Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
May 27, 2020, 02:52:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Copyright Infringement HPA & Ebay  (Read 3159 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 70
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,543


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #50 on: May 01, 2012, 11:18:42 AM »

Meanwhile it gave Cessna a bad name with many model builders (like they give a hoot).

As far as I know they did pursue at least two designers/kit companies. Not very cool...

However Pilatus make some very nice scale drawings available to modellers on their official website. A far more civilized approach.
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #51 on: May 01, 2012, 12:19:34 PM »

This is a very interesting thread. I am trying to see both /all sides because frankly I find I am actually a bit on all sides.  While I've not had any model plans published, I did have some original scale drawings that were. I've had two articles with scale drawings published in Model Builder. And I met with Mr. Northrop prior to their appearance and we discussed ownership of  such intellectual property as it appeared in the magazine and what that meant for me afterward. At no time did my original graphic works (words and art) become the property of Model Builder. I suspect the submitters of model plans and article were/are in the same boat. However this can become very murky, very quickly, because  the words are often heavily "edited" and the plans are "redrawn' or modified by the magazine  specifically for more desirable publication issues. These in effect can become "further works" and may fall under copyright protection for whom? The original/author modeler?? No, the magazine and or its owner(s).  

From where I sit it's the exact same situation exists here. The originator of this thread is claiming intellectual property ownership based upon "further works" provisions under former/current US copyright law. It may be his right to do so.

And now, somebody on ebay is apparently selling "further works" of someone else's "futher works' and the "orignator " is "defending " his intellectual property. He may even be right. But defense is usually more about bluster and threat of  action than any real legality. Go to any attorney about any matter and you will find that absalutes rarely enter into a discussion about an "actionable" legal matter. It's more like going to a doctor these days. Everything is expressed in terms of probability and percentages.  The higher the success rate with people in a similar situation, the more likely that your case will go to court. Even then there is no action until a jude or jury renders a decission.

As it happens, about two weeks ago, a concerned friend spotted a set of my scale drawings forsale on ebay. He was concerned that this fellow was possibly ripping me off, selling copies. I investigated and found he was selling an original copy set I had sold/produced. My only complaint was that the ad photo didn't have my name showing (in the title block) nor was it mentioned in the text.  Should I be like some computer software publishers (or Garth Brookes) wanting to control resale use of their intellectual property? I suppose I could have written a nasty letter. But to what end? The reality is that I believe I should expect some resale of my product, especially if it is  a quality effort. Can you imagine not being able to sell your car on the used car market??!!! Can you reasonably expect to dictate the who and how your car is driven AFTER you owned it??? Sure I can claim or even DEMAND,such control but how reasonable is it really,after the sale?

The originator of this thread wants to defend his claim.  He's done it. Lockeed Martin did the same a few years back with a fellow that produced  an original all sheet balsa P-38 kit. They sent a cease and desist letter and the fellow folded.  I thought he was being bullied but that's neither here nor there. It's what happened. Ebay seller may fold but it's up to the originator to follow thru, not you or I, outside observers really, to weigh in.

The recent debacle over plans supposedly cover by copyright, over at the r/cgroups.com was  more by outsiders than those actally having their plans ripped off in a public forum. The argument about copyright legalities, moralities and ettequet  became the focus, not the plans themeselve. BTW, there is a legal way for limited 2nd party publication of copyrighted material. This  is covered by "Educational use" provisions, at least under US law. I believe that is the way to best view this issue.

Let's not confuse copyright with name recognition trademark.
Logged
Modelace
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 37
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 768



Ignore
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2012, 12:45:11 PM »

I am one of the dinosaurs. Many years ago I did a plan/article for MODEL BUILDER. The model was a scaled down version of Gil Moriss "Kerswap". It was a 1/2 A Texaco version. Within 3 months, there was a kit on the market that featured my plan with no changes whatsoever. I contacted Northrup, his take was that it was not worth the cost of a lawsuit.
Point is, this kind of thing has been happening for a long time. If you really care about it, lawyer up. Complaining about it on a freeflight website will get you some sympathy and little else.
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #53 on: May 01, 2012, 02:52:39 PM »

Modelace said "If you really care about it, lawyer up."

Bingo!

Tends to sort the posturing from the doers real fast.

Logged
PaulBrad
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 346


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2012, 12:04:39 AM »

This is the same guy who has the Keil Kraft eezebilt kits on too.  I gave Paul Bradley the patterns from my reasonably rare Swallow with the intention of allowing them to be shared for free and without gain.  And this is what Paul did -initially. Now they appear on EBay apparently with his blessing and to be honest I'm a bit miffed.  I did not intend that when I gave him his that he would allow someone to make a buck from it.  Sorry Paul if you read this, but I'm a bit disappointed if it is true......

Andrew
Andrew - I am late in entering this discussion. I just became aware of it. Regarding the material on eBay that is based on the reproduction drawings on my web site. I was in fact asked by the person selling the printed balsa part sets for my permission before he started selling them on eBay. I thought long and hard about his request. Contributions of scans like those from Andrew were a major consideration. The many hours of my labor that went into creating each drawing package was another. A very large factor was the rather large sum of money that I had spent via eBay to buy the Jigtime and Goldberg kits that were used for those drawing packages.

In the end the deciding factor that tipped my decision to yes from no was my orginal goal. Namely to have current day modelers experience the many fine designs that were developed back in the period of sheet balsa scale and sport models. I have had a number of requests to print part sets from the drawings for people who are not in a position to do it for themselves. I am just not in a position to take on such a venture and give it proper support. When the individual now selling the part sets on eBay suggested he could do that I thought it would be an opportunity for more people to be able to build the models. I do not receive any of the proceeds, I just wanted to see another avenue for people open up that would allow them to enjoy the same models that I have enjoyed over time.

I do apologize to Andrew for not getting his permission to share the drawings I made from the material he supplied. I guess my thinking was along the line that it was my drawing that were being shared. Since the original plan is also part of the package then I was short sighted in thinking only my work was involved in the decision. Now that the horse is out of the barn I hope everyone is not to mad at me for allowing a person to use the reproduction drawing packages to create and sell printed balsa packages on eBay.

Paul Bradley
Logged
GRB
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 12



Ignore
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2012, 09:53:28 AM »

Here is  very interesting web page from Cornell University about this very topic.  In the posts above, a lot has been mentioned concerning magazines that have gone out of business.  This information covers that.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Logged
Daithi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 628


Simplify - then add more lightness



Ignore
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2012, 02:11:06 PM »

Part if the problem is that copyright legilation varies from country to country. The Sonny Bono Act in the US (aka the Mickey Mouse Act) upped copyright to 120 years after the death of the creator (after a LOT of lobbying by the Disney Studios to prevent Mickey Mouse becoming public domain)

However, in the UK and Ireland it's 70 years with ONE exception (Peter Pan copyright is perpetual and is used to raise funds for Great Ormonde Street Childrens' Hospital)

Strange thing - Mickey Mouse got a lot of lobbying - the same lobbyists fought to get the extended copyright on Peter Pan rescinded in the US. Making a profit on kid's TV shows is fine - but at this point I'll stop before I say too much
Logged

It's not that modelling is in my blood. My blood is on a LOT of balsa Wink
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2012, 11:09:52 PM »

GRB's link to chart very interesting. Do you suppose EVERYBODY on Hip Pockets is going to read or even peruse?  What I found especially interesting there seems to be a reference to graphic works (under Archetechtual) but no mentioned provision as to what constitutes a graphic work. It is my understanding that the plans are such. So we are no closer to a real understanding of what is what.  At least according to the chart.

As to copyright for works published outside of US, it is implied that countries which have ratified pertinent international agreements are still protectected in the US and visa versa under terms of reciprical protection and specicifcally lists countires that are not protected by name at this time.

From what I could see, chart also makes no mention of what constitutes "fair use" of copyrighted materials, allowing for limited publication by second and third parties. "Educational" purposes may be the basis for having plans appear here and elseware online.

Further, it is my understanding that facts and other non-fictional notions cannot be copyrighted. Format of non-fiction maybe protected but not the facts and/or other essentials themselves. At this time I am assuming  this also applies to graphic works, such as scale drawings etc.  
Logged
50+AirYears
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 251



Ignore
« Reply #58 on: May 14, 2012, 11:02:16 PM »

I find this interesting.  I've uploaded scans of plans and magazine articles on another site where someone came up with the idea of archiving older plans.  Lately there has been a lot of discussion about copyright.  Seems to be a rather complex issue.  Seems most countries have their own laws, but some by diplomatic treaty will recognize other country's laws.  This country used to issue a copyright for something like 20 years to the originator, with the option to extend for an additional 20.  Then  at some time, IIRC around 1978, they changed the law to one of three different periods depending on certain circumstances with the originator.  The short search I did on the subject didn't really get into fine details.
I think sometimes there is some confusion with Trademark laws, which are a whole different bit of legal confusion.
In both discussions I've been following, there seems to be a lot of personal opinion, but not enough actual fact.
Logged
Daithi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 628


Simplify - then add more lightness



Ignore
« Reply #59 on: May 14, 2012, 11:53:11 PM »

I posted this on another thread, but if anyone missed it, here it is again

Basically UK copyright law states
"...Artistic works, such as photographs and applied art: At least 25 years from creation. Duration will always run from January 1st of the year following the event indicated...".

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p10_duration

This is further defined as "...Typographical arrangement of published editions 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published...Magazines, periodicals, etc...."

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary

Now if the plan or photo was paid for, copyright transferred to the magazine - but anything (at present) dating from before January 1987 is now in the public domain and can be reproduced without infringing copyright. The question of who actually owns the copyright now of the post 1987 plans is a thorny one - RCM&E are 'selling' copies but as the original magazine changed hands a number of times it's a tough call, more so now as the original publisher no longer exists and both Model Aircraft and Aeromodeller have ceased publication.
Logged

It's not that modelling is in my blood. My blood is on a LOT of balsa Wink
PeeTee
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 49
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,282



Ignore
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2012, 03:33:22 AM »

Quote
The question of who actually owns the copyright now of the post 1987 plans is a thorny one - RCM&E are 'selling' copies but as the original magazine changed hands a number of times it's a tough call, more so now as the original publisher no longer exists and both Model Aircraft and Aeromodeller have ceased publication.

Normal sale & purchase agreements of this nature will contain a clause novating the pre-existing Intellectual Property to the purchaser, and it's this and the name of the publication (brand) that will be of value to the new owner. I find it inconceivable that a magazine publisher would not want all rights to the pre-existing IP, obviously within scope of the Copyright & Design Act, or whatever it is now called.

Peter
Logged
Daithi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 628


Simplify - then add more lightness



Ignore
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2012, 08:00:43 AM »

It's a thorny issue because the Aeromodeller title didn't go to Myhobbystore - it went via AHD who incorporated it in AMI - who actually 'owns' the post 1987 plans could be in dispute.

The magazine ceased publication - now we have Starcad, MyHobbyStore, Mike Smart and others all selling drawings and/or plans
Logged

It's not that modelling is in my blood. My blood is on a LOT of balsa Wink
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2012, 02:01:02 PM »

One of the basic problems (already touched upon but not elaborated) is that everyone has a different windmill to tilt at. Alot of people shouting out about copyright infringement DO NOT have a dog in this particular fight and yet feel duty bound to expound profusely about their opinion re: the rights and or wrongs of it.

I hold the view that current sales of as plan or kit should not be the criterion that allows/prohibits plan from appeasring on line, Yet that seems to be the measure. Nor do I feel there should be an unlimited exhange of plans simply because "we have a right to" (though in practice the result may be the same).

As it happens I own a model design of the legendary Playboy Sr., I have this model's original plan, and a letter from the widow of the designer, tranfering the ownership of the model plan and kit tooling, etc. via sale. Do I own the Playboy design? Certainly not! I do own this version, however, so if anyone has a different version (and there are several), I can't get too upset about seeing it posted. Not so sure I'd be real upset if did, but will cross that bridge when and if. 

It has been my experience that lawyers will not express an opinion unless they are being paid. To have them publically state that opinion costs even more. Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of a nebulus defacto system based upon  a traditional fear of a percived retribution, which may or maynot see someone eventully called into court,  definitely ...possibly... maybe....!

Again, it is my opinion (only as good as anyone eles's!) that "Educational use"  of certain model aviation graphic works covers their appearance and discussion in these types of on-line forums. Even some, if not most of the plans still being sold under current copyright. But don't take my word for it. By all means Google "copyright: educational use" or "fair use" and check for yourself.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html   

Logged
Daithi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 628


Simplify - then add more lightness



Ignore
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2012, 03:40:17 PM »

Well the UK government website seems clear enough - that photos, applied art and magazine articles cease to be copyright 25 years after the 1st January of the following year, so any article, plan or photograph published up to and including December 1986 will be in public domain.

'Applied art' is defined as "The fields of industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, interior design, decorative art and functional art are considered applied arts. In a creative context, the fields of architecture and photography are considered applied arts." which would cover plans.

That would also cover any kits whose plans predate 31st December 1986.

Of course that is as of 'now'. It will jump a year at the 1st January 2013
Logged

It's not that modelling is in my blood. My blood is on a LOT of balsa Wink
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2012, 07:30:53 PM »



The problem is not the laws, but the rather haphazard way laws are held to be generally understood (often incorrectly), in the context of a global discussion, as found on this and other popular sites.

I don't think anyone really knows what is going on, but EVERYONE has an opinion.

Logged
50+AirYears
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 251



Ignore
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2012, 11:17:14 PM »

Charlieman, I think you got it right on the money.
Logged
Flugzoig
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 418




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2012, 04:04:25 AM »

I'm surprised at the disparity amongst modellers.
If I ever see a plan on Ebay for example, that can be found elsewhere on the net, I report it to Ebay.
Yes I contact the seller first - usually pointless, challenge their right to reproduce etc, if they continue to sell , I report it to Ebay.

If you don't own it - how dare you copy and sell it?

Logged

If you're not prepared to lose it - don'y fly it!!
Daithi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 628


Simplify - then add more lightness



Ignore
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2012, 06:00:36 AM »

That's not the point - once copyright has expires anyone can reproduce, print and sell copies.

You can find copies of the Mona Lisa on the internet, download, print and sell those with no repercussions (unless you try to claim that you're selling the 'original')
Logged

It's not that modelling is in my blood. My blood is on a LOT of balsa Wink
Bruco
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

France France

Posts: 22



Ignore
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2012, 06:11:59 AM »


Hmmm, well, I do not know about the exact legal aspects, which seem complicated, but I am of two minds about the principle of reproducing material that was published in the past.

Just one example: Some years ago, i purchased 2 sets of CD : One was the INAV archive CD, and the other contained 20 years of NFFS Symposia, in electronic form. Both were published by the original publishers of the material, and the content was, IMHO, invaluable. Extremely informative, educational, and so on.
Now it seems that these CD sets are not available any more, so the potential new modelers cannot read this content, and is not exposed to the extremely interesting and motivating articles included there.
- I think the best interest of the modeling community is to get these articles and plans published again, and from this perspective it matters little how or by whom it is published. Anyway, as it is not sold anymore, the publisher do not make any money from it, so who would be wronged ?
- On the other hand, I would very much like to see more of this kind of content on the market, and who is going to publish it their copyright is not the garantee that this kind of huge effort will be rewarded ?

So I understand both Paul Bradley and Skyraider. I guess This is quite different, as Skyraider's work was publicly available, and the issue is just about if someone can make money on someone else's work. But the publication of copyrighted material still is a confusing issue to me.

Bruno


Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 283



Ignore
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2012, 12:32:26 PM »

flugzoid wrote: "If I ever see a plan on Ebay for example, that can be found elsewhere on the net, I report it to Ebay."

So the criterion for estsblishing the propriety of a selling a legal plan on ebay is that it not appear elsewhere on the net??!!
If I may be so bold, that is what's wrong with this entire debate. Arbitrary assumptions that have NOTHING to do with the right and wrong of the plan appearing anywhere!

What we are seeing now(over on RCworld) is people who have cleaned up someone else's prior intellectual property getting mad at the ebay slime for selling "their work".  Moral quicksand as deep as the above example.

Self righteous indignation about what gets sold on ebay or even what gets shared on the webb is ONLY the perview of the original copyright holder. It is up to them to set the record straight and make any judgments. A hundred guys standing up for an individual's rights soon gets lost in the quagmire of discussion, and any good intention is soon perverted.

The reality is that we cannot police the actions of everybody on the internet nor, as this discussion has proven, even a very small portion of it. As I see it we have two choices. We can decide to stay out of the copyright issue entirely or we can get involved in every instance. One is practical, even if distastefull at times. The other is quite IMPOSSIBLE, and if one plan gets deleted for possible copyright infringement  ALL LIKEWISE NEED TO BE DELETED.

So, what shall we do?  AFAIC, the plan cat is out of the bag. Sometimes the cat needs to be rebagged, but am I, or perhaps you , the guy to  really make that dicission for everybody else?  
Logged
fred
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 534



Ignore
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2012, 11:54:43 AM »

Wow what a teapot tempest.
Clearly It's offensive when 'plans' are viewed as stolen for profit. An involved arguement unto itself, but a pointless digression imo.
 But frankly What? is one actually able to do about it in real life? Get Fleabay to delete the posting? Fine.
But that's pretty well All that's possible isn't it ?
Sales of Toy airplane plans generate what ..10's of $ in a good month?
For that, one would seriously(?) consider legal actions with potential 6 figure costs ?? .. Fill your boots.
Vermin have existed since primordial times. No news there.
 Far more disturbing, in My view, are those self appointed 'Internet Copyright Po-Lice' twits that seem to pop up with increasing frequency.
The Uglier side of human nature in action.
Adapt or die, Darwin was quite succinct :-)
Logged
crashcaley
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 242
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5,313




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: July 12, 2012, 02:03:44 PM »

I've come on this late, but I cannot imagine someone using anothers work for profit, especially one that is copyrighted.  Even one not copyrighted.  When it comes to designing a model airplane, most designers do original work.  That means they don't just trace a plan and maybe add or delete a stick or two.
  I would not like very much for those who have designed models, and been so gracious to provide them in the HPA plans gallery to yank them.
  I just hope that the people who've been selling the pirated copies of someones hard work, are caught and properly chastised, and if they don't stop, properly booted from EBay and any other online selling.  Just my opinion.  Caley
Logged

What's stall speed?  Undecided
peekaboo
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 33



Ignore
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2012, 12:26:15 AM »

My fellow modelers,
    I strive hard to provide plans and/or parts to the modeling community by posting said here on HPA for everyone to enjoy and appreciate the efforts that go into preserving out of production kits. What I don't appreciate is someone using my work and trying to make a buck off my labor. On top of that, this person downloaded my work from HPA and is now making printwood and selling them on ebay. Even though my parts are laser cut, it doesn't change the fact that the layouts are the same and the bridge points have been filled in. If this person is a member here, I'm not asking you to stop,... I'm telling you to stop.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sterling-21-PT-19-Balsa-Model-Airplane-Kit-Plans-Plus-Printwood-/300701010220?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item46032d492c

Dave Cowell
DPCM / Aerowerkes

( skyraider )

I beleive that this is very similar attitude today, to Video & Music Pirateing, but with a non-owner, original possesion. No respect!  Sad
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 12:51:05 AM by Ratz » Logged
Jasco
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 36


Aero ergo Sum



Ignore
« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2020, 05:47:32 PM »

I just read this thread with great interest and admiration for the high-minded and civil discourse between sharply disagreeing parties...and that is not sarcasm. As you will see from the date stamp on my reply, I am still one week away from being released from quarantine and have read a LOT of internet. But I digress
Imagine a world where someone got stinking-filthy rich selling balsawood kits. Public parks, abuzz with Kordas and Puss Moths, would host contests to see who could get a Guillows Hawker Hurricane to fly. Carl Golddberg on a coin!
Then we would bellyache about Big Balsa. Kiss
Logged

Cutting open my thumbs since 1964.
Ouch
faif2d
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 31
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,227


Sun came up I was here to see it = good day



Ignore
« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2020, 07:15:58 PM »

I was lucky enough to have several combat designs published years ago.  I was on e bay and saw that someone was selling copies of one of my designs.  I sent them a msg thanking them for doing such a good job at printing them and wishing them well. I think it was one that was published by Northrup in model builder.
Logged

I used to like painting with dope but now I can't remember why!    Steve Fauble
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!