Mode One

I have done some thinking about the above question. I think it would be safest to assume that plans and drawings are copyrighted! From 1997 to 2005 I was a Marine Surveyor (a recreational vessel inspector). Buyers, owners, sellers and insurance companies would hire me to inspect a boat for them. This request for survey may be done pre-sale, pre-buy, to procure insurance or to inspect damage and estimate the cost of repairs. The purpose of the inspection was to gather information on the condition and value of the vessel in question and to report that information in a marine survey report. So, the product I produced was a report document. The report was for the benefit of the buyer of the report, alone.

Previous to agreeing to do the Marine Survey, the purchaser was required to sign a document which outlined what I would and would not do and what I was responsible for. Also a part of this agreement was the understanding the report could not be passed on to anyone else.

On a few occasions, I determined that the reports had indeed been sold to someone else. Although I never pursued litigation over this, I felt it was completely unfair to me, as I had lost another opportunity to make a sale from my hard work and it also exposed me to liability from which I had not made one red cent!!!!

The Plans many of you are buying second hand off of Ebay; or, here on RCU; or, other sales locations, fit into what I would term copyrighted or proprietary information. I think it is unfair to the originator of this work product and should not be done with out
their consent!

I'm not telling you, you can't or shouldn't do this. However, I am saying I'm not going to do it anymore!

Erebus

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.�


If you didn’t draw it it’s not yours to copy. If you didn’t sculpt it, it’s not yours to copy. Us-wing and others on ebay are thieves steeling others work. I see them selling Nick Ziroli plans all the time and if you buy them you are a scum bag thief also. Good day

Chip_Mull

My Feedback: (1)

I am sure Nick appreciates the loyalty. Thank you.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I prefer to purchase plans from the designer but I have purchased plans from some deceased designers from reputable plans services like BHP and others. If I wanted a Zirolli or a Uravitch plan I would buy it directly from them. You have to look at model design like a local hobby shop, if you want the service, in this case new aircraft designs, you have to support that business or they close shop and go into something else. If the designer can't be compensated for all his hard work why should he release a new design? I would love to see a good copyright attorney get a hold of certain well known ebay store and clean out their inventory. Some of the stuff they has is from defunct magazines that no longer has an active copyright holder or the copyright has expired. I don't have a problem with them selling those it keeps the old designs alive, but some of the newer stuff they sell is clearly a violation. The designers don't make the kind of coin it takes to hire an attorney so the best thing we as modelers can do is police ourselves by where we choose to purchase. If there are any designers or plan service owners out there reading this how about a comment from the other side of the equation?

Mode One

Some designers may take using their designs by multiple people as flattery. However, I think their permission to do so, is always necessary!

landeck

My Feedback: (1)

When I buy a book, I can resell it after I have read it even though it is copyrighted. What I can not do is make copies of it and sell or give away the copies. The same is true for plans. When I buy a plan set, I can legally resell them after use, but I can not make copies and sell those. I can copy the plan and cut it up to make templates for my own use but can not sell the templates. There are sources on the web that are selling illegaly made copies, others have made arrangements with the holder of the copyright to sell copies, and others are selling the original plan they bought which is legal. You have to be careful of how the plans were produced and whether or not they are legal copies.

Bruce

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

It's OUTRAGEOUS!!! THIEVES!! Call the COPS!! Off with their HEADS!!!!

Please. This same thread gets started once a year and everyone jumps on the wagon to share in the incrimination of a handful of seemingly shady ebay sellers they think are destroying the hobby. Take a look around and you'll notice the kit manufacturers have been dropping like flies. If it weren't for these plans peddlers most of the designs would be dead too! Who owns the old Royal/Marutaka line? I have no idea but I'd like to build a Skymaster and they ain't around. This plans stuff is a grey area. I remember "Uncle Willie" taking several moldy old inaccurate plans and spending hundreds of hours converting them to CAD, correcting errors, adding rib outlines etc so people could actually build from them. Is he a thief? Hardly. After buying supposedly legit stuff from MAN, waiting 2 months, and getting plans that were distorted and virtually unreadable I have a new respect for what old Uncle Willie was trying to do! That guy selling Zirrolli plans may be selling a personal copy. If it's a pattern Zirolli makes enough money that he can afford to send a desist letter with a letterhead from a legal firm.

My point is not to be argumentative. It's simply, "tread carefully". These plans peddlers are providing a service to people that want to build something besides a 4-star forty at a reasonable price. Adding royalty payments to some dead designers grandchildren is just going to make them unavailable and besides, how do they deserve our money more than the guy doing all the work to revive, restore and update the plans?

smithcreek

My Feedback: (25)

Does anyone know if uswings has or does not have some sort of agreement with Zirolli? It takes a good bit of work to sell on ebay, and his plans are reproduced very well. Perhaps there is some sort of agreement, or perhaps there is no cease and desist letter because all Zirolli has to do is sell a cowl or short kit to more than make up for someone selling copied plans.

Mode One

I've been coming to RCU since 2005 and I do not recall this topic ever having been broached!

My original post has nothing to do with "The Sky is Falling" spin you have put on the topic! Having had my hard work and effort stolden from me in a similar situation, I am only attempting to make people ask themselves the question of whether they are being fair to the person who's work is being traded on the market, without their being compensated!

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Well here's one to start:[link]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_384049/anchors_384049/mpage_1/key_plans%252Ccopyright/anchor/tm.htm#384049[/link] Use the search feature. There are at least half a dozen more.

Again, my point is not to ruffle you MODE ONE and my silly hyperbole was actually not directed at your initial post but at the pitchfork behavior that always ensues. Rather, I wanted to try and illuminate the topic from a different perspective. I like to build unusual aircraft and the manufacturers ain't makin' that anymore. What is the benefit to us of shutting down plan sellers?

Personally, if I were an unknown designer I would be flattered that my plans were being sold by others. I would consider it free "brand building" and encourage it. The icons of the R/C design world like Bridi and Zirolli don't need brand building but they also see little point in tracking down a few ebay copies.

Mode One

Per CrateCruncher: "The icons of the R/C design world like Bridi and Zirolli don't need brand building but they also see little point in tracking down a few ebay copies".

Is the above statement based on any statements made on the subject by these people;, or, is it just your opinion on it?

I really don't care if a subject I am interesed in, has been brought up before. If your not interested in the subject, then why waste your time getting involved? Let the people who are interested, do their thang!

mgnostic

A serious question is:Where does copyright infringement end and serious work begin. According to certain enormous corporations if you make a profit off of a model of an aircraft that they built 50 years ago you owe them a fee. I believe that one could make a case that their product has produced so much public domain imagery that it could be successfully challenged in court. The point of tossing this in is that even though a model designer designs an aircraft that shares nothing more that the outline of a well known design there is a fuss over rights. If I learn from Mr Ziroli's design techniques and produce a set of plans for a plane he has never done I could still be in trouble. (See "sampling" in the music industry.Big money lawsuits). I admire fellows like Platt, Ziroli, Morfis and Mikulasko and I dont begrudge them their income. I think if the originator or his lisencee is producing a set of plans, kit or whatever then the copy right should be observed. If the legitimate holder of the copy right is no longer around or for instance a particular kit is no longer in production then it ought to be considered fair game. My understanding is that some copyrights, unless actively maintained become public domain after a period of years. Thus some O/T designs may be public domain at this point. To further cloud the issue; there are only so many ways to design a model airplane that resembles a famous fighter plane in 1/12 scale and yet quite a few people have done so and even published plans. If I draw up a set of plans and have my local laser guy cut a set of kits that happen to resemble something published by somebody else where does my honest work cross the line into plagerism?
This is my rant and I'm stickin' to it.

Stickbuilder

The problem does not lie with the guy who makes a copy of a plan and gives it to a buddy. I expected that when I began our Waco Phoenix project. The AMA was given the plans by L.M.Cox Inc., who owned the original plans that they acquired when they bought out Pica. The problem was that Pica never made a sheet that showed any of the cut parts (with the exception of one rib). I drew the parts into template form and we (The Waco Brotherhood to whom I gave the templates) agreed to make the templates available to the AMA, but reserved all rights to the templates. These are drawings that never existed prior to them being drawn by me.

The problem arises when some shady character tries to have kits commercially cut, using these templates, and the plans. It has happened, and is happening today. There is a Gentleman who purchased the Plan set, with the templates, and is offering this model as both a short, and a long kit. This violates the copyright of the plans that are property of the AMA, and the templates that are property of the Waco Brotherhood.

Becoming a member of the Brotherhood means that you get free use of the resources that are available from all the members. It does not allow someone to sell these kits as a commercial venture.

Bill, Waco Brother #1

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Copyrighted plans are no different than other materials such as music and movies etc. Ebay will not allow copyrighted material to be sold IF the holder of the copyright informs Ebay that those are his plans and he has an objection. I believe this must be provided for every seller that does so.

To make an argument that the copyright owner should some how be grateful that his plans are being sold with out due compensation to him is absurd. There is no justification for theft, its that simple.

abufletcher

In general, I try to stay within the "fair use" principle, where one agrees to limit use/copying/sharing to personal, non-commercial and/or partial uses. That is to say, I'm not going to try to sell anything I haven't paid for and won't "share" copyrighted materials in their entirety.

This is not to say I'm sinless.

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

The reason I included the link to a previous discussion was not to prove it had been discussed but to give you a chance to read some of the history on the topic. In that discussion several do-gooders mentioned they had reported illegal plan sellers to both Ziroli and Hostetler only to be rebuffed with a request to stop sending them emails on the subject. If you had read the thread I wouldn't have to explain it here....

To the contrary, I'm very much interested in the subject. I think it's important every time this type of thread pops up that builders hear and consider both sides of this issue before making up their own minds. Clearly mine isn't the majority opinion but thank you for having an open mind and hearing what I had to say.

LSF2298

My Feedback: (4)

Is it ok if I establish a library of plans and loan them to users and then charge them an overdue fee if they don't return them in a reasonable amount of time?

Mode One

I'm unsure if beyond the use of the original purchaser, for building the kit, or scratch built model, the producer of the plans doesn't have rights to compensation. Someone above stated their opinion, that they may sell the plans; but, can not copy them.

I'm uncertain of this and think we're all spinning our wheels on this topic, and unless someone who is practicing Copyright Law were to step forward and explain, we will continue to be in the dark and because you feel you have interpreted what the law says, doesn't mean I need to accept your interpretation!

A producer of plans not prosecuting someone who is breaking copyright laws, doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Some of your values in life have to be enfoced by your own honor!

2 Piece

My Feedback: (8)

The person who stated that he can sell the plans but not sell a copied set is correct. Once you buy "something" it is yours to do as you wish. But what you can not due is copy that said "something" and then sell the copies. If I bought an inspection from you, once you are paid in full that inspection becomes my property. I can sell that copy or give it away for free if I like, but I can not make copies of it and then sell the copies.
With the way some of you interpret copy right laws every used car lot, used book store in the world is operating illegally. Everything has some type of copyright even that "arf" you bought, does this mean that you can not sell if you wanted to?
Just think about the word "copyright" copy + right. You do not have the right to copy someone else work then prosper from it.
Gary

GAP-RCU

I agree with 2 Piece: you buy the original work, you can sell the original work.

Another layer to the debate: The plans authors (Ziroli, et al.) may themselves be walking on a fine line, as some major companies have been enforcing their copy/trademark rights in recent years, especially with the warbirds. I think it's absolutely silly that the big corporations would poke a stick at the hobbyist, but then, when the letter from a lawyer arrives, reality can set in...

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

2 piece is correct. The intent of the law is to protect the intellectual property of the originator much the same way as the patent laws do. This was done to encourage new ideas and the rewards that go along with them. This does not mean that once you own the property (i e purchase, gifted etc) you aren't free to dispose of it as you see fit. Reproducing a copyrighted item and then marketing it without the expressed consent of the copyright holder is in violation of the copyright laws.

I have copyrighted material (music) that was used commercially without my consent. It appeared on an album and music video.. I could sue but in this case the $ amount would be more than its worth.

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Ownership of a personal copy gives you the right to dispose of it as you see fit.... that's a pretty definitive statement that I keep hearing repeated here. Are you sure?

I recall a software dispute between the video game retailers Gamestop/Electronics Boutique and one of the publishing associations. A kid can buy a $50 video game, finish it in a couple of days and be back at the store wanting to buy another. The retailers began buying the used games for about 10cents on the dollar and reselling them at 95% of new and a MUCH, MUCH better profit margin. Obviously this was killing new game sales and threatening the publishing industry. Buried in the software we buy is a "user agreement" that we mouse click "agree" to without reading so we can install our software. The game software legal boiler plate in a nutshell says we don't own the software, we are just renting it! This was intended to protect the integrity of the software from gaming mods that could expose the publisher to unforeseen liability (damaged hardware, viruses,etc) but they used it to win a suit stopping the retailers from reselling "their" games.

Stickbuilder

When drawing plans stops being marginally profitable (operative word is marginally), then we'll stop designing and drawing them. Just as when a songwriter stops making money from his craft/art, he will leave that too. It does not belong to the person who bought the pieces of paper, we sell him the right to use it for his personal enjoyment, and not to employ in a commercial venture. That's why you see the anotation: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You are not the owner of the plan, just someone who bought the rights to use it for yourself.

I don't know what you do/did for a living, but I'm fairly sure that you would not have set still for someone coming in and taking your living away from you either. A model airplane may seem inconsequential to you, but it is not to those who put their hearts and souls into drawing them.

Bill, Waco Brother #1

GAP-RCU

"user agreements" are different then the copyright subject of this thread. Agreements are contracts between the seller & buyer - anything can be stipulated with those. If a plans seller doesn't want us to resell the original plan we purchased, or build multiple models off of those original plans, then he needs to have us sign an agreement not to do so. That's completely seperate from copyright.

Edit - to reiterate that I'm very much opposed to the copying of plans without the permission of the original author, or the most current owner, whichever the case may be. If the plans are old, and the company is out of business, it's still best to assume that someone still owns the data and has a commercial interest in it. We need to be very exhaustive in trying to track down the current owners, and gaining their permission, before concluding that the work has been abandoned. Just knowing that XYZ is out of business isn't a good enough reason to fire up Kinkos and Ebay. I agree with Stickbuilder - people put so much into it, it's unfair to steal their stuff (or that of the heirs) just because we can't conveniently track them down with a Google search.

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Because Ziroli and Hostetler are so visible within the building community most people assume that all plans are designed by people like them. These two designers have amassed a large enough body of work that they can actually make a living selling their plans but this is a rare exception. Most of the designers that submitted plans to MAN decades ago did it for recognition and to share their work with other builders, not for monetary gain.

Unlike most of the more vocal on this subject, I've actually attempted to learn and build models from some of these old plans being sold on eBay. Most are difficult to read, a weird scale, designed with maple engine mounts, odd servo configurations, inappropriate airfoils, etc. Like computers, business books, and virtually everything else man-made their value depreciates over time if not periodically updated. Most of the plans out there are from the '60s/70's (40 to 50 years old) and are merely a convenient starting point or source of a clever idea or two.

While it may feel noble trying to track down theoriginator or heirs of a designer to give them a stipend it's not very practical and only ensures that the work will be lost forever. Rather, having multiple sellers of old plans, electronic copies floating etc, will ensure these designs get preserved updated and even BUILT. If we could somehow communicate with the designers that did most of the work I think they would prefer that over money to heirs.

Rather than paint the plans "thieves" with such animosity, wouldn't it be more constructive to discuss who has the best plans? Who sells distortion free copies? Who's updating the plans and adapting them to electronic formats? Builders are a dieing breed. We should be doing everything we can to preserve these plans and widened distribution is the best way to accomplish that.