Class Associations powers
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6192
Printed Date: 26 Jan 26 at 6:05am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Class Associations powers
Posted By: Mikey 14778
Subject: Class Associations powers
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 9:27am
|
It has always intrigued me as to how class associations come into being, how much power they really have, and by whose
authority. It seems to me that if I were building a boat (let's call it a Whizzbang 5000) and selling it in any sort of volume, I'd want there to be a CA for it. But the CA would not necessarily have to be linked to me or my boat-building company - it ought really to be an organisation voted for by the majority of the owners of the boats. That's fine, but CAs tend to then invite the owners to pay them some money if they want any say in the running of the class. Hmmmm, that's not so good. My CA might be total rubbish and overpriced. Maybe there's another group of sailors who'd like to run the CA but can't depose the first lot under the current rules. It begs the question as to where the rights to the title of "Whizzbang 5000 Class Association" derive. Just like my original musings in the RS100 topic, this is entirely hypothetical. I'm not having a go at any particular CA here. Just interested to learn how it works. ------------- http://www.fireballsailing.org.uk/register/boat_info.php?sail_no=14778 - Fireball 14778 - 'Cruel and Unusual' http://www.draycotewater.co.uk - Draycote Water, fantastic ! |
Replies:
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:04pm
|
I don't see your differential between one design and development Class association at all. Its surely all about who owns the rights... The only real difference is between classes where the manufacturer owns the rights (typically the designer is an employee or was contacted to the manufacturer) and classes where ownership is with the Class association, usually coupled with the Designer(s).
You can see it in the RS Rules
In this case if the manufacturer doesn't like it the Class association can say what they want... In the case of an International Class the final say is with ISAF:
And the manufacturer has no real say... There are also complications with who owns the copyright on the design... |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:10pm
|
With reference back to the RS100 thread where the Blaze transition from Topper was mentioned. There were a few issues when Topper dropped the boat and the Class decided to appoint a new builder. As it was one of the then committee members set up a company to act as the builder with Rondar building the hulls. There were some who were sceptical and wanted to take another route but on the whole (and now some 3 years down the line) the class is thriving compared to the Topper days. The class and the builder work very close together to ensure the class moves forwards but does not obsolete the older boats meaning you can get a boat capable of winning the nationals (in the right hands) for around £1000 (this is about as low as the price for a Blaze goes). I think other classes in a similar position could learn a lot from the Blaze, despite the initial sceptics everything is working fine. The guy who set up Cirrus to build the boat is still very hands on with the class and works well with the CA Committee. My only advice to classes where there is a problem is to vote them current committee out and appoint a new one.... Just my 2p as always.... Paul ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Slippery Jim
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:23pm
|
IMO the issue gets a bit more complicated when we're talking about development classes. There, a group of individuals have the rights to the different designs. Builders then pay a license fee to the respective designer. Anyone may theoretically design a boat within the class but the decision to allow the boat design in the class rests with the class association. This is the case with the national 12 owners association, which has drawn up a series of class rules about the design per se and other things. These rules are subject to periodic review and changes voted in, usually at the AGM. Usually, any rule change proposal is looked at before hand by a (sub)committee which gives an opinion as to whether the change would be in the best interests of the class or not. I hope I've got that right, shoot me down in flames if not). Sounds very burocratic and indeed it is, but saying that if it's doing with dedication and patience it can bear fruit and the class has, as a result stood the test of time,.(70 years plus) and of course, developed. Cheers Jim (sorry about a somewhat emotional plug for a class to which I used to belong ------------- Pass the skiff, man! |
)Posted By: Mikey 14778
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:57pm
|
Sticking with RS as they have floated to the top of this discussion, clearly they wrote the rules which say
that the decisions of the CA can be vetoed by themselves. But what is to stop a group of people saying "We have set up a CA for the RS Whizzbang, in spite of the fact that there already is one. We will be working according to our rules which don't include any references to the builder". Could they then call themselves (say) the 'Real Whizzbang CA', recruit members and set up an open circuit ? I suppose the question is, to what extent *must* you have the boatbuilder's and/or designer's agreement when setting up a CA. My suspicion is that, although desirable, you don't need it at all. ------------- http://www.fireballsailing.org.uk/register/boat_info.php?sail_no=14778 - Fireball 14778 - 'Cruel and Unusual' http://www.draycotewater.co.uk - Draycote Water, fantastic ! |
Posted By: rs405
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 1:24pm
|
I was thinking of the Laser Development Class Association. Rule 1) An origional Laser hull shall be used. Rule 2) See rule 1) That would be a lot of fun!
On a more serious note I suspect what stops you from starting your own class association is probably the trade mark/ copyright of the design and its name. Then there is the problem of actually getting people to join it over the already established 'offical' one. ------------- 420, 470, 405, laser 4000 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:00pm
Most classes struggle to find enough volunteers to run one class association let alone two!
RYA affiliation is one issue, especially if you want to go to Sailboat or whatever. But its not a subject I've ever had to find out about, so I'm pretty much speaking from a position of ignorance [voices off - no change there then!] |
Posted By: Mikey 14778
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:18pm
|
Is the name really an issue. I can't believe that Laser have copyrighted that particular word.
You've got to avoid the charge of 'passing off', ie attempting to trade on somebody else's company name. But I'll bet that "Fireball Class Association" or "RS300 Class Association" are not companies and thus not legal entities anyway. In any case, you would want to differentiate your new outfit from the original to avoid confusion. Presumably Rooster managed to do almost exactly this with the 8.1. It's got a CA (I assume) and it's not been shafted by Laser plc (yet). ------------- http://www.fireballsailing.org.uk/register/boat_info.php?sail_no=14778 - Fireball 14778 - 'Cruel and Unusual' http://www.draycotewater.co.uk - Draycote Water, fantastic ! |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:33pm
They are very careful about how they use the L word on the CA website at least...
And so yes, Laser have trademarked that word... |
Posted By: chrisg
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:48pm
|
Could laser not have opened themselves up to being done under the trade descriptions act for that little nugget above. Laser and performance arent really 2 words that sit well together are they? ------------- |
Posted By: Mikey 14778
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:51pm
|
Sure, you can't call yourself or your product 'Laser', as the company of that name have trademarked it. But that
doesn't stop you referring to a Laser(TM) in normal use if you want to refer to it, or to use the word 'laser' in any other context. And it is the item name rather than the class association name that is restricted by trademark in this case. But this is missing the point. The point was that you can legally subvert the manufacturer's intentions for the product, and you can set up a CA without their say so. I have no plans to do this - I don't have enough time or madness for that kind of stuff. But it's good to know that it is technically possible to revive classes which are being held back by the money-making ambitions of their builder, regardless of what the incumbent CA might think. ------------- http://www.fireballsailing.org.uk/register/boat_info.php?sail_no=14778 - Fireball 14778 - 'Cruel and Unusual' http://www.draycotewater.co.uk - Draycote Water, fantastic ! |
Posted By: G.R.F.
Date Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 3:38pm
|
I was once threatened with legal action for using the Class trademark as the
title of the Class magazine I was running at the time which is how sensitive yanks tend to be about that sort of thing. My thoughts on classes have already been aired and I think unless both parties, builder and class who's interests tend to be diametrically opposed in reality if the builder has any sense of commercial future, work sympathetically to each other, the class is destined to a mediochre future at best. ------------- https://www.ease-distribution.com/" rel="nofollow - https://www.ease-distribution.com/ |