edh13

My Feedback: (9)

You guys know it's not going to matter much after tonight...

Taurus Flyer

Gents,

I am not writing bout copyright, not about patents but the thirth expressing of the subject of this thread, my "rights"

When only photographs are left and never plans were made of a model, than translating these photographs to a real 3D copy is very complicated and time consuming and there aren't much people exerienced with that.

I my case I do have the 'right' to protect my results I created and the best way is, never show other results than the compare pictures, no more, no less my simple advice.

Result is for example, there are no plans to buy of the Cream Puff of Vic Husak or Taurus of Les Fruh.

When writing about "patents", second expression of the subeject of this thread, same story. I do design and built my own fuel pressure controllers. What kind of material do I use for the diaphragm? How do the internals look like? Of course a patent isn't possible so, second solution, don't show key facts.

My Taurus is equipped with own design and built cruise control. Jet Cat of turbines is the only producer that does show up lately with nearly simular system, but only a speed limiter no controller, and now? Patent>of course not. So, no crusial details were shown.

Cees

stuntflyr

LOL!
Chris...

Rubbernecker

My Feedback: (22)

I got into this same conversation on the other site and this was the question I posed: if I cut a plane kit from a set of plans and sell the kit and not the plans, is that stealing someone else’s idea. One poster felt very strongly that it was. I advised that if I did not sell the plans, the designer would still collect from that. He indicated that it didn’t matter and as an example he said if I drew up Mickey Mouse and used my shirts and my paint and then sold the shirts, Walt Disney would come after me and win. He also advised that it was no different. So then I posed, if he bought the plans to a house, could he not hire me to build the house????? I would be profiting from the build no different than profiting from the cutting of the kit. Believe all I got was that it’s different! Guess if that’s the case, unless all the laser cutters out there that don’t have the express written consent of the designer, they are thieves. I look at it from the standpoint if the designer of plans is not actively selling a kit; anyone can cut them and sell them and not be stealing. Now if they sold the plans with the kit, I think that would be wrong.

John

bjr_93tz

I see where you're coming from on that one. If you dug down deep enough though you'd probably find something about using plans for personal use vs for commercial gain. If I buy plans and pay you to cut out the bits for my own plane then that's personal use. If I buy the plans, cut out the bits myself, change my mind and offload the parts (as 2nd hand) then that's probably personal use as well.

If your customer supplied the plans and you cut out one set of bits for him, then secretly cut another set for yourself, then it could be argued you just ripped sombody off somewhow.

Proving that buying plans, cutting out the parts, then selling them off is a a genuine hobby for you and is not some commercial enterprise would probably require a letter from your friendly psychologist

The Walt Disney comparison is/was a completely different animal and a poor example to use as a comparison so I'd disregard that.

countilaw

Let's look at it this way.

I design, draw the plans, build the plane, fly the plane. Go back and change the plans to improve the plane's flight characteristic, build the plane, fly the plane. Again I go back and make change to improve the plane, fly the plane and after 9 months of work, expermentation, building and rebuilding it's a winner. A manufacturer comes up and offers him $20. for each plane he kits and sells. He says ok!

Then Joe Pilot buys one of the kits and builds the plane and he likes it. Flies great !!! So a buddy wants to kit the plane so the buddy borrows Joe's Pilot's plane and makes templets of all the parts. He gives Joe Pilot back his plane and then proceeds to make 100 kits and sells them on the internet. It cost him $50 to produce each kit and sells them for $200. plus shiping. That's personal gain.

Who can tell me that the "buddy" is doing the right thing? Is the buddy ripping off the original designer?

Shouldn't the buddy have contacted the original designer and at least offered some type of royalty? Or at least, permission to copy the plane?

If the buddy had copied the plane just to make one for himself, that would have been a different story.

Frank

stuntflyr

Yeah,

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Well, we made it to the 22nd. [X(]

countilaw

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Frank,

Again, while I generally agree with your principles, what you suggest above is a pipe dream. There is no such thing as 300% profit on a classic balsa laser kit, not even for the big manufacturers. I can tell you from direct experience that you can't produce a kit for $50 in material costs, even if it is a 25 size model. Never mind laser time costs. This of course also doesn't factor in the fact that hand drawn templates can't be used for kit reproduction.

Now, selling that same kit for $200? Highly unlikely!

I think that your perception of the potential profits in offering a wood kit are grossly overestimated and clearly under analyzed. If I was wrong, the cottage industry would be booming and it clearly isn't. It is just done for the love of it and for the purpose of sharing in our hobby. You just can't buy food or pay gas with it...

David

Roguedog

Hey Frank.

I live in California and I am not a thief, I don't cheat anyone, and I don't screw over my neighors to make a buck including those neighbors from Texas.

As a matter of fact I advocatedfor you in a thread. a very moral and righteous thing to do by the way, when you first started posting here on RCU and now you insult meand other Californians as well andpost crap like above.

One of the definitions of Moral is truth. Morals = Truths. So here"s a truth for you about your so called morals.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the spec of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye. Matt 7:1-5

This is a hobby Frank not a morals movement.Just because you have an opinion and live in Texas does not mean you have superiormorals (truths) and values thenyour brothers in California or anywhere else for that matter, brother.

countilaw

It doesn't matter whether it's a $5 profit or $5,000 profit, it's still stealing someone else's work, time and effort for personal gain or profit.

The original designer has a royalty coming.

Frank

Roguedog

I for one have to agree with stuntflyer

All this time spent argruing about rights just silly IMO.

Frank I would like to see a build thread of your so-called design instead of wasting my time reading a thread about profits and personal gain in a thread that'sreally about nothing. as far as RC modeling.

I've been working on a built up Bootlegger to share with everyone in the hopes of helpingmoving Classic style pattern back into the mainstream from obscurity.

As much as i dislike agreeing with Doxilla
I don't believe anyone's became a Millionare by designing andselling aspecificRC Pattern plane or otherwise. So your opinion about "owners rights", right or wrong,is really a non starter for what we are doing in the Classic Pattern forum. The only reason I can see for you to continue your arguement IMO is for arguements sake only.

Taurus Flyer

Gents,

Have attention for the first picture, I show it the second time in this thread.

What is the reason of RCU member Burkhard Erdlenbruch (UStik) to publish this in an article about the Simla on a server in Germany, of the Fachschule Augsburg?

Of course this message will be misinterpreted, that is the reason it is publiced. Readers do not know that, in the USA, plans are sold for 65 usd a set by the AMA and kits are selled by a kit cutter with use of the data. Was I forced to cooperate this this way?

Keep in mind for me it was a big investement of time and money to generate my results and then? Give it away for a simple "thank you"?

The question is, would my input be so valuable that a group of 7 need assistence of a simple modeler of the Netherlands?

Even I am not Daniël Bernoulli or Anthony Fokker the answer CAN BE "YES" for one reason. Without my input the result of their project is again a step back in history and they simple show that with that note!

Of course this isn't the only example the modeling world isn't protected against foreign influences, see the second picture, same kit cutter. You'll find advertisements in publications of a lot modeling organizations in the USA, the picture I made of the link page of the SPA but you also find these ads in publications of the AMA.

Because the hobby is degenerating under influences of commercialization and amateur CAD drafters, there will not be much left in the future and the original models we'll only find in the musea.
My opinion, no more no less!

Cees

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Guys: Two posts have been deleted by the Forum Manager. I reminded everyone earlier about the direction this thread was beginning to go and it seems that I was right. I will shut it down if it continues. Read the posting rules and please abide by them.

CGRetired, Forum Moderator.

PS.

On second thought, I am removing this thread and placing it in the "Off Topic" thread. I don't see where this has anything to contribute to the Pattern community at all.

CGr.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

After reading some of the posts in this thread a few things came to mind. In my perception there is a huge difference between rights, what is ethical, and then we follow that with what is legal. Not everything that is legal to me is ethical, nor right. I believe if a man creates something that no one else does he has rights. Create and designing from what already existed are different matters.

Look at what goes on in China. Planes designs are copied without concern at all. Is that right ethical practice and why can't they come up with something on their own? I would say absolutely not right, but it happens and would cost a fortune to fight the battle. Some call those practices unscrupulous and so be it.

The point is they think little to nothing about stealing a design. It is normal practice to do that type of thing. I remember one company stole a guy's jet covering design scheme and even had his name on it - totally un-imagineable! He found out because of his name being on the covering!

Personally, I would shy away from producing anything that would go to market with another person's design without full written consent from that person or if he/she passed on, the written consent of the ones in charge. Once that consent is granted, I would then make it public knowledge said consent was granted to me or my business.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Well, that does it for me then. I've placed the P-6,TT III, DB kit (framed), GPM DB, Taurus, Mach 1, S. Kaos (40 and 60), Escape,Tipo, and Gino's Tweety Bird, in the trash for burning (to hell with the EPA). Since I can't determine if and how much D. Lowe andJ. Bridi were rightly paid in royalties from Horizon or Tower, the H9 P-7, the GPM DB, and the Tower Kaos 40are going in there too. I suppose I might get away with flying a bARF or two. However, I'll need to check and make sure the designer of the Sukhoi(s), Extra(s), Zlin, Decathlon, RV(s), etc, etc, etc, got their fair share too.
Hmmm, doesn't leave much ofanything interestingleft to fly....... Oh well, there's always that 67 Camaro I've wanted to customize (hopefully H.C. Haga won't mind as much as modelers seem too).
hQQk

gsoav8r

My Feedback: (6)

"if I cut a plane kit from a set of plans and sell the kit and not the plans, is that stealing someone else’s idea."
The way I understand it is yes. But had the seller resold the plans with the cut kit the answer would be no. By the seller holding onto the plans he then has the perceived ability to cut another kit without paying the designer for another set of plans. One plan bought should equal one kit cut, if not solely for personal use. More models could be built if the builder bought the rights to the plans or payed some royalty for every unit built.

"He indicated that it didn’t matter and as an example he said if I drew up Mickey Mouse and used my shirts and my paint and then sold the shirts, Walt Disney would come after me and win. "
This is a bad analogy in my opinion. No rights to print Mickey for profit was ever bought . So the argument stops there.

"if he bought the plans to a house, could he not hire me to build the house?"
Yes he could. One set of plans equals one house. More houses could be built if the builder bought the rights to the plans or payed some royalty for every unit built.

"unless all the laser cutters out there that don’t have the express written consent of the designer, they are thieves."
I think you will find that most legit kit cutters will only cut one kit per plan supplied by the modeler. Or if the modeler doesnt have plans the cutter may be able to supply the modeler with a set of plans for a fee that covers the designers fee. Or the cutter may simply point the modeler to a source to purchase plans. In any case the designer is covered.

"I look at it from the standpoint if the designer of plans is not actively selling a kit; anyone can cut them and sell them and not be stealing."
Based only on whats wrote, thats likely wrong. Is the designer still offering plans? Did the designer transfer rights to another? I think the answer really lies with what the current status of the plans is? Have any rights expired so its now public domain or not.

Cheers,
James

SCALECRAFT

My Feedback: (13)

I don't do composite model fabrication as a business. ( Did in 1991, lost $60,000) It's for the fun and the challenge. And like some of us, for the bragging right of a unique, not mass produced air frame.

The problem is China. When it is copied in China and comes here at 1/2 or less the price.

Big money is just starting to win a case or two. Apple vs Sony. A little guy like a modeler going to court. Not really.

But remember, China owns the US right now. They may stop lending us $ also.

Lawyers. The lawyers can only guarantee one thing, the lawyer is getting paid.

This is why, at this point, I only give my composite models to guys I know and trust. And the guys I know, they can fabricate composites.

Trust.

Steve

Red Raider

My Feedback: (86)

I'm currently building 2 gas powered 92 inch ws planes. They are Tiger 60s enlarged 127%. We talked to Goldberg and they didn't object at all. Of course we have no plans to "produce" them. 2 for us, and maybe 2-3 more for club members. Are you saying that even though our planes are undeniably Tigers (in every detail) that because we exceeded the 10% deviation rule that its a different plane?

FreakyDude

my advice...  Don't go to a forum and ask for a legal opinion on anything. every state or province has their twist on things heck even different lawyers do. Sign up for one of those legal info groups that cost a few bucks but not a lot of money and at least you get an informed opinion on where to go next.

countilaw

No, The question is taking someone else's design and mass producing them for profit. If the plans were published, permission is assumed for a build for personal use. It doesn't matter whether you build one or a dozen, as long as it's for personal use. Not to produce 100 of them and sell for personal gains or profit, and not compensate the original designer.

Frank

SkidMan

My Feedback: (17)

Here is a link to an interesting article about the Simla referenced in post #21.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/1...la_article.pdf

50+AirYears

I've been off this and other sites for better than a year uploading scans of older magazine plans and articles to a thread on another website that has been trying to establish a kind of archive service. I've managed to upload probably a couple thousand things like RC, CL, and FF articles, construction and how to articles, engine reviews, old ads, boat and ship articles, old radio (tube type and early transistor) circuits. Even a few full size scans of kit plans. I haven't made a cent from this. I also periodically include references to many of the plan services out there, like the AMA service, MAN, RCM, Flying Models, and the Bill Northup plan service, still being operated by his widow, Anita.
The idea of patents and copyrights has been discussed into the ground there. About the only info that can be trusted on these discussions is that to get the facts, one needs to consult a lawyer with experience and learning in patent or copyright law. Each country has it's own laws and time limits. Many, but not all countries recognize the laws from other countries, generally by consular treaty. In the US, the laws went through a change in the late 70s, giving the originator of a copyrightable work a longer term. They also expanded definitions for the application of those time periods. And like most laws, things are quite complex. If you want to find out about a particular situation or protection, you need the experienced lawyer, otherwise you are just guessing. I've read the current US copyright law, or at least a number of sections of it, and I'm still confused about whether or not I'm confused about it.