mselby

My Feedback: (1)

As a matter of record;The Composite ARF site has pictures of the Tucano that they sell. Under the Brazilian blue scheme, they have a picture listed as more views. As a matter of record, the plane was built by me and is not a Composite ARF plane. The fuse was supplied by Jet Power who apparently sold their molds to Composite ARF. The fuse was highly modified by me, the wings and tail section are scratch built. Photos of the plane were published in an RC magazine here in Thailand. No permission was requested from me or the magazine to use the photo. Obviously it would have been difficult to agree to allow usage of something that was not the same product.
Mike

abufletcher

A $3,000 non-jet ARF???

Ah, it's made for a turbo-prop engine -- so yes it IS a jet -- sort of.

bla bla

Very likely they jusy aren't aware of the situation and have used the supplied images in good faith.
I think that an email-telephone call etc would retifiy the situation.
Your problem lays with the ownership of the picture. Is it yours or somebody else.
Is it protected? Rights Managed, Rights Ready or Royalty Free?
Ring them up, say you're pissed, they'll say sorry and give you a discount if you let them use it.
Life good.

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

I won't comment on their pricing, only the fact that ads should not show photos of something that is not the product being offered. Bla Bla, I think you missed the point. They only just started selling this product. The picture was published in an RC magazine here in Thailand late last year. I do not think that they were confused as to the source, or whether the product was theirs. We have a rather small RC community here in Thailand. Composite ARF is located in Thailand. I am not seeking a discount nor am I concerned about copyright of the photo. The photo is of an aircraft that is not their product. This practice is worrying.
Mike

bla bla

It says quite clearly:
"A view of a very nicely finished Brazilian blue scheme Tucano"
It dosen't say it's their kit.
Next to it is another picture that says:
"and another view of the kit from the rear quarter."
I don't think it implies that the first picture was their kit.
As they said, it's a very nicely finished Tucano, they don't say its theirs.

You have no copyright over a detailed model of a Tucano.
The only thing here is if they've used a protected image.
Ask them to remove it.

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

Interesting interpretation. You would not imagine for a moment that there was any attempted implication. Again, I'll emphasize my concern is not legal, only ethical. Not in terms of use of a photo, but in terms of what someone looking at the photo might infer. You are of course most welcome to your interpretation.
Mike

abufletcher

I'd tend to read it like Bla Bla as well. They don't imply that this IS their ARF -- just that it's a nicely finished Brazilian Blue. Perhaps along the lines of: "you too" could have a model of this nice aircraft with our ARF. As you say, they're a young company and may not have many customer photos to use. I do agree that it's a bit questionable from a ethics standpoint.

Honestly, though, for nearly three grand (that is dollars not baht, isn't it?), they should be custom building these to same standard as yours!

bla bla

Don't get me wrong Mike, I totally understand why you're pissed.
I just have a limited number of thing you can do about it.
Remeber, it's your model, a model you've spent many hour on. We don't see it like that.
We just see a cracking model Tucano. Wheather its fom their kit,your plans, a Byron or somebody elses, it dosen't bother me.
Of course from where you're sitting, thats annoying to say the least!
Just ring them up and ask them whats th deal.

splais

My Feedback: (25)

sure looks to me like mselby has a point. Just what do you think "...and another view of the kit..." implies about the first picture? [>:] no offense intended, of course .

abufletcher

See, here's where intonation is VITAL!

"A view of A very nicely finished Brazilian blue scheme Tucano, and another view of the kit from the rear quarter."

"A view of a very nicely finished Brazilian blue scheme Tucano, and another view of the kit from the rear quarter."

bla bla

Absolutely. And there are other pictures of the kit before one get to this page.
I don't think they are trying to deliberately mislead people even though it could appear that way.
I just think that they found a picture of a Superb model Tucano to show people just how great a model Tucano can be!
It just happens to be your Masterpiece they're showing of Mike.
Very nice ariplane indeed by the way.
No doubt you've been having great success competing with it.

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

No offense bla bla but I think you are missing Mike's point. I don't think Mike is pissed at all, just concerned that Composite ARF may be a bit misleading in their advertising. I tend to agree with Mike here. Though the company has not directly claimed that the picture is of an airplane built from their kit they certainly have not gone out of their way to make folks aware that it is not. Intentional or not, some folks will be mislead. Just my .02 cents of course.

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

Chad is absolutely correct
Mike

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

I am afraid I could not avoid a follow up comment. The January issue of Jet Power Magazine has an advertisement from Composite ARF. It contains a photo of my plane. This is the same photo as on their website. The caption in the advertisement says painted in the molds.
We are no longer in the territory of "A view of A very nicely finished Brazilian blue scheme Tucano, and another view of the kit from the rear quarter." This is just plain misrepresentation. I have called Composite ARF. They cheerfully told me this was a photo a customer sent of one of their models. That is about as accurate as their advertisement.
Mike

piroflip2

A member of my club used to be part of a well known importers display team. (similar to Rip-off-max)

However, almost ALL of the models that they flew were not the overweight ARTFs that punters buy, but scratch built one offs.

They also used "blue printed" engines, some even with alternative carbs!!

This is cheating IMOHO.

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

There seem to be two interpretations of the practice of displaying a product that is not the one for sale. There was another recent RCU thread about a picture of a Futaba receiver in an ad from a company which did not sell Futaba. Some felt the Futaba picture was merely a "representation" of the non-Futaba products for sale. Others saw "Bait & Switch" in that ad.

I cannot for the life of me understand why one would not just grab a digital camera and make a picture of the product that is for sale. Nor can I understand why one would present a picture of a Chevy in an advertisement for a Ford. Apparently, others feel differently.

Takes all kinds. Good luck,
Dave Olson

SDCrashmaster

Using an image in and ad, on a website, or in any communication developed by a "for profit" company, without having a signed release, permission to publish it, or own the image themselves...is unethical, to say the least.

And, you'd better be able to pay the price, especially if that image was owned by a stock photo agency. I am not surprised at any of the shoddy business practices going on in the third world.
Especially, it seems, by those companies that are producing fiberglass Radio Control models.

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

SDCrashmaster,
Using an image without permission is not particularly nice. However, here we have a plane that is not their product, and they are representing as their product.
Mike

abufletcher

Have you flat-out told them that it's a photo of YOUR model and asked them to remove it from their advertisements? If so, I would imagine a letter to the corporate offices threatening (or merely implying) legal action would do the trick.

mselby

My Feedback: (1)

I did advise them that it was my plane, and was not their product, and of course I told them to remove it. It really made no impression. But, then again why would it. They already knew it was not their plane, and they knew their advertising was false. Since they were not bothered by this, I doubt they were bothered by my call.
Mike