Thing 000891 - Moth Europe - Revision history

Alice Mahiant at 12:47, 19 June 2026

2026-06-19T12:47:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 19 June 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.		The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.
			\|jurisprudence=Marique c. Roland
	\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)		\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)
	\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 000841 - 000960		\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 000841 - 000960

Alice Mahiant at 12:38, 19 June 2026

2026-06-19T12:38:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 19 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Things		{{Things
			\|image=Thing000891.jpg
	\|presentation=In 1928, the first version of the one-person sailing boat called ''Moth'' was made in Australia by the boat maker Len Morris. ''Moth'' was a cat rigged (single sail) flat bottomed scow to sail. In 1929, the second version was made in the U.S. by Joel Van Sant, who built a similar, small, fast singlehanded racing sailboat. During the early 1930s, the third version was built in Great Britain by a small group of sailors, who called it the ''British Moth''. In August 1960, Pierre Marique, a French naval architect, made preliminary drawings for the prototype of the lightweight fiberglass version of the sailing boat ''Moth Petrel'' for Aloïs Roland, who was a boat builder from Belgium.		\|presentation=In 1928, the first version of the one-person sailing boat called ''Moth'' was made in Australia by the boat maker Len Morris. ''Moth'' was a cat rigged (single sail) flat bottomed scow to sail. In 1929, the second version was made in the U.S. by Joel Van Sant, who built a similar, small, fast singlehanded racing sailboat. During the early 1930s, the third version was built in Great Britain by a small group of sailors, who called it the ''British Moth''. In August 1960, Pierre Marique, a French naval architect, made preliminary drawings for the prototype of the lightweight fiberglass version of the sailing boat ''Moth Petrel'' for Aloïs Roland, who was a boat builder from Belgium.

Alice Mahiant at 12:38, 19 June 2026

2026-06-19T12:38:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 19 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Things		{{Things
	~~\|image=No image.png~~
	\|presentation=In 1928, the first version of the one-person sailing boat called ''Moth'' was made in Australia by the boat maker Len Morris. ''Moth'' was a cat rigged (single sail) flat bottomed scow to sail. In 1929, the second version was made in the U.S. by Joel Van Sant, who built a similar, small, fast singlehanded racing sailboat. During the early 1930s, the third version was built in Great Britain by a small group of sailors, who called it the ''British Moth''. In August 1960, Pierre Marique, a French naval architect, made preliminary drawings for the prototype of the lightweight fiberglass version of the sailing boat ''Moth Petrel'' for Aloïs Roland, who was a boat builder from Belgium.		\|presentation=In 1928, the first version of the one-person sailing boat called ''Moth'' was made in Australia by the boat maker Len Morris. ''Moth'' was a cat rigged (single sail) flat bottomed scow to sail. In 1929, the second version was made in the U.S. by Joel Van Sant, who built a similar, small, fast singlehanded racing sailboat. During the early 1930s, the third version was built in Great Britain by a small group of sailors, who called it the ''British Moth''. In August 1960, Pierre Marique, a French naval architect, made preliminary drawings for the prototype of the lightweight fiberglass version of the sailing boat ''Moth Petrel'' for Aloïs Roland, who was a boat builder from Belgium.

Line 21:		Line 20:
	\|jurisprudence=absent		\|jurisprudence=absent
	\|researchDocumentation=present		\|researchDocumentation=present
	\|commentResearchDocumentation=leaflet ''Moth A.L.U. voilier de classe internationale construit en alliage léger'' by Goujet ; article ''Affaire: voiliers. Conception d'un nouveau voilier. - But (esthétique ou pratique) recherché. - Séparabilité de la forme et d'un résultat pratique. Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi'' from Revue de droit intellectuel, 1969 ; web article ''The Europe'' from Europeclass Belgium ; web article ''Europe (international)'' from SailboatData.Com ; article ''International Europe'' by Vanessa Bird in Classic Boat, February 2012 ; pictures and drawings of the boat ;		\|commentResearchDocumentation=leaflet ''Moth A.L.U. voilier de classe internationale construit en alliage léger'' by Goujet ; article ''Affaire: voiliers. Conception d'un nouveau voilier. - But (esthétique ou pratique) recherché. - Séparabilité de la forme et d'un résultat pratique. Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi'' from Revue de droit intellectuel, 1969 ; web article ''The Europe'' from Europeclass Belgium ; web article ''Europe (international)'' from SailboatData.Com ; article ''International Europe'' by Vanessa Bird in Classic Boat, February 2012 ; pictures and drawings of the boat.
	\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 / 000841 - 000960		\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 / 000841 - 000960
	}}		}}
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing
			\|isHarddrive=Yes
			\|publicationText=absent
			\|presentationText=present
			\|presentationTextLanguage=English, French, Dutch
			\|specimenImage=present
			\|jurisprudence=present
			\|researchDocumentation=present
			\|commentResearchDocumentation=pictures and drawings of the boat ; pictures of the specimen present in the Praticothèque in a garden.
			\|otherMedia=draft text ; empty file.
			}}
	}}		}}

Alice Mahiant at 11:42, 18 June 2026

2026-06-18T11:42:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 18 June 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing		\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing
	\|isBox=Yes		\|isBox=Yes
			\|publicationText=absent
			\|presentationText=present
			\|presentationTextLanguage=English, French
			\|specimen=present
			\|commentSpecimen=The specimen is not in the box, it's hanging in the space.
			\|jurisprudence=absent
			\|researchDocumentation=present
			\|commentResearchDocumentation=leaflet ''Moth A.L.U. voilier de classe internationale construit en alliage léger'' by Goujet ; article ''Affaire: voiliers. Conception d'un nouveau voilier. - But (esthétique ou pratique) recherché. - Séparabilité de la forme et d'un résultat pratique. Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi'' from Revue de droit intellectuel, 1969 ; web article ''The Europe'' from Europeclass Belgium ; web article ''Europe (international)'' from SailboatData.Com ; article ''International Europe'' by Vanessa Bird in Classic Boat, February 2012 ; pictures and drawings of the boat ;
	\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 / 000841 - 000960		\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 / 000841 - 000960
	}}		}}
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}

Alice Mahiant at 08:54, 9 June 2026

2026-06-09T08:54:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:54, 9 June 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.		The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.
	\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)		\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)
			\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 000841 - 000960
	\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing		\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing
	\|isBox=Yes		\|isBox=Yes

Alice Mahiant at 11:23, 8 June 2026

2026-06-08T11:23:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 8 June 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}
	~~[[Category:M2S2 / 000841 - 000960]]~~

Alice Mahiant at 17:13, 5 June 2026

2026-06-05T17:13:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 5 June 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}
	[[Category:~~M2S1~~ / ~~000721~~ - ~~000840~~]]		[[Category:M2S2 / 000841 - 000960]]

Alice Mahiant at 17:03, 5 June 2026

2026-06-05T17:03:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 5 June 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}
			[[Category:M2S1 / 000721 - 000840]]

Alice Mahiant at 16:48, 5 June 2026

2026-06-05T16:48:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 5 June 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.		The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.
	\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)		\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)
	\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing}}		\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing
			\|isBox=Yes
			\|listOfThingsShelf=M2S2 / 000841 - 000960
			}}
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}

Alice Mahiant at 16:59, 2 March 2026

2026-03-02T16:59:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 2 March 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.		The court concluded that the design for the boat ''Moth Europe'' could not be protected by the ''droits d’auteur'' because the shape given to it was primarily based on technical criteria and that the aesthetic effect of the boat ''Moth Europe'' couldn’t be separated from its function.
			\|questions=What if common things become included within art practices ? (functionality)
	\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing}}		\|physicalCopy={{Physical copy of the thing}}
	\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}		\|digitalCopy={{Digital copy of the thing}}
	}}		}}