bjr_93tz

Not wanting to hijack other threads I'm a little confused on the whole intellectual property thing as applied to our model airplanes?

If I design a plane and don't take out any patents on anything (not that there's to many new, unique or novel things on them), then I'd guess I only have some form of protection from the copywrite laws, being a piece of artwork or sculpture?

If I didn't trademark the plane's name or colour scheme, then what's stopping anyone from making replica's (with very minor changes) and calling it the same thing and painting it up the same?

I realise there may be legal variations in different countries, or has "selling the rights" for model aircraft designs just been some gentleman's agreement so the designer will endorse the copy instead of threatening to sue?

flywilly

My Feedback: (121)

Hi BJR,
I'm just going to copy my post from the Arrow thread here.
I asked an attorney friend about this issue and he just laughed when I told him how much money was probably involved. I will pass on a few points he made (after he stopped laughing). First, most copyrights (production rights or whatever you want to generically call them) have an expiration date and since the Arrow was originally designed in '77 or '78 and the agreement with Quality Line probably occurred in the early 80's; well, it's been at least 30 years. Second, the plans to build the airplane were published in M.A.N. in 1979 which pretty much makes them public domain from that point on. Third, the cost of litigating this issue makes the whole disagreement completely laughable.
I will add that the cost of 'protecting' your design may well exceed the minimal profits you make from kitting it.
One more related point. I have inquired several times in the past about the possibility of Oxai selling kit versions of their pricey built-up 2 meter airplanes since they start out as laser-cut kits. Oxai's response was that they were afraid this would make it too easy for somebody else to copy the airplane and sell their own kits (because there is such a HUGE amount of money to be made). I may be in a very small minority, but I would spend $3,000 for 3 or 4 top quality kits before I dropped $3,000 for a top quality ARF - just sayin'.
If you are really interested you can research what has happened with some of the big dogs (EG. Apple vs Samsung). There is a lot of money involved and the lawyers get paid no matter who wins.
-Will

-Will

PatternPilot

My Feedback: (58)

But what about the guy who was in business 20 - 30 years ago , and then closed and has been sitting on the molds etc.. Now Re-opens and starts producing the kits again for a side business or primary income.. You saying he has no rights ? I would think so , I have also talked to a attorney a few years ago about this same thing and it is obvious that there are many different thought about this. Anyhow I'm glad to see the original molds coming out and being reused to produce kits. I think the guy who has the original products with the designers approval etc. should have rights.. I would like to see someone splash a Great Planes Dirty Birdy ( a direct copy ) and I bet there would be some heart burn over that .. I know there have been several R/C lawsuits with a few products and the original designer, producer , etc. has won over the clones.

It would be different if it was a part here and there for personal use or a friend etc. But to make mass production and sell that is different. I find it hard that some of the past production / designers have not approached this more.



any how something to think about while attacking the turkey tomorrow..

s.

countilaw

Pattern Pilot, I think you are right and I agree, the possessor of the original moulds have the rights to the product over the person that copies a finished product and makes a mould of it to sell for personal gain. And by the way, the wooden version was published, for a modeller to produce a plane for his own use, not to distribute as a kit.


Even if there was no law suit initiated, it is just low for a person to copy another persons work and use the name for personal gain.

If and when I buy a product, I will definitely go to the person or company that has the right to produce the product.

Frank

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I think there are two things to consider here. Are we talking about the legal aspect or moral? Legally if the designer did not have anything copywrite protected then it's pretty much up for grabs. It would be very difficult to have a model airplane copywritten. The name is usually what gets protected. This type of case is quite difficult to prove. You would have to prove that your design was copied then you suffered damages. There really is not enough money involved to actually bring suit against someone who has copied your design.

Aurora_60

My Feedback: (1)

bjr,
If you are thinking of kitting a design, I would really recommend that you look into gathering info from the PTO, Patent Trademark Office. Just to get you started and motivated. A little over 10 years ago I was thinking of protecting a speargun design I created, This is the info I found back then.. A patent from the PTO comes in a few different forms, one of which is a Utility. Utility protects a functional design. The Utility is what an R/C plane would fall under. Trademarks are different. They protect a Logo. Like the swoosh from Nike, or the 2 "G"s that face eachother for Gucci. If you want to protect both the name And the logo, those are 2 completely different trademarks that would need to be filed w/ the PTO.
For your design of an R/C plane. Dont listen to others first off, heck, dont even take my word for it. Look it up yourself and get FACTS.
But just for kicks, what I found out is: First off, No one needs to have a lawyer represent them to file with the PTO. So do not go to a lawyer they will cost you thousands for things you can do yourself Again get some books and start reading. Next, the most expensive protection you can get from the PTO is the Utility Patent. It cost $800 to file a design. That was what it cost just over 10 years ago. I was told that the $800 goes into the reasearch required for them to find if there is a similar design already public. I was also told, from the PTO, that that amount could become lower due to the information on the internet lowering the amount of time needed for each case research. A design can be similar to an existing one. There is a percentage of deviation from existing designs. Therefore, if you improve on an already patented design, say a 777 Boeing jet's fin design, and you new design differs beyond that percentage, you are entitled to that patent. (I forgot what the percentage is, but I do remember it wasn't much)
There are other requirements as well. Once you are awarded you patent, there is another fee, along with timed fees to keep a patent. But Patents do expire. They have different lengths of being active. I forgot how long they were.
Again, don't take the word of people here if you are serious about this issue... Hell, or any issue for that matter. If you really want to know What is What about pretty much Anything, Go to the source and research it. The information doesn't get any better than the source!

DM

bjr_93tz

Thanks Aurora_60, I'm definitely NOT thinking about kitting anything either of mine or anyone else's. I didn't want to mention the thread that got my curiousity going as this isn't about anything that specific.

From the sound of it, if I were to design a plane, patent and trademark nothing, win a WC then find out some sneaky Pete took detailed photo's during the comp and had China wack out a couple of hundred of them before I got back home then I really wouldn't have a leg to stand on and I'd have to hope the rest of the pattern community would shun the so called "illegal" copies. I know if I write a poem on a scrap of paper and leave it on a park bench, I still automatically hold a copywrite on it.

About the only thing you could apply for a patent for in an F3A design would be the airfoil sections, fuse cross section if it were unique and original, or design of the internal structure. Planform and dimensions ie wing sweep, tail moment and control surface size surely couldn't be protected?

I remember reading somewhere about he number of patents YS had on just their DZ series motors alone. There were multiple patents on just the fuel pump.

I for one would like to see the designers/developers rewarded for their efforts and don't want to see anyone "ripped off", I'm just not so sure what "rights" I have available to sell if I didn't go through the proper legal process to protect them in the first place? If I try to sell "rights" I assume I have but don't legally hold, am I committing fraud?

Cheers
BTW, if anyone thinks this is the wrong thread in the wrong place and wants it shut down, locked or moved, then I'm not going to take offence.

Aurora_60

My Feedback: (1)

bjr,
The PTO also has forms that are free to use for designs that are NOT patented or patent pending. These forms are so the designer can "share" his idea with others (like a company) without having them steal the idea. Kind of like a legal agreement of "shh". This way if a design needs to be protected under multiple patents, the designer can find finacial support without risking his design of becoming "public domain". BTW, with the design is shared without a legal agreement, the designer then has made his design as public information and therefore public domain. It is really interesting what the PTO has for Everyone, and they are really easy to talk to... unlike lawyers.

This got me thinking about our kits. There must be an on going patent rights of ownership, I'm pretty sure the Carl Goldberg Sky Lark and Falcon are protected. Those out date our 1980s kits. Have to dig out my books next month and check it out.

DM

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Dave,

Suppose I made significant structural design modifications to a 20+ year old design but otherwise kept the planforms, moments and airfoils the same, would I:

1) Hold copyright on those "percentage deviation" design changes?

2) Assuming I shared those design alterations in a "non-copyable" format without the so called PTO paperwork, would someone be copyright infringing if they took my design alterations and produced a kit of it?

3) Would that same kitter be infringing on my copyright, the original designers or both?

Just opening up the questions for discussion in a non-legal environment.

David

bjr_93tz

Interesting David, I was watching a programm on the Learjet and how they bought the rights to the wing and have been using it for every model since (except the last one or two).

I guess in simple terms they bought the airfoils and all the mechanical designs that went into it. If another company were to buy a Learjet, take molds off the wings and offer a composite option I'd guess about the only thing they could get nicked for ripping off the airfoils?

Aurora_60

My Feedback: (1)

Dave,
For the sake of conversation: First of in the case of your kits/designs, the original patent (if one was obtained) would have to be looked at. The reason for it, woulb be to learn what the patent is protecting in the original design. I'm talking about the layout of the physical model verses the structure of it. If it is the structure, There would need to be reasons for the changes and a reason why it was changed, like if you used foam and C/F spares, etc.. to stiffen the wing to help it perform. This would be a viable design mod that you would have discovered and changed to Better the original design. Therefore, YOU would be entitled to compensation for YOUR idea. Even if it was to someone elses existing idea. But if the original layout was scrutinized under it Patent, then you can still get your patent appoved, but you must not kit the entire plane. You would need to sell your idea to the original designer, or you can offer (market) your idea as a modification to the original design.
Your second question. If you offer ANY idea in an open (being public) forum, you Must obtain a legal agreement with everyone present. If that is not possible, like over the internet, then a patent must be obtained. Doing so without agreement or patent means it was done so without any form of protection, and is now considered; Public knowledge, Public information and Public domain. Remember what it is that you are trying to do. You want to keep others from doing what you are doing and creating unwanted compitition (at the expense of your hard work of R&D) but in some cases, a patent doesn't need to be made. I realized I didn't need one for my speargun since the time that was needed to make one of my designs wouldn't be profitable for a manufaccturer to change to. I could build about 10 guns for every one normal gun. With a net profit amount of $1200 for my design vs. a net amount $300 for evey one of a normal gun, it makes more sense to make the normal guns. So my compitition really didn't exist. Also, Copies could actually Help with a design sometimes. Sales could grow due to the knowledge of the design. It would be a form of advertising in the shape of mimic. Think about Rolex. Rolex is the #1 men's watch in sales not because of their designs or their own advertizing. It is due to the copies that have been produced. The copies made Rolex a household name and people that want an over the top watch want others to know, they are wearing a $10,000 watch. They get that wearing a Rolex. So copies could benefit designs as well.
The third question, They only way anyone can infringe on someone else's idea, is that the idea would have to be protected. IF no agreements were prepared and signed or no filing through the PTO has been made, the design is Not protected and is fair game once it reaches the public. The public could be just one person. There is a myth about taking your notes and design plans and mailing them to yourself, never to be opened unless a liutigation was filed against your design. I was told by the PTO that that will not support you in a legal case. However, when you send in your "package" to the PTO for review of your designs, there are many required documents that they will need. One of which (and its the first thing they look for) is a self addressed and stamped postcard. The PTO will stamp your postcard and mail it to you as soon as your package is opened. Once your package is opened by the PTO, your design is under review and you now own a design that is "Patent Pending" provable, by you, with the returned postcard from them.

Hope this was entertaining Dave, again if you or anyone is serious about this (or any issue) go to the source. These are just things that I beleve to be so. The PTO would definately be the place to get some Real answers for anyone who wants to know.

DM

DESERT RATT

My Feedback: (7)

Howdy all.

I went through web design courses a few years back. First: believe it or not, Anything you post is automatically copyrighted Patented to you. If you post a photo here or anywhere else on the web you are the sole ownership of that photo.(I always thought it became "public domain" also)It is your work. If you want to put your favorite band as background music behind a YouTube media clip you can (Legally) only use 30 seconds of that music. Now, A Patent has a lifetime, it will run out if you as the owner do not keep it updated. While doing "home work" for the course I had to make mocked up web sites. I had to contact each owner of a photo, song, and or design and obtain his "written" permission to use his work, idea, or design. Patented life times generally last for 15 years. There are some that will live 20 years.So let's say you do theresearch or havean attorneydo the research on a patent that has already been given, if that owner has not kept hispatent up to date the patentbecomes available to be filed for again. Let's say you quote a lecturer, You can only use so much of his material without obtaining his written permission to use it all (sorry, I don't remember the copyrighted time on that). 15 years ago I designed a tool for the jewelery repair industry, it was a pair of pliers to remove a gemstone from a already built ring. Isent a set to a friend of mine to "Test" to get his feedback. While in his care a co-worker stole my idea and did the patent process himself and today he receives money from my idea,manufacturing of the pliers. Yes, I could go after him but the Attorney fees are way high and I would haveonly my friend as proof. If I remember right, the percentage amount of change to a product is/was 10%. that was i5 or so years ago and may have been changed.

Here's a place to go if you're interested in more information of which I may have forgotten or has been changed. These guys have flat rates, no hidden fees. http://www.legalzoom.com/sem/patent....FUZgMgod-l8AcQ
You can also go straight to the patent website a do a search here http://www.uspto.gov/
regards,
Ratt

Here's two of my own personal web sites.

Mustang build...http://www.wix.com/19681972chevytruck/65-stangster
70-Truck site: http://www.wix.com/19681972chevytruck/bgbytoy-creation

WEDJ

Regardless of the legality, there is little money to be made in the model business. I have freely given my own design "Peppermint Pattie" to anyone who wishes to make kits or cores, etc. of each of the 3 sizes I designed. (.15, .40, .60) Several people have taken advantage of this. And, one person has designed a rib/spar version of the .15 wings for public use.

PatternPilot

My Feedback: (58)

Yep I have them

scott

Taurus Flyer

Copyrights in classic pattern.

When writing about the classic pattern model airplanes, we recognize the copies and the process seems to be accepted, think about the Tiporare, Intruder etc..
By giving these planes the identical or related name we are forced to think the capabilities are comparative (or even better), but the simple fact is, the idee, or formula; is "stolen".
Also of the planes of Ed Kazmirski there are "copies" with funny names!

So what to do to protect my own efforts when researching a classic patternship, for example the Simla or the Cream Puff.

About the Simla
When I spend a lot of time in a project to create a replica, an important part of the activity is ''how not showing important results on the internet to prevent unwanted copying''

How to do that?
There are 19 photographs of the Simla.
After redesign the outlines of my computermodel fits, within high accuracy, in all these photographs.
Also later all known constructive details of the photographs and magazines are copied too for fuctionality of my replica.

When you observe my pictures you will see I only show "compare pictures" (or optical disturbed examples). The added information of these photographs is zero for kit cutters or plans sellers. See the example.

Future?
How did the originals look like?


But that is history!!



Yes, that's history!

In general the discrepancies between the originals and pale imitations will be bigger and bigger and especially as result of using of modern drawing and copying methods. Nobody protects the originals,and the simpliest ghost can chance a design, plan, name or story.......... but......not history!
History doesn't need copyright, only study and reconstruction ones in a while to be fixed again.
Have fun.


Cees

countilaw

I just don't think anyone should copy another persons research, developement and work to sell for their own personal gain without award or royalty to the original designer.

If a person copied another person's research, developement and work for his own personal use would be of the highest flattery of the original designer. But NOT to make a business for profit or personal gain from another person's hard work.

I am sure that when the original plans were published in any magazine, they were not published to be copied for a profitable interprise, but for individuals to spend the time scratch building a plane for their own personal use.

Frank

Taurus Flyer

Frank,

Have attention for this thread about El Gringo en El Toro,
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11...m.htm#11338083
I show two posts related to this subject, post 17 and post 22.

Can you imagine also there are results and details I know about the planes of Ed Kazmirski I rather don't see copied in the sold plans (65 USD a set) and kits of these days. The effort it costed me never will be payed back and other people make money with these!

Of course people aren't always happy with that, see for example an article of UStik about that Simla shown on a server in Germany, but that's the prove of the quality of my work.
"Fun project", see the red square, a project in which a kit cutter is involved simple never is a fun project!!

Have fun,

Cees

TFF

There have been a few patents over the years in models like Jim Walker U-Control and Monokote, but the reality is most of our hobby is copying someone else. Most of the greats even if they held a patent decided to crank out product instead of sit and wait for royalties. The Wright Brothers sat and it cost the US greatly during WW1. Our radios we use are stolen technology from when a few key rc hobbiest knew what labs were developing certain ideas, got hired, and applied it to their radios. It was low level espionage in reality. The Walkers, Krafts, Axelrods, Goldbergs, and others held patents, but they knew someone would work around it. They were in the business because they could make a living at their hobby; they stayed around because they did the work better than anyone else, patent or not. Heck Joe Bridi made a living selling out his companies and using the same designs under a new company.

MTK

Just designing something and not protecting it legally, exposes the design to theft. Lets assume the originator has copyrights or patents granted for a design, product or idea, for argument's sake....

Infringement requires proof in a court of law. That means that the originator would have to be certain of what the thief did and take him to court.Then prove to the judge's satisfaction (facts) that infringement took place.The judge would be compelled to fine the infringer some form of penalty consistent with the amount of business that took place. In commercial product enterprises, the amount of business is sometimes large enough to enable such law suit and justifies the costs.

In modeldom, you are on your own. Business is so small, legal costs would eat you alive and for what? Just to prove a point? Nonsense

One of the most blatant recent infringes in modeldom was the redesign and commercial effort of the Hyde Rubber Isolation Mount for IC engines. The guy simply stole the concept of the rubber isolator idea and made his own commercial mounts that sold, what, 100 units? Hyde knew enough not to pursue a law suit for infringement, Not because he would have lost; he would not have!! but because there wasn't enough stolen business to matter. Had he pursued a law suit, he would have lost where it mattered most, his wallet.

The total business in rubber isolation mounts has not been insignificant BTW. Over the past 25 years some 30,000 units were sold at an average price of 130$. It's a chunk of change. And now the protection period has run out so anyone can produce them for profit.....But people still buy the Hyde, although I don't, and actually have never owned one; I've always made my own

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Frank,

Although I generally agree with your position on what's right and what isn't, there is another angle to consider. Sticking to classic designs, the evolution of model designs (for that matter the evolution of anything) is largely based on visual physical and flight experience of existing models at the time. That is how "new" designs come into existence.

Did Hanson break copyright when he designed the Tipo? Did Matt break copyright when he designed the Joker? Do all the current F3A designers break each others copyright, when they come up with a "new" design and then offer it for sale if others are interested? Would you be braking copyright by buying a Magic fuse cast "today" because someone wants to salvage "defunct" classics from oblivion?

I guess what I'm trying to say is things are more in shades of gray than the B&W we sometimes like to believe. Sooner or later everyone who builds and flies classics will be braking copyright - one way or another. But then, a lot of this stuff is public domain now so anything that promotes classic pattern is good in my eyes.

We shouldn't get too hung up on it.

David

Taurus Flyer

See the pictures I was writing about.
Red oval, "copyright" and the green circle selling the plans.
This was expected by me and the reason not to cooperate but why that note in the article of UStik? Bad loosers!.


Cees

PatternPilot

My Feedback: (58)

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

Taurus Flyer

Scott,

I am not interested in the rules for copyrights,
I only show how I prevent people do make money with the results of many hours of research. see post 15.


Cees

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Be careful, now. Don't let this get out of control.

CGr
Moderator.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

CGr,

Good time to step in. Thanks for keeping us inline!

As I reread some of this thread I thought about the notion of personal gain. The question in my mind is whether the cottage industry is getting much of this personal gain stuff? It strikes me instead that it is us classic pattern enthusiasts that are gaining personally by being able to acquire or re-acquire models of the past that we long to fly. Why? Because just 3-4 years ago there were rather few glass fuse/foam wing options out there. Are the guys producing these kits "gaining personally"? Maybe, but probably enough to buy some cheese or a couple of servos. The classics ARF guys on the other hand, yes, they must be making some cash, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. Does Joe get royalties for every Birdy GP sells? I certainly hope so.

For my part, I know that whatever conservation efforts I've made toward the preservation of some of these designs amounts in terms of personal gain to possibly covering the cost of my own laser wood kit. Is this adequate, fair and rightful compensation for the labour (and to some extent "ability") and effort involved? Well, let me see and factor in the man hours required to bring one simple model to fruition... Oops! Had those hours been paid at an average personal rate, I'd have my own private island by now... Instead, we make sure the kids are fed today...[X(]

I think the picture is clear... The true personal gain lies with us as consumers. No island deeds are currently been negotiated by the cottagers. We just have to try and avoid all wanting a slice of the same salami. There are plenty of other good cold cuts.

Nothing like pontificating after a long days work!

David