Woodworkers" and all have opinions in one form or another, right or wrong. I just had some insight into the subject because in my field of work, you protect everything seven ways from Sunday. Just remember "if it ain't worth copying, it probably ain't worth makin".
