ausf

Yep, nothing like pissing off your clientele for zero gain. If they were selling Disney images, one thing, promoting Disney on their wall, free advertising. But I guess coporate lawyers need to eat too, right? (No)

Max-U52

"Scratchbuilding a Nautilus because you like the movie is paying homage to the creator of it. Buying a Nautilus model and copying it, even if it's just for you, is theft, plain and simple. If you need two Nautili, buy them."

Did not know that. I think I got the idea because most people make a copy to back up software they buy. I always thought that was legal.

Max-U52

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

ausf

I don't know the legalities behind backing up software, but even if you have two copies, you can only use one. If one of those copies end's up on a friends computer, then it's technically theft, right?

If you buy a zombie bust from me and copy it, not only don't I have quality control over the copy, potentially hurting my brand, but I was robbed of the second sale. Not saying you would or are an evil villain, but a big part of the expense of resin is the molding, so I doubt anyone would only run one copy and destroy the mold. So maybe a couple, not to sell, but to have for practice, maybe hook up a friend. Then that friend paints his and puts it in a show, where a couple a hundred people look at it a see a crappy copy full of patch work and judge my product based on something I have no control of.

Rex Ross

ausf


Your posting about Disney and cartoon cakes gave me a flashback to the 1970s. I was working in Cave Creek/Carefree Arizona then and there was a classy restaurant up there that had a bar in the basement which was also a wine cellar. On one wall was a beautiful wall to wall, floor to ceiling mural of all of the Disney characters in a wine cellar, and they all were having a great time with wine in bottles, barrels and vats---- maybe too much fun ---- but it was cute, and funny as heck. A Disney executive stayed in the hotel one weekend and it wasn't long before that mural was destroyed after he saw it. It was forbidden to try and salvage any part of it. I wish I had taken a photo of it. It was a classic.
rex

Max-U52

I think you're allowed to copy software in case your computer crashes or something, but I do know you're not supposed to give that copy to anyone else.

As for the rest, very informative. I hadn't really thought of it like that before. Makes me wonder about using measurements from other models. Legal or not, it may not be the right thing to do. I imagine the modelmaker did a lot of research into sizes before making the model. I was thinking of buying a 1/35th scale Meillerwagen and just copying it in styrene cut from their measurements (just from sheet and tube and stuff like evergreen and plastruct) and increased to 1/16th scale. Not for sale, mind you, but just for personal use. I think in that case I should be OK, since I can't get a kit in 1/16th it actually increases my consumerism by buying a kit I wouldn't have purchased for any other reason. And a lot of modelers check measurement to make sure a kit is accurate, and once you have info you have it, eh? Or am I just trying to find an excuse not to feel guilty about it?

Tanque

You know I'm against copying without permission. I noted from that Snopes reference this statement: "the use of Disney characters falsely suggested Disney's affiliation with the day care
facilities." THAT I can definitely understand.

I made a pattern for a 1/10 scale Sherman M4A1 ( still have it ) and further made a female plaster backed fiberglass mold from it. I pulled several fiberglass copies from it and gave one to
a friend in Europe. Some time later I came to learn that there were copies of my original floating around Europe. I was NOT amused.

I've been asked in the past to lend my master patterns for some of my original work so that parts may be made. I refuse. I consider my original work to be just that, mine. I'm more than
willing to sell original copies that I make from those masters. I attempt to embed characteristics that are difficult to remove in my masters. In the case of that Sherman hull not only was
it obvious that the characteristics had be changed but someone else's name cast into the part .

So yes I understand that it is not legal or moral to copy another person's work. I will never do it. In the case of the Nautilus hull at the time I had no way to know it wasn't make under license as the
documentation included was minimal. I suppose as a rule of thumb if someone doesn't state it I should assume it is not.

Jerry

ausf

Nah, nothing wrong with that at all. You purchased a kit, whether you use it as a reference, publish (in print) a build log of it, film it, it's all good. You're not physically copying it, prohibiting another sale. If anything, you're encouraging more sales, providing you are putting forth their product. If you call it yours, that's bad. If you change it and call it theirs, that's bad.


Years ago I made and sold an aluminum ring to correct DMLs JT barrel. When they measured the real thing, they used the Aberdeen one which was hit with the barrel in recoil, so the kit was designed short. I had to purchase the kit and used it solely for the purpose of measuring and fitting to make a part for sale, never even built it. There's nothing wrong with that, if anything, it encourage sales because it was a solution to a problem with theit kit.

If you buy a 1/72 and convert it into a 1/16, you've created a new product.

Now if you add a mm to Trump's SU-100 and call it yours, that's different.

cleong

Nor could you install it on more than one computer that you own (assuming you had a laptop, a desktop, etc.)

Before you assume that its accurate - you could have the same tank being modeled by different companies with different outcomes for whatever reason such as the link below:

http://vodnik.net/pages/m1-comparison/m1comp1.htm

Tanque

Accuracy is a question. Anytime you interpret something there's the chance to lose something.

Using a one model to gather information to make another of a different scale? I've done it, I think we all have. Where to draw the line? I would never directly copy another
person's work to directly capitalize on their research and artistry. So for example when Littlefield had his armor collection available here; I was at times a frequent flyer to
his place to measure his T-34, Sherman, Panther, Pershing Hetzer as well as others. If in my measuring I stumbled across the same measurements that Italaeri, Tamiya and
others have done am I infringing upon their work? Are they infringing upon the rights of the US government ( or We The People since WE paid for them) of the copyrights
for the Sherman and Pershing? Who gave it to them?

If your Neighbor's Jaguar F is so alluring that you make a model of it, are you infringing on Jaguar? If you make a model of his house, his home's architect?

We can take it to ridiculous proportions but still: where do you draw the line? I feel directly copying another's work for sale is wrong; using another's work as reference isn't any different than making measurements
from photos found in a copy righted book or magazine. They are all reference materials.

Bosch is still in existence as far as I know yet I see copies in all scales of the headlight with blackout cover. I know reparations trumped patents but even still are copies legal yes or no?

Jerry

RichJohnson

Ok so here a good one. What if a manufacturer of a model kit goes out of business. You buy an unbuilt kit on ebay and make molds of parts of it for yourself to use but don't sell them.
Say detail parts, or jerry cans or field gear or whatever?

ausf

Measuring isn't copying in my book. Looking at others work and picking out what you like isn't either, that's been around since cave painting. Besides, if Jerry measures a Hetzer and it's the same as a Tamiya, that means they're both right.

I frequently buy competitors items to see what they're up to. If I find a new interesting method they've used in their molding, by all means I'll incorporate it into my next sculpt, just as I expect others would do to mine. But I won't physically copy anything, I'm copying ideas. That's progress, because everyone is always trying to improve.

In terms of modeling companies and going out of business, injection molds are capital and usually are the first thing liquidated. Accurate Miniatures had an amazing line of 1/48 AC. They went belly up years back, but those molds are still in circulation (Italeri I think). But that point really isn't realistic. By the time you mold and copy, you've far out spent the price of a pile of kits. Few people will go through the expense to copy an entire kit, unless they're planning on selling.

In terms of detail parts, if you copy, bad. If you use one to make an entirely new piece, by measuring, replacing, embellishing, whatever, that's okay. Look at all the aftermarket products for AC. The one I've always loved is weighted tires. They are usually just the kit rim, recast with a tire that has a bulge to simulate the weight of the plane. Excellent idea, new product, doesn't hurt sales. Eventually the model company starts molding weighted tires themselves...progress.

Except in the case of DML with the US halftracks. They released them weighted front tires. Only problem was the HTs had solid front tires, hence no bulge.

Tanque

And I was told Aoshima purchased the production equipment and remaining intellectual capital of Imai when Imai ceased to exist. So their Elefant equipment still exists.
I was told that the rumors that there was damage to their ( Imai's ) molds was unfounded.

Jerry

Max-U52

Well, I definitely don't plan to copy anyone's work in order to make a profit for myself, so I think I'll be OK. Whatever I do make from copying measurements or whatever will just be for myself and my buddies here. Like the 55 gallon drums. I measured a drum on the shop floor for that and gave away quite a few drums, but I seriously doubt I hurt the original manufacturer of the drum I used to get size. It seems to be a very complicated subject, but I'm satisfied I haven't harmed anyone, legally or morally, so I can live with that.

mondo

Some companies are very protective of their IP even though you could consider those things above the company that made them. Some other companies don't care.

A good example is planes. You want to make a Spitfire for you video game? BAE don't care, I don't think they even expect you to ask permission. No one associates them with that aircraft anyway and besides, it's historic now. Want a Corsair in your game? Northrop Grumman want a cheque coming their way or they will refuse. It happened a few years back.

ausf

Max, you're okay. You're a good guy.

Making something that represents something else is fine on any grounds. This is a hobby and you should enjoy it, not create a moral dilemma.

The real problem is recasting, direct copying of someone's product. I know people that have premiered a new figure at a show on Friday, only to have bootleg copies show up for sale at the same show two days later. Recasting hurts everyone, it drives talented people out of the business while delivering subpar products to the consumers, usually for the same price. It's a huge problem, to the point that the figure community pounces on anyone even remotely suspected of recasting.

I take pride in the fact that what I sell under my name physically passes through my hands. When I first started doing this stuff it was with modeling tools. The company that was manufacturing the tool started packaging it as well. Biggest mistake I ever made. In short order, some crappy examples were finding their way into customers hands. I had to recall a bunch and kept the final packaging in house. The idea that some bozo is copying a sculpt of mine and that is getting into a customers hands is far worse that the theft of sale.

Imex-Erik

Well I know it was asked a page back... but IR compatibility comes down to copyright as Gary mentioned. When you move tons of tanks like we do, we are a much larger target than a small business just selling some boards. We move LOTS of tanks every day and would be shot down almost immediately. Carrying or distributing a board that is IR compatible is a different thing

Ex_Pat_Tanker

I'm curious as to whether Tamiya can claim copywrite - You couldn't call your electronics 'DMD' or 'MFU', and you couldn't copy their circuit design, but I don't see how they could stop you from sending or receiving the same signals as a TV set?

Companies make and sell 'universal' remotes for TV's - to the best of my knowledge nobody has been sued for doing this?

Imex-Erik

I think it is more of an algorithm thing. We can send any signals we want, but when we make a compatible system that starts to effect their sales or profits, you can bet we will be the first to get poo from it. This is more of an issue now that we are setting up in more hobby shops and invading on their territory. We both have different markets, but it is best to play nice atm. I do enjoy me an occasional Tamiya product, especially the TT-01 chassis. I would prefer not to fight/have issues with any manufacturer. I personally would love to see an open source IR system take effect. This would allow everyone to jump in and contribute his or her own input. A universal IR system that is open source could open a lot of doors for us. It could also bring down the cost on things as well. Arduino would be perfect for this.

Ex_Pat_Tanker

Alright, so here's another example - Orange DSM / FASST compatible receivers. Futaba and Spektrum should be suing them out of sight, right? But lots of people sell them, including big companies like HobbyKing.

Imex-Erik

I just know I was told a definitive no before, so I must stick with it. Once again though, I am not against distributing a product that does though. We will figure out something though since now we are one of the main IR mass production companies left. We do not plan on abandoning IR, in fact all of our future models will be made available in either airsoft or infrared. Maybe it might be better to distribute a product that is focused on IR rather than try to incorporate it into our system. This would keep the costs down as we would not have to pass on development/production costs and a dedicated product could churn out a better result compared to a AIO solution. These are things like the Clark Board, Elmod, IBU2, BARC4, Taipan, etc. This is one of the reasons I have been testing hobby grade transmitters and such around here. Ease of install is one of the absolute biggest factors we have to deal with here and without a case these boards really freak out consumers. I have almost completed my testing on RCTA stuff, I will start hopefully on Clark soon, then a special item in Feb if all goes well

Max-U52

I've also been working with RCTA boards and should have a video in a week or two. The one thing I really like about these Mako boards is that they make you compatible with anyone. You can kill a tank with either the HL or Taigen IR systems and then shoot a Tamiya tank with no changes required. It really does appear to be a universal system. Now if I can just lick that dang EMI ...

cleong

(I know I'm doing my part carrying this off-topic - sorry)

It probably doesn't become apparent until you get to a large scale battle that compatibility does not equate parity - its merely the first requirement. Parity/consistency means that the non-Tamiya system that you use has to perform at the existing standard in every measurable parameter. Off the top of my head:

Similar optical performance (firing and receiving hits - this includes IR receiver sensitivity, IR emitter output strength)
Programming - ability to set up the tank for weight classes, with the corresponding hit points, reload time, and damage simulation

I think its a decent compromise to sell 3rd party boards that have the ability to be configured for Tamiya gameplay by the end-user, though it can be quite a frustrating process if you are new to the game.

Ex_Pat_Tanker

Another important principle (reading Mondo's comments just reminded me) is the idea of abandoned Intellectual Property.
A company can not legally start charging licence fees for using a product's likeness once they fail to take enforcement action against infringing parties. I suspect that BAe's claim to the Spitfire falls under this.

Lets say company B makes an unlicenced model of company A's product, and sells it in a market where Company A operates (i.e. USA or EU), without Company A taking any action. Company A is now unable to sue Company C when they start to use that same design for their model, because Company A failed to take action against company B - that property is now considered legally 'abandoned'.

Some companies have been much more astute in this regard and will defend their rights from day 1. I'll use the example of Caterpillar here - I'm sure we all grew up calling tank tracks "Caterpillar tracks", but you'll never find another company selling tracked vehicles (or models) using that term. This is because CAT's lawyers immediately go after anyone who uses that term (Former CAT employee here, I'm not making this up).

I suspect that the German WW2 designs are considered to be abandoned, probably due to their parent companies wanting to distance themselves from their past associations. UK WW2 tanks are probably similarly fair game due to their parent companies going through a series of mergers or disappearing altogether (also historically British companies tend not to worry about such things, or charged a nominal fee).

If you want to make a model of a Willeys jeep however, Chrysler Corp can still demonstrate ownership of that IP - and they want their cut or it ain't happening...

YHR

Very true, and this is something I have been preaching about. Having a tank that merely can hit and be hit with the Tamiya system is only part of it. You need a system that has the ability to completely mimic the Tamiya system( IF playing against Tamiya's is in your future) Anything less can become a nuisance. I think most guys have finally picked up on this. Without battle damage interface with the electronics to slow down the tank, different weight classes, and similar IR firing times the system is not Tamiya compatible. OF course range of the IR is another important thing.

Sometimes protecting your rights to a product can be the kiss of death. Tesla threw all of their patents for us to use. Tamiya may have actually seen an increasing demand for their product because of the expansion of the hobby base. So there can be reason for a company to just look the other way, especially in a niche market like this. What happens in the IR tank world means next to nothing to the Tamiya bottom line, why spend a nickel policing it.

Apple learned this the hard way, It almost killed them out of the gate. The success of the I products now is the third party app developers. Without them the hardware is nothing but soon to be out of date technology..

Tamiya is probably aware that the sale of TBU seems to be up in relation to their tanks. The mark up and volume of sales on those may contribute more to the bottom line than tank sales do!!!!.