gwk

Is it ok to reproduce plans that you've purchase? ie: Ziroli, Bates, Holmans, etc. "ONLY FOR THE PURCHASER'S USE"!!!!!! Once you cut-up the plans, and a mistake is made, ie ( bad rib or former) what can you do except order another set, or do most of these compnies know if your the purchacer, and buy the sheet you googed up?

Thanks,

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

gwk:

The right to copy for your own use is conveyed with the plan. Make as many copies as you want.

What you can not do is copy the plan for either sale OR giving away.

Technically, you can't build the second plane from the plan, either. Conveyed to you with the plan was the right to build one plane, and you cannot convey that right to another if you have built from the plan.

If you have not built from the plan you may dispose of it in any way you wish, and whoever got it from you would then have the right to build ONE plane.

Bill.

Steve Lewin

Where does that strange limited right come from ? It's not been expressed on any plan I've ever seen and I can't imagine that it's legally enforceable.

It's certainly not the case over here in the UK. A plan is like a book, the purchaser can read it (build from it) as many times as they like. They can also pass the original on to someone else and the new owner can also use it for its intended purpose. The only thing you can't do is make a copy for someone else whilst still retaining the original yourself.

Steve

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Steve:

Concerning "One plane per plan."
This limit of rights is inherent in the plan publisher's sale. His business is selling the plan, that's where he makes his money. Technically, as I said, purchase of the plan includes the right to build only one plane, and of course, making replacement parts for repair of that same airplane. The second and later planes from the same plan are, in effect, stealing from the plan publisher/designer.

Living in the UK, Japan, or Red China does not change this.

And while it could be enforced, the damages recovered would be only a very small fraction of the legal costs, so I don't think you need to worry about being brought up on charges.

And while an honest man might well build the second plane, never having thought it through, if he truly is an honest man then after this technical theft is explained to him he will not do it again.

Hard fact. But fact.

There is a big exception to all this. If a complete plan is published in a mass market, as for example included in a magazine, there are no construction limits.

Bill.

Steve Lewin

Sorry but that simply isn't the way copyright works. When I buy the plan I have bought the right to build that design. There is no more logic in suggesting I can only build from it once than there is in suggesting that if I want to reread a book I should buy a second copy of that book or that I can only listen to a CD once. When I buy the plan I buy the right to use that plan, as often as I like. I can even use and then sell it on. The plan itself is the copyrighted work. I may not copy it but there's no implied right to use the original only once.

I can understand that the publisher would like to make more money by selling the same thing over and over again to the same person but it's not going to happen (certainly not with me).

OTOH if I'm wrong and you have any legal facts to back up your opinion I'd be interested to see them.

Steve

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Steve Lewin:

Here is a good general reference on copyright, including conveyed rights.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp

If you can wade your way through it, you'll see my point is valid. At least for the USA. UK might be entirely different, but since the UK is a "Treaty" nation as defined in copyright law your restrictions should be exactly the same.

Bill.

mac49

My Feedback: (5)

Bill, for my own education. If I use a three-view developed by say Willis Nye as the basis for a set of plans I intend to draw, then I would I be able to do what I please with them? If I develop a set that has commerical potential, what would be the process for copyrighting them to protect my efforts. Thanks for your time. Mark

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Mark:

Willis Nye can copyright only the comments he has put on a 3-view of a produced airplane. If the airplane's outline is his design, then he can copyright the outline as well.

The basic 3-view of an airplane belongs either to the designer, or the company that owns the type certificate, the kit design, or whatever. Supposedly any US military airplane is public domain, but Lockheed recently gave AirKill a hard time about their "Road Kill" P-38, they now pay a royalty to Lockheed for it.

Now. It doesn't matter whether the 3-view is copyrighted or not, the plan you draw is copyrighted as soon as you draw it, and you are the holder of that copyright. But you have to establish the copyright. The simplest way is to put a copy of the plan in a sealed envelope and mail it to yourself. And then DO NOT open the envelope. The postmark shows your date of design, establishing your primacy and ownership of the copyright.

Better is to register the plan. Costs about $30, method is in the reference I posted above.

But having the copyright on the plan doesn't mean you can sell copies, or even give them away if it is a scale model. To do that you have to reach an agreement with the owner of the full-scale design, the agreement allowing you to market the plan.

This is all extremely condensed from a large body of law. Review the reference I gave, if you still have questions feel free to ask them. Do remember, I am not giving legal advice, just telling what I have learned in my bothering with such things.

Bill.

Tall Paul

I heard recently that Boeing (apparently falling into hard times) gave Revell a ration.... for using the word "Boeing" on at B-17 kit.
As for worrying about anything like this...
why bother?

Steve Lewin

Thanks for the interesting link Bill. You'll have to pardon my stupidity but I still can't see anything there that even suggests that the purchaser of a copyrighted "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work" i.e. plan or technical drawing should only use it once. Could you point out the relevant part for me.

I see in section 109 "the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy "

What is the point of this if the person I can sell the plan to is not allowed to use it ?

AFAICS the copyright owner has rights over plan itself but none at all over any models built from it. As an aside it almost certainly is a breach of copyright to make an additional copy of a plan you have purchased e.g. for cutting out templates unless you can argue that it's reasonable under the "fair use" exemption. Ah well I guess I'll never be a lawyer (which is quite a relief really).

Steve

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Steve:

That is a point not covered in the reference I posted. A shame, because it covers almost everything else.

It's all in the conveyance of copyright usage. The plan seller's income is dependent on how many plans he sells, so logic says he is not going to convey the right to multiple usage. This is the current legal interpretation, one plan, one project, whether it is a model plane or a megabuck house the architect designed for you.

The money involved in model plans copyright violation is so small that most wont bother about it. Cleveland Models is the exception among model designers, they'll jump on you in a heartbeat for the least copyright violation.

Architects are a good example of the same limitation rigidly enforced. 1) Buy the plan and build the house. 2) Start building the second house from the same plan. 3) Appear in court to answer the architect's suit. And he will win.

So as I said, the legal and moral limitation is there, but with model planes it is usually ignored.

Have I made it clear this time?

Hope so.

Bill.

Steve Lewin

And there was I thinking I couldn't read . I understand from your description that this isn't actually part of international copyright law but rather it is related, specifically American, case law. I think we'd better leave it there. Courts in the UK fairly often interpret things like that in a different way to US courts but I've no idea if this actually is one of those cases and it's very unlikely I'll ever get to test it.

Thanks for the information.

Steve

gwk

I wasn't trying to start an uproar. I think I'll just ask the person I bought them from, he knows I paid for them. I just want to be above board, as I've fought my patents.

mac49

My Feedback: (5)

Bill, Thanks very much for the information. This has been a very enlightening thread. I can certainly understand all sides of this discussion. Though, I don't think any of the commerical designers have any worries coming from my direction. Thanks again. Mark

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Just one more example for everyone, an example I'm sure you are familiar with.

Buy a software package for your computer. The CD is equivalent to the plan for the plane. Install the software and you can sell the CD, right? Wrong, unless you destroy all copies and remove the program from your computer. Provided you want to stay legal.

Bill.

Steve Lewin

Sorry Bill I was happy to believe you on plans but that's a really bad analogy. Copyright on software is something I do know about. The critical point there is that the program is copyrighted NOT the CD. In technical drawings it is the drawing itself in which the copyright exists not any possibly function i.e. the ability to produce something from it (unless that has been amended by case law in each country as you suggest).

If I buy some software and use it to produce documents/spreadsheets etc no-one suggests that when I've written one document with my copy of MS Word I need to go out and buy a new copy of the program. I also don't have to remove all the documents/spreadsheets I've "built" when I sell the software on merely the program i.e. the ability to build new documents.

Isn't that the equivalent ? I buy the plan, I use it to build a plane, then another plane, then I sell the plan on. I can't keep copies of the plan itself that's absolutely correct (so I don't have the ability to build more planes from it) but I don't have to destroy any planes I've built any more than I have to destroy any documents/spreadsheets etc which I'd built with the software.

Steve

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Steve:

Sorry, I thought it was a good analogy, if only in possession of the original disc and the anti-piracy laws.

Bill.

Steve Lewin

Sorry to be picky Bill. But it's easy to see why even people as intelligent as we undoubtedly are can sometimes get confused over copyright .

Steve

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Steve:
I sometimes wonder...

Haw.

Bill.

fly300s

Is there anything that I could do to protect my own plans that I just completed? Just to makesure that no one can "steal" my design. I have never really did anything with copyright or anything to that extent before.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

fly300s:

Go back to post #8. I covered getting a copyright there.

Bill.

Wormy J

My Feedback: (6)

Bill,

I agree with your thoughts regarding the purchase of a set of plans gives you the right to build one plane. This is how plans are sold for full size homebuilt aircraft and as you stated, homes. I have included a statement on my plans that says that the purchase is good to construct one plane.

My opinon is that I am selling my permission and instructions (plans) on duplicating my design. It is the design which is also copyrighted not just the sheet of paper the plans are from.

Here is my crummy analogy on this point. Buy a book, produce a movie using the story from the book. You did not copy the book on paper, you copied the idea that the book conveyed. Will you be hearing from the authors lawers? You bet.

Now taking someone to court over this is a diffrent story. Just hope to discourage the blatent copying.

Jeremy

TomM

The simplest way is to put a copy of the plan in a sealed envelope and mail it to yourself. And then DO NOT open the envelope. The postmark shows your date of design, establishing your primacy and ownership of the copyright.

Don't use an envelope. Use/fold the document itself so that the postmark is ON the document- either front or back.

An envelope can be mailed and postmarked without sealing it.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

TomM:

Very good thought. Provided the USPS doesn't mangle it. Maybe send TWO copies.

Bill.

TomM

Bill,
One of my old shop teachers ....jeeze 28-29 years ago, told me that. It won't guarantee you anything, but will be some evidence if you want to take a copyright case to court.
I've got a few postmarked ideas sitting around here. Needless to say I'm still working for a living-lol.