I have to agree with Sean. If the mold's for your own use it should be fine. If you're planning on opening up your own company and feature knockoff's of BVM planes then you've probably pushed it a little far

Ahhh--But this is where the plot thickens----------Reproduction parts are available for automobiles that are CURRENTLY in production. I wrecked my beautiful black 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP in December of 1997----The body shop attempted to get one by me when they installed a REPRODUCTION right front fender, headlight, and urethane nose. They did get one by me with the reproduction windshield.

The point being that if cloned automobile parts are OK then where is the line drawn with other items---Such as RC aircraft???

Kevin

Which is actually a BVM one.....


You could say the Yellow A-4 is a vast improvement over the JHH, but you couldn't really look at them side-by-side and call it a copy.

Man i cant believe this threads still hot.....haha this is funny. I cant wait to post progress pix of my F-16 "CLONE" LOL. NICK

Shaun, I called you like crazy last week looking for some new wings for my F-18, ended up just ordering them direct. Dude, if the numbers on your site aren't right, get them updated!

I ordered about 600 bucks worth of stuff!

Let's put the Yellow A-4 clone to rest and get to the truth of the matter---The ONLY part of the Yellow A-4 that was copied from the JHH/BVM A-4 was the nose. From the intakes back is all Yellow Aircraft--Which was a model built by a Canadian named Martin Lefevre????? something or whatever...He wrecked his JHH A-4 and wanted to have another without a cheater hole. He "borrowed" the nose from the JHH A-4 and redesigned it from the intakes back. This guy has designed quite a few models now offered by Yellow Aircraft....Jeeez, I've been in this hobby waaaaaay too long....[8D]

Kevin

Interesting response to the question in this thread

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_38...tm.htm#3841327

Did this guy take away a sale from BVM

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_33...tm.htm#3841987

Yes that's exactly what I meant by a bit rude. For your own use fine but to try to open a business & make a quick buck out of someone elses hard work IS rude, the judge will decide if it's illegal. If you make a mould of a cowl because you just know you are going to break it or stick back together the remains of your fuse after you have dorked it in & patch it up to make a mould for a new one or even the occasional bit for a buddy who's bent his model then no harm done and I doubt if the manufacturers would even bother grizzling about it.

Sean said: 'John, please explain further. Is it rude to the manufacturer to damage a model. Suppose you are building a kit and you break a piece. But you have the skill to remake the piece in your garage. How big does the piece have to be before you are being "RUDE"'.

Yes Sean I would be happy to explain further as I just did, just didn't get the chance before you shot your mouth off. Yep, one of us looks dumb. - John.

John, obviously, I was making an effort to bring out opposing opinions for debate. I appologize for mis-understanding your prior post.

I'm pretty sure this issue has been run into the ground enough, so I'm checking out.

L8r guys.

Unlike criminal laws, it's up to the individual copyright holders to enforce their own copyrights through the use of lawsuits, court orders, etc.

So, if a company like, Chevrolet or Ford chooses to go after model car manufacturers (as they've done) over the use of their trademarks and ignore aftermarket body panel/parts manufacturers, then that's their priviledge.

When I had questions about this, I contacted the licensing people for both Boeing and L-M rather than relying solely on internet chatter. If you want to get the straight skinny, I suggest going to the source.

Just because they aren't currently enforcing their copyrights doesn't mean they're not going to sometime in the future. As long as they're showing that they're making some effort to protect their IP, then they can expand that enforcement anytime in the future to include 'new' violators.

The line gets drawn where the copyright holder decides they want it drawn. It's their property to protect as they see fit.

Dan Savage is one of the few people who has a clue what he is talking about here.

I mean that...I said it before, and I'll say it again...you read some absolutely INSANE stuff about this subject on the internet.

Before you take anything you read on the internet about IP law as being true...speak to an IP lawyer FIRST.

I just spoke to a friend of mine who was in the aftermarket parts business. In his business he made copies (different materials) as well as modifications to orignial designs. I asked him about copyright/patent issues involved and his reply was a bit surprising. He actually said some manufacturers encourage the aftermarket parts as it is too expensive for them to maintain inventories and it encourages original sales of product. I guess that is also why the OEM parts are so expensive compared to the aftermarket. Thinking about it logically, I guess it makes more sense to buy a product that has lots of replacement parts as well as hop-up parts available, which in effect, makes a product more marketable for the original manuf.
Thinking about this further, you remember the explosion of after market parts on the market for the Tmaxx, plastic to aluminum, it made that truck very popular.

No offence taken Sean. - John.

As the owner of a Comp BobCat I have been reading these posts with great interest. I purchased it based on the long established quality and reputation of BVM products. Yes, I spent more on this aircraft than I would have spent on some other sport aircraft. I choose the Comp BobCat because of BVM's long history or excellence in design, flight testing, kittting and most importantly, after the sale support. Additionally, BV is one of us, a jet pilot. He takes great pride flying what he sells.

I must have missed something in these posts, why is the proverbial finger being pointed at Comp-Arf on the molds? From the examples I have seen Comp-arf seems to produce a pretty good product. Why would they need to steal the KC and BC molds from BVM?[/color]