Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: mersey dave on September 11, 2010, 11:01:32 pm
-
offer removed
-
It's OK to sell personal copies of plans you own but not to reproduce any that are currently on sale as that would be a breach of copyright. Some of the plans you have listed would appear to be on the MyHobbyStore Plans list.
Colin
-
ok will remove only trying to help other members %)
-
It's OK to sell personal copies of plans you own but not to reproduce any that are currently on sale as that would be a breach of copyright. Some of the plans you have listed would appear to be on the MyHobbyStore Plans list.
Colin
Only if that person "actually owns" the copyright.
I see a lot of websites that offer up plans that were once free,.. for a fee. {:-{
-
Only if that person "actually owns" the copyright.
I see a lot of websites that offer up plans that were once free,.. for a fee. {:-{
If they are not charging for the Plan but only the cost of duplication, paper shipping etc then I see no real problem
-
I see a lot of websites that offer up plans that were once free,.. for a fee. {:-{
Totally agree with Umi. O0 O0
I paid My Hobbystore 15 GBP for a plan including postage that was a freebie in the Model Boats Feb 2004 issue. I'm now minus 15 GBP and no plan >>:-(
Fortunately a fellow Aussie member "Gra" has offered his copy for free....could have bought a few beers with 15 quid >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Martin du
-
If they are not charging for the Plan but only the cost of duplication, paper shipping etc then I see no real problem
So you are quite comfortable with the idea of people ripping off kit manufacturer's hulls and selling them then?
Martin, it may just be lost in the post - have MHS refused to send you another? If so I'd argue with them a bit harder.
Colin
-
It looks like this topic is getting a bit heated, just to keep things in order the plans i have were purchased on a disk so all i was doing was sending these to any member free of charge via email to print out themselves. i did not see any harm in doing this but if it upsets the forum i will not bother, hence offer removed.
REGARDS DAVE.
-
Dave,
Yes it is a bit of a sensitive topic - not your fault - and has been discussed on a number of occasions on the Forum in one form or another. We do have quite a few trader members who also have pretty firm views on the subject as well as those who are in the 'everything should be free' camp. The intention behind your original offer is nevertheless appreciated. As you will appreciate, there are a lot of grey areas and what is acceptable to one person is not always the case with another!
Colin
-
If you want to "Help" people Mersey Dave, do it subltuly, Via PM's O0 %) :-))
Regards Ian
-
So you are quite comfortable with the idea of people ripping off kit manufacturer's hulls and selling them then?
No not at all... I was refering to plans that are freely available in the public domain without copyright.
My apologies I should have been clearer with my first reply
-
Martin, it may just be lost in the post - have MHS refused to send you another? If so I'd argue with them a bit harder.
Colin
I notified MHS and asked how item was dispatched/addressed/packaged etc, MHS came back with only stating item posted 20th Aug and no other information. I have purchased many items from the UK with delivery only taking 5 - 6 days. I'm reluctant to purchase anything from them now or in the future - I thought they would have least offered to send another copy.
Dave, thanks again for emailing me a copy of that tug plan on the other forum (this was also a freebie plan from a magazine)
Martin du
-
The Postal services can't even do "Local" deliveries properly Martin. Sent a litre of Steam Oil from Bradford to Portsmouth via £4.50 First Class Post in June, still waiting, claim was submitted to Plymouth in July (cos you've to wait a month in case the "Next Day" or "At least a week" service doesn't work) and am still waiting for acknowledgement.
Postage to Oz? Hire a runner with a cleft stick.
Regards Ian.
-
The Postal services can't even do "Local" deliveries properly Martin. Sent a litre of Steam Oil from Bradford to Portsmouth via £4.50 First Class Post in June, still waiting, claim was submitted to Plymouth in July (cos you've to wait a month in case the "Next Day" or "At least a week" service doesn't work) and am still waiting for acknowledgement.
Postage to Oz? Hire a runner with a cleft stick.
Regards Ian.
I think 5 to 6 days from the UK is a great service. It takes about 10 days from the USA and about 5 days from anywhere interstate in Oz. For some unknown reason it always appears to take longer in your own country. Don't figure {:-{
Mdu
-
The majority of modellers probably routinely breach the general conditions of copyright by re-scaling and /or duplicating plans for cutting out etc. Dave has'nt upset the 'forum' at all. :} Colin is (one member amongst 4000+) simply protecting the financial interest of his employer. :-)) Mersey Dave could of course offer to 'loan' his plan to forum members (at their postage costs) for perusal and they can decide whether or not to buy a copy. These are tough times for many of us and Dave's altruism is commendable and appreciated. I would be very happy to list my plans for loan to assist the research of other Mayhemmers. :-)
-
There are quite a few "Free" ( copyright free ) plans on 'tinternet', maybe we can start a list....
-
Colin is (one member amongst 4000+) simply protecting the financial interest of his employer.
Not quite correct as I work for MyHobbyStore in a freelance capacity and don't consider myself as an employee as such. However, my comments were prompted by the wider context. Working for MHS and doing interviews with many of the model boating traders has brought home to me just how little money there really is in the commercial side of this hobby. MHS is not a big company, Model Boats is produced by one and a half staff and I'm sure that a similar situation applies to Marine Modelling as well. Most of our well known traders are 'cottage industries' or small family businesses and can be significantly affected by outsiders ripping them off. Obviously Dave doesn't fall into that category but we have had examples where traders have been targeted by people producing counterfeit hulls etc.
A plan may be included free with a magazine issue but it has cost money to commission and produce and so it is usually added subsequently to the Plans Service to hopefully bring in a bit of future income. Traders, including MHS, are in business to make a profit after all. Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to be much concerned if you copy something to help out a mate in a particular circumstance or reproduce a 30 year old article. It's when you start advertising in bulk on Ebay etc. that the problems start.
It's in all our interests not to undermine the commercial side of the hobby which is just comprised of people trying to make a living. Otherwise there would be no magazines, reasonably priced hulls and electronic gear etc.
As in all things, moderation should be the keyword.
Colin
-
Colin,
That read a bit odd to me, they are staffed by one and a half people, he could
be in trouble for child labour........ {-) {-) {-)
Roy
-
That read a bit odd to me, they are staffed by one and a half people, he could
be in trouble for child labour........
OK, 1.5fte, both working from home then. ok2
Colin
-
There are quite a few "Free" ( copyright free ) plans on 'tinternet', maybe we can start a list....
This is an interesting site.
http://www.john-tom.com/RcShip/RCship.html
Best wishes
Jules
-
There are quite a few "Free" ( copyright free ) plans on 'tinternet', maybe we can start a list....
VERY GOOD IDEA,
-
Greetings,
In the US regarding copyright laws and how they relate to plans, I have the right to make copies of the plans to aid in my model making endeavors. I do not have the right to sell those copies. I do have the right to the sell the original set that I bought from the designer just like I can sell a used book that I bought.
Andre
-
Hi Andre, The law is quite similar in the UK for model boat plans. They are within the category of 'artistic work' in our legislation:
"Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of
research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:
a)The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
b) The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
c) The source of the material is acknowledged.
d)The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people." :-)
-
That is for literature (books), and may not apply to plans (are they really legally classed as artistic work?)
I have seen plans for 1:1 boats and in the conditions of sale they can not be copied and can only be used to build one boat. If I wanted to build a second boat I would have to purchase a second set of plans.
As for the 'free plans' that came with a magazine, you had to buy the magazine. The plans were a 'gift'. And so paying for production and postage of plans (many years after they were first gifted) is justifiable, giving them away for free would be illogical.
This whole area is very grey.
Lots of opinions on the subject.
-
As for the 'free plans' that came with a magazine, you had to buy the magazine. The plans were a 'gift'. And so paying for production and postage of plans (many years after they were first gifted) is justifiable, giving them away for free would be illogical.
This whole area is very grey.
Lots of opinions on the subject. :-)) :-)) :-)) O0 O0 O0
It is really quite simple from down under, because if a case was to be made it would have to be proved that there was financial gain, that is copying and selling the copies, therefore a breach, if not (giving them away) no breach.
There is also a fixation on using 'free' incorrectly, as you had to buy the magazine they were not a gift but paid for as part of the transaction.
Remember the transaction (contract, offer and acceptance) is buy the mag and get the plan. As the plan is not Gifted you can give it away to however or whoever you so choose.
Bear in mind that copyright laws throughout the world are basically similar in context and allow for the disposal of copyright material by a legitmate owner who has paid the copyright fee.
Such as purchased Model boats magazine. To say I cannot give them away is pulling a long bow.
And if it is OK to sell copies of magazines why not plans ??? The principle and statute (copyright) is the same.
Generally the yardstick is what would a reasonable person do or think???
%) %) %) ;) ;) ;) :-)) :-)) :-))
-
There is a big difference between the disposal of a legally bought item on the second hand market, or passing it on as a gift, and the creation of copies of items that are still available from the copyright holder. There is really no such thing as "free" unless you are a politician, there IS "included in the price", but this is more cumbersome to write down.
-
possession is 9/10th of the law if you own it paied for it etc then you should have the right to sell and repoduce the item you own without inflicting on others copyright, granted that in a lot of items it states that you cannot redistribute or copy as a copy right law, but in this particular case there was no terms and conditions to the purchase no contract signed stating what you can and cannot do, there for if you want to sell copy's of plans you own at a reasonable price then that your right to do so, other wise this whole issue of free plans being sold is actually company's breaching the original plans designers copyright ! making what there doing wrong as well .. so for a better word if they can do it why can't i?
And lets be honest im sure if there was a plan you wanted and you found it on here for only the cost of the print and postage so £5 in general.. saving you up to £15+ from a site would you really complain? i think not!
-
Hi TT, The relevant issues and info with regard to UK copyright are explored and defined here: (The full Monty %) )
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
RA Gunner has eloquently summarised significant aspects including many relevant underlying principles. :}
There are few grey areas if we restrict our focus to 'model' boats. Bone fide non - commercial Mayhemmers can 'without fear or favour' enjoy their right to copy plans for the purposes of 'research or private study' within the conditions required, namely:
a)The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
b) The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
c) The source of the material is acknowledged.
d)The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people."
This restricted right to copy is intended to ensure 'Fair Dealing' as given/stated in the legislation. Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright.
As model boat enthusiasts, research and the study of plans etc are important aspects to our hobby.
Hi Prophet, 2 wrong's don't make a right. You have boundaries around your home and others respect them - hopefully. If you own dogs and breed puppies you are entitled to sell them. However. it's illegal to take an original plan you've bought to the copyshop and sell duplicate copies. You did not draw the plan and since you do not have the copyright you cannot choose to distribute copies of it with a magazine. Possession was never 9/10 of the law...... it's a term coined by opportunists to justify keeping what does'nt actually belong to them e. g. Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, etc. :}
-
I've just checked a couple of old "free" plans. They do carry a copyright statement. If the plans in question originated as magazine freebies, they will likely have started life with such a statement on them, and any reproduced and sold without the agreement of the copyright holder become targets for litigation. If any have had the copyright statement removed, that shifts from a small mistake (being charitable) to full-on, out and out, fraud.
As has been said before, multiple copying and distribution is deliberate denial of the benefits of the labours of the guy who did the drawing. Apply that to yourself, and decide if you would be happy if you didn't get paid for working. Adopt the principle that all such printed matter is there for the taking, without passing any reward back, and the supply of plans dies off in short order. Then what do we do for new plans?
-
Looking at the above site copyright ranges from 25 years to 125 so where do such Items as plans fit into this. %%
-
It would seem that the days of helping out without treading on toes are in the days of the past. You can't have a hobby now without politics coming into it.
Regards Dave.
-
I think this is an unnecessarily gloomy view. Many commercial designs/plans are held in museum's both local and national, such as the National Maritime Museum and a large number of the companies which built the vessels and authored the plans are no more, e.g. the plans of British Power Boats. Many surviving / current builders need fear little from model boat builders who wish to simply make scale shapes/representations of their craft, e.g. R N L I . We as modellers are'nt threatening competitors or commercial rivals and suspect that the majority of our subjects are relatively old and superceded designs.
The days of helping out have never been better, thanks to the internet and specialist forums such as Mayhem. A member need only ask for info/help on a specific craft they are researching (a potential build) and a response is more than likely. So called 'Free' plans won't dry up since they are a worthwhile selling feature for magazines.
This thread has extended modeller's choices and has'nt diminished them in any way..................... we are now better informed and can take some advantage from the knowledge gained. I now won't be listing my plan collection, however I shall assist another member's research if I choose, on a one to one basis via our 'pm' facility or offer a general response by thread as appropriate.
The UK copyright regs have'nt opened any 'flood gates'. My original plan collection is unmarked, since I always work from a 'working 'copy' or two onto which I can add measurements, re-draw propshaft angles and add/try out machinery frames/bearers to suit potential machinery choices/layouts. I can recall only one plan that I have purchased which was actually drawn in the scale I wanted and many others were in dire need of modernisation and re-drawing. I am more than happy to buy/swop second hand originals or receive gifted plans from generous hearted folk for research on my model boat projects (4 at the last count). :-)
-
Perkasaman,
Well said.
There is unnecessary paranoia and fixation about so called copyright infringement and repercussions.
Consider this,
In Brisbane, Australia you can go to any public library and photo copy the boat plans in the books such as "American PT boats in World War II, by Victor Chun" for the princely sum of 20cents per sheet.
You can then deal with those plans as you see fit up scale down scale whatever. No breach of copyright has occurred.
Alternatively and better option, borrow the book and photo copy plans etc. No charge for photo copying.
At the end of the day the results are the same.
Also if I have a bought copy of a "An.Anonymous" copyright destroyer plans, I can lend them to whomever I so choose.
Where's the breach???????????????
The name of the game is to support, uplift and assist one another O0 O0 O0 :-)) :-)) :-)) without getting bogged down in unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense and paranoi about copyright. >>:-( >>:-( <*< <*< :police: :police:
-
As a former Chief Trading Standards Officer I have had considerable experience of copyright enforcement.
I strongly disagreed with some of my colleagues who thought they were doing something important with public funds when they chased up street/market traders who sold poor copy tapes and videos. We saw some funny and stupid things, even videos made by someone holding a hand held camera in a cinema to copy a new released film!
Then their were the major fashion houses who expected me to spend public money investigating traders selling jeans etc which had their logos on the back pocket. My attitude was....if you make a pair of jeans using sweated labour in China for £2 and then hype them up and sell them for £50 you can protect your own interests and I am not spending public taxes protecting you. After all if someone wants to pay £20 for a pair of market stall jeans which has some fashion house logo on the pocket and they get decent wear from them and pleasure of ownership....so what? It is hardly going to bring a major fashion house to its knees.
On the other hand where we detected (and we did) major fraud raising funds for crime and terrorism then we acted.
I suggest a useful way to think of copyright is, "Is the copying being done to avoid payment?" Helping each other on a non-commercial basis is just not a problem.
Roger in France
-
Big companies who have based their business on selling commodities which can nowadays be easily copied, such as software or films, are anxious to stress the so-called 'intellectual property rights' aspect of copyright, as if there were no distinction between an item and an idea.
However, the concept of copyright was not originally intended to protect commercial monopoly of ideas and their expression, but to limit it. The Statute of Anne 1709 specifically provided for terms of 14 (which could be renewed once) and 21 years protection, after which all ideas and their expression reverted to the public domain. It was meant to be a bargain between society and 'learned men' - to encourage the writing of 'useful books' which would, after a period of monopoly, become the 'property' of society generally.
Companies, particularly in America, have fought against this since the rise of Hollywood, and have succeeded in upping this limit to the life of the author plus 50/70 years. That is approximately two lifetimes. They are trying to break their end of the bargain and make it forever, hoping that people will forget that passing ideas into the public domain was (and still remains) an essential part of the copyright concept. Talking about copyright as if it were solely to do with protecting the justifiable commercial interests of a creator while ignoring its second aspect plays right into their hands. Particularly if the creator died years ago.....
-
Can someone explain to me the basis that museums such IMM and IWM make such large charges for "copyright" of World War 2 photographs if you want to publish them in a magazine article? If the original shot is over 50 years old surely it is out of copyright?
-
Could I suggest many member comments are valid....however do not address the question of who really profits from Copyright?
= the Legal fraternity
Yes...these >>:-( silk robed.... {-) lambswool capped creatures appearing as our mate...... [Rumpold of the Bailey.....appeared].....well these persons schemed & scammed & introduced Law to all forms of commodities as supplied to the general population
However these Legal minds realised there was more money to be made in protecting the said merchandise or ideas than that of the value of the commodities offered :o
One example of this was when the late George Harrison was taken to Court for blatant musical plagiarism by his rendition of "My Sweet Lord"....over a long lost American black gospal hymn...the case was found against Harrison & 82% of the costs awarded by the Court went in Legal fees...as there was/were no legal owner of the American black gospal hymn
I rest my case <:( ....Derek
-
I think a sense of proportion is required here. A model boat plan has a very limited earning potential for the designer - typically a one-off payment of a couple of hundred quid for a full article and the rights to sell copies of the plans - so any comparison with Hollywood blockbusters and designer clothing is a bit off the wall. It also has a pretty limited shelf-life for the holder of any publishing rights unless it becomes a 'classic'. Even then I doubt if MyHobbyStore or Traplet gets orders from more than a dozen of any one plan in a year.
I don't like cheats, though. My little Swordsman plans were a freebie in Model Boats mag and I was happy to see copies of them exchanged between modellers who wanted to build one, but I got very angry when Stavros sent me a link to E-Bay where some nameless scumbag was flogging bad copies of them for profit. As you can imagine, Fleabay did nothing about this despite several protestations - presumably figuring that they'd take some commission from any sales he might make as opposed to making nothing from me. In consequence anyone can now obtain a copy of these plans in PDF format direct from me for the princely sum of nothing.
If you can't beat 'em then why not just spoil the game for 'em?
FLJ
-
Can someone explain to me the basis that museums such IMM and IWM make such large charges for "copyright" of World War 2 photographs if you want to publish them in a magazine article? If the original shot is over 50 years old surely it is out of copyright?
Reading this may be of assistance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Though it refers to an American law broadly the same legislation is enacted round the world...
-
One example of this was when the late George Harrison was taken to Court for blatant musical plagiarism by his rendition of "My Sweet Lord"....over a long lost American black gospal hymn...the case was found against Harrison & 82% of the costs awarded by the Court went in Legal fees...as there was/were no legal owner of the American black gospal hymn
That wasn't quite the way I remembered it, I thought the case was based on plaigarising an old hit by the Chiffons so I looked it up here: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
Colin
-
Thankyou...I stand corrected Colin :embarrassed: ..."plaigarising an old hit by the Chiffons" .......however the remote principal still remains..... :-)) ....that the Legal fraternity profit ...... Derek
-
that the Legal fraternity profit ......
Can't disagree with that!
Colin
-
I remember 'Les Chiffons' Colin :o
(Before any other cleverclogs takes credit, or plagiarises it, ............... MHS could hire the top half of a numerate (both metric and imperial )and dextrous humanoid to provide a 'bespoke' plan service which supplies and despatches plans copied at a scale requested/decided by the customer. This propensity could potentially save customers a lot of grief/hassle and additional expense, many of whom, don't have easy access to copyshops. A potential 'win' situation for all concerned.
A skilled operative on a modern plan copy machine can soon calculate/measure 'enlargement/reduction %foibles' on the said machine and rapidly correct/adjust the extrapolated innacuracies evident on some 'originals' which are often annoyingly, either under/oversized and produce accurate copies at alternative scales.
A new plan service :-)) ' U SCALE' @'TRU SCALE' (My copyright*)
* A herd of my legal eagles are now standing by to negotiate my world patent rights and franchising. %) :}
(Hi Allnightin, the museums appear to be singing from the same 'hym sheet' in their desperate efforts to raise cash in this economic climate. Here's a link which refers in part to your questions about photographs and the duration of copyright:
http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf ............................. :-) (Is this earner 'tapping the admiral?' )
-
But whose originals are you going to use Perkasaman??
Regards Ian
-
I think MyHobbyStore outsource the printing arrangements.
Realistically I doubt if the economics of the operation would justify much investment spending although they have been pushing the Plans Service more over the last few months.
The modern copying equipment is very good but when I had a plan scaled up at a local print shop recently a huge amount of paper was wasted in getting it to exactly the right size (200%) although that may have been down to the operator.
Colin
-
As with all franchise operations Ian, :o .................the franchisee does ALL the work and I enjoy a huge fat fee per copy*.
* U SCALE @ TRU SCALE All rights reserved. World patent pending <*<.
-
Can someone explain to me the basis that museums such IMM and IWM make such large charges for "copyright" of World War 2 photographs if you want to publish them in a magazine article? If the original shot is over 50 years old surely it is out of copyright?
Photos are generally 75 years copyright and if still making a profit it could last longer
-
There is certainly a need for a 'one shop' plan service from model boat plan suppliers which can accurately enlarge/cut'n paste, prior to printing, especially for larger model sizes. :-)
(Copiers are 1% accurate - in theory.)
-
Although not strictly relevant to this issue, you might want to follow this thread and inwardly digest.
http://forum.shipais.com/index.php?showtopic=10688
LB
-
There is certainly a need for a 'one shop' plan service from model boat plan suppliers which can accurately enlarge/cut'n paste, prior to printing, especially for larger model sizes. :-)
(Copiers are 1% accurate - in theory.)
Dont you mean 99% %% %%
Ned
-
Ok Here is a question.
I get a hold of a plan. I wack it under the photo copier and sell them on for money . Ok that's breaking copyright laws. What happens if I redraw the plans my self either by computer or by hand and then sell them on for money is this breaking the law.
john
-
... the museums appear to be singing from the same 'hym sheet' in their desperate efforts to raise cash in this economic climate.
The really annoying thing is that we (the tax payer) have bought these plans already. I don't object to a handling/photocopying charge for a set, nor to realistic handling costs, but £'00s from the Maritime Museum for some juicy ships is way out of my price range: there must be hundreds of ships we'll never see built as models due to this barrier.
(Thinking of a pile of WW1 ships, beyond the "typical" Dreadnought, Invicible, etc.)
Andy
-
I get a hold of a plan. I wack it under the photo copier and sell them on for money . Ok that's breaking copyright laws. What happens if I redraw the plans my self either by computer or by hand and then sell them on for money is this breaking the law.
That's just another way of copying so what's the difference?
-
What would the possibility be of having a library within the forum so that we can all add plans in order to assist members in there research. What's your views on this.
Regards Dave.
-
That's just another way of copying so what's the difference?
Is It Copying . Look at the more popular boats there are loads of diffrent plans around drawn by diffrent people of the same boat. Are the new plans a breach of copyright? I thought when you redrew some think it came your own work.
John
-
Before photocopying was invented then physical copying was the way they did things. Yes, there are differerent versions of plans of the same vessels available but in the main they would have been independently drawn from research material and will probably vary in their style, detailed content, scale etc. So you could get an original set of builder's plans of the Queen Mary (full size of course!) and draw your own version for model making purposes and sell that.
When model making plans of existing ships are drawn up it is usually customary to seek agreement from the owners/builders. If the subject is an older vessel with historical plans held by museums then there is unlikely to be a problem if you use the museum plans as a reference source to draw up a set of modelmaker plans. If you simply copied the museum plans and tried to sell them it would be a different story.
For my recent article on the new Isle of Wight ferries in Model Boats, Wightlink gave me permission for their general arrangement drawings to be reproduced in the magazine. That doesn't give either me or the magazine the right to reproduce them for sale.
Colin
-
Photos are generally 75 years copyright and if still making a profit it could last longer
According to the flowchart that Perkasaman gave the link to on the Museums Copyright Group web site, a photo has copyright for 70 years. It is not for the museum to decide when the copyright ceases so I read that as meaning that WW2 photos that precede September 1940 are now out of copyright - such as from the start of the Battle of Britain for example. Anyone want to take that up with the NMM or IWM?
-
If the subject is an older vessel with historical plans held by museums then there is unlikely to be a problem if you use the museum plans as a reference source to draw up a set of modelmaker plans. If you simply copied the museum plans and tried to sell them it would be a different story.
For my recent article on the new Isle of Wight ferries in Model Boats, Wightlink gave me permission for their general arrangement drawings to be reproduced in the magazine. That doesn't give either me or the magazine the right to reproduce them for sale.
Colin
Colin,
While I can understand how copyright is affected in your Wightlink example, for older examples - say a 18th century frigate drawings at the National Maritime Museum - surely there are no longer any copyright issues?
Francis Macnaughton
-
To my mind the issue isn't that of simply copying a drawing (which itself is probably not illegal); it's the act of selling those copies (which may well be illegal) that's the deciding point here. No need to make the matter even more complicated than it actually is.
FLJ
-
What would the possibility be of having a library within the forum so that we can all add plans in order to assist members in there research. What's your views on this.
Regards Dave.
-
What would the possibility be of having a library within the forum so that we can all add plans in order to assist members in there research. What's your views on this.
Regards Dave.
As long as the contributor has full claim to the drawings, and no intention of claiming any future benefit from them. The only problem down the line is a future entrepreneur selling them on for his own profit. Any actions arising would leave mayhem as the piggy in the middle. There are plenty of sites with plans that are legally and legitimately freely available for personal use. All of the drawings carry their authors mark, and any commercial use without appropriate permission (usually by crossing of palms with sufficient silver) would be actionable.
-
Francis,
If you look at the National Maritime Museum Website they have very stringent terms and conditions concerning reproduction of the images displayed there which include reproduction of quite a few plans. There is a lot of mention of 'Crown Copyright' and some interesting comments about third part copyright in respect of items held by the Museum. I would imagine that the situation can be quite complex depending upon the provenance of the material. However, on the one hand if you simply use the material as a source of reference to produce your own set of plans I doubt if there would be a problem. The producers of Nelson era kits use NMM plans as a basis for developing thir CAD drawings. On the other hand, if you were to buy a set of plans from the NMM, take them down to the local copy shop and sell them on Ebay then I suspect you might have your collar felt under one law or another!
Still, it is open to any of the proponents of universal freedom to actually try it and see what happens......
Colin
-
I remember 'Les Chiffons' Colin :o
(Before any other cleverclogs takes credit, or plagiarises it, ............... MHS could hire the top half of a numerate (both metric and imperial )and dextrous humanoid to provide a 'bespoke' plan service which supplies and despatches plans copied at a scale requested/decided by the customer. This propensity could potentially save customers a lot of grief/hassle and additional expense, many of whom, don't have easy access to copyshops. A potential 'win' situation for all concerned.
A skilled operative on a modern plan copy machine can soon calculate/measure 'enlargement/reduction %foibles' on the said machine and rapidly correct/adjust the extrapolated innacuracies evident on some 'originals' which are often annoyingly, either under/oversized and produce accurate copies at alternative scales.
A new plan service :-)) ' U SCALE' @'TRU SCALE' (My copyright*)
* A herd of my legal eagles are now standing by to negotiate my world patent rights and franchising. %) :}
(Hi Allnightin, the museums appear to be singing from the same 'hym sheet' in their desperate efforts to raise cash in this economic climate. Here's a link which refers in part to your questions about photographs and the duration of copyright:
http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf ............................. :-) (Is this earner 'tapping the admiral?' )
For those of us not in the UK 'bespoke' translates to "Tailor made"
What I would like to see is all the old magazines and plans digitized so that reprints could be made.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
I found this interpretation of the law in the UK with regard to "fair use" and thought it might be of interest.
FAIR USE - Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner; in other words, it allows reasonable public access to copyrighted works.
The idea is an important part of the English common-law tradition.
Why does FAIR USE exist?
FAIR USE allows people to use images and written works without compensating the original writer/creator, as long as they act in good faith and do not profit from reproducing the work. Education, parody, criticism, news reporting, etc are all examples of fair use.
The idea of FAIR USE has guided the use of reproductions of works for years. In most cases, the lack of commercial gain is necessary for a claim of fair use. If you are a non-profit website designed for educational purposes, you are in the perfect position to claim FAIR USE of images which are already in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
________________________________________
For a long time, the FAIR USE doctrine occupied a grey area of law, usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Typically, if someone were profiting from another person's work which was not in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, it was not considered fair use. Museums typically did not sue non-profit websites which reproduced images for educational purposes. If they had, the court would have forced them to prove a substantial loss of profit from the use. Understandably, such proof would not exist and the court would not look favorably upon such a vindictive case, particularly since the images were already in the public domain.
Regards Allan.
-
What I would like to see is all the old magazines and plans digitized so that reprints could be made.
Not economically viable I'm afraid. Just for Model Boats alone there would be over 700 issues with around 50,000 pages. That's maybe 12,000 articles, many of which, such as old regatta reports, would be of no interest today. Of the balance how many would you sell? If you are just taking photocopies you would need to index them, a huge job in itself. If you OCR the articles the workload would be even greater. How do I know this? Well, I did go through all 700 issues when compiling a tiny fraction for inclusion in the recent Model Boats Commemorative Special.
Yup, there is indeed gold in them thar hills but it needs a hell of a lot of mining. There may be another Special next year with a further selection of 'oldies' but it will involve a lot of work and still only scratch the surface of what is available. And that will be my interpretaion of what is of interest to modellers, everyone will have their own take on it.
Colin
-
Very interesting and educational topic this one is turning out to be.
Here are a few other thoughts to put in the 'melting pot'. How large is the model boat fraternity - there arent many manufacturers solely catering for the model boater. We can count the manufacturers on one hand. They have to try and make a living from selling various goods - to fulfil our needs. We begin making copies of whatever they produce and it will soon put them out of business and then we lose them for good.
Does PSships spring to mind?
How many draughtsmen actually sit down and draw out model boat lines for us? Not many are there? They have to make a living. They sell their plans direct to ourselves, myhobbiestore, marine modelling etc. and they have to make a profit too to keep them in business to produce their magazines etc., So....just think about it, take their business away and we lose them too.
I am not against lending any plans which I have done and also given plans to be copied, used to build something - but not for resale. I have crossed swords with certain folk on ebay who have sold copied plans; and at one extent it did backfire on me - but it doesnt half nark me when I see plans like FLJ's, and Glyn Guest's plans etc., for sale for £6-£7 - if a person wants plans like that all theyhave to do is come onto this forum and ask and surely someone will offer them plans on loan/gift of plans.
aye
Just my thoughts....
john
-
Not economically viable I'm afraid. Just for Model Boats alone there would be over 700 issues with around 50,000 pages. That's maybe 12,000 articles, many of which, such as old regatta reports, would be of no interest today.
I'm just wondering how much effort went into this-
http://books.google.com/books?id=kSoDAAAAMBAJ
Granted, there is probably a much bigger base of interest, and if it was sponsored by google, who probably own about a quarter of the cash in the world....
-
Not economically viable I'm afraid. Just for Model Boats alone there would be over 700 issues with around 50,000 pages. That's maybe 12,000 articles, many of which, such as old regatta reports, would be of no interest today. Of the balance how many would you sell? If you are just taking photocopies you would need to index them, a huge job in itself. If you OCR the articles the workload would be even greater. How do I know this? Well, I did go through all 700 issues when compiling a tiny fraction for inclusion in the recent Model Boats Commemorative Special.
Yup, there is indeed gold in them thar hills but it needs a hell of a lot of mining. There may be another Special next year with a further selection of 'oldies' but it will involve a lot of work and still only scratch the surface of what is available. And that will be my interpretaion of what is of interest to modellers, everyone will have their own take on it.
Colin
Would be nice though., just think out of 4767 members if each active and able (ie scanner etc) could scan a couple of copys it would soon be done. These scans then passed onto MB / MHS (members on the forum could have access) and then the worlds your oyster...I know its unlikely to ever happen but then they say we landed on the moon once :} so you never know. :-))
-
Almost anything is possible, but probable - well....
This sort of exercise doesn't lend itself to outsourcing as it needs to be done in a consistent and tightly managed manner. You could issue instructions but you would be amazed at the way in which people would contrive to do something entirely different. This would particularly apply to the indexing process. And how would you get the raw material to the people doing the scanning? Few of us have collections of Model Boats going back 50+ years and the 'official' copies at MHS are in bound volumes, in a rather fragile condition in the case of the older ones. They would have to be unbound for effective copying which would probably result in them falling to pieces.
Scanner settings vary too, I found that only one setting on mine would give reasonable results. Most material is OK on 300dpi but drawings are better at 600dpi to capture the smaller text.
If you did call for volunteers I doubt if you would get more than a handful anyway.
The exercise is certainly possible but cost wise it is unlikely to make much sense, regrettably.
Incidentally, according to Paul Freshney, on average, MHS have to sell between 70-80 copies of a plan to cover their costs in commissioning and production.
Colin
-
I found this interpretation of the law in the UK with regard to "fair use" and thought it might be of interest.
FAIR USE - Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner; in other words, it allows reasonable public access to copyrighted works.
The idea is an important part of the English common-law tradition.
Why does FAIR USE exist?
FAIR USE allows people to use images and written works without compensating the original writer/creator, as long as they act in good faith and do not profit from reproducing the work. Education, parody, criticism, news reporting, etc are all examples of fair use.
The idea of FAIR USE has guided the use of reproductions of works for years. In most cases, the lack of commercial gain is necessary for a claim of fair use. If you are a non-profit website designed for educational purposes, you are in the perfect position to claim FAIR USE of images which are already in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
________________________________________
For a long time, the FAIR USE doctrine occupied a grey area of law, usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Typically, if someone were profiting from another person's work which was not in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, it was not considered fair use. Museums typically did not sue non-profit websites which reproduced images for educational purposes. If they had, the court would have forced them to prove a substantial loss of profit from the use. Understandably, such proof would not exist and the court would not look favorably upon such a vindictive case, particularly since the images were already in the public domain.
Regards Allan.
Well found :-)) :-)) :-)) the definative answer O0 O0 O0
-
As long as the contributor has full claim to the drawings, and no intention of claiming any future benefit from them. The only problem down the line is a future entrepreneur selling them on for his own profit. Any actions arising would leave mayhem as the piggy in the middle. There are plenty of sites with plans that are legally and legitimately freely available for personal use. All of the drawings carry their authors mark, and any commercial use without appropriate permission (usually by crossing of palms with sufficient silver) would be actionable....
May I introduce those Mayhem readers who haven't heard of it to the concept of 'copyleft'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft refers...
Many people (myself included) think that the whole principle of copyright is fundamentally flawed, and that it is incompatible with modern technology. Business models that depend on restricting or charging for information are becoming impossible to maintain in a world where information flows freely, even when draconian legislation is enacted to try to maintain supplier monopolies. As I recall a contributor to another thread saying - "... if you think music piracy is 'bad', just wait until 3D printer prices drop below $5000 ..."
You are probably aware of the development of free or 'open source' software, such as the Linux operating system, Open Office and the rest. All of these programs are distributed for free under an odd kind of copyright, developed by Richard Stallman (amongst others). This is usually referred to as the GNU General Public License, and is used for all Open Source code.
This is a valid copyright license, but it has some odd requirements. Very briefly, instead of restricting the right to copy an item to the 'owner' or their appointed agents on payment of a license fee, it requires anyone who copies the work, for personal or commercial use, to make it available to anyone who asks for it for free. An item of information can then be made freely available, but it is not in the public domain, and if anyone is then found selling it to people rather than giving it away they are in breach of the copyright conditions, and can be sued. Effectively, like judo, it uses the force of the copyright legislation against big business - as they extend and strengthen copyright this makes the free software movement stronger under law. Hence the term 'copyleft' (all wrongs reversed)
All the plans that I have drawn up on my site are issued under this license. I would commend it to FLJ should he wish to have watertight legal enforcement against anyone demanding money for his plans, rather than a fee for copying and posting (which is allowed).
-
Question for Colin. I use 2 online photos of a tugboat, read info about this boat on 3 or 4 other websites. I then trace the side view of the boat, scan the tracing into CAD program where I then change some of the hull shapes and upper structures to what looks good to me. Use the articles to get actual size (length, beam, waterline). Even change these to my liking. Use all these modifications and scale my CAD generated drawing to what I want to build, say 1:24 scale, print them out then build from that. Have I broken any laws? Hope not. Would that be scratch building? Thanks for your input. Ray (ironman)
-
Ray,
Any views I have are just opinions like everyone else on this thread. However, I think what has become clear is that in practical terms you should not copy (by whatever method) somebody elses's plans and sell copies for profit.
I certainly wouldn't have any hesitation in doing what you have suggested and nor I think would anyone else who has contributed to this topic. Seems to me you are just applying research and development to meet your personal requirements.
Colin
-
Not economically viable I'm afraid. Just for Model Boats alone there would be over 700 issues with around 50,000 pages. That's maybe 12,000 articles, many of which, such as old regatta reports, would be of no interest today. Of the balance how many would you sell? If you are just taking photocopies you would need to index them, a huge job in itself. If you OCR the articles the workload would be even greater. How do I know this? Well, I did go through all 700 issues when compiling a tiny fraction for inclusion in the recent Model Boats Commemorative Special.
Yup, there is indeed gold in them thar hills but it needs a hell of a lot of mining. There may be another Special next year with a further selection of 'oldies' but it will involve a lot of work and still only scratch the surface of what is available. And that will be my interpretaion of what is of interest to modellers, everyone will have their own take on it.
Colin
Any chance of a Steam Special?
Regards,
Gerald.
-
No, afraid not, too much of a minority interest commercial wise.
Colin
-
COPYRIGHT - A MODEL BOAT MAYHEM POSITION STATEMENT.
From MARTIN, the Site Owner.
From time to time the issue of copyright and potential abuse arises. It is important for me to make it clear that Mayhem does not support any infringement of copyright. Mayhem facilities must not be used to further copyright abuse.
Copyright is intended to protect the originators value in the material. To breach that right is stealing.
A polite request to many copyright holders will often result in permission to copy. A modest quotation from copyright material for research, personal use or to illustrate an issue is normally permitted.
Please ensure that you do not involve Model Boat Mayhem in copyright infringement.
-
Hi John, this might help.
At the end of the day it all comes down to interpretation and there seem to be many grey areas.
The main point however seems to be if you are going to gain financially which in this case is not your intention.
When is permission required to use third party material?
As a general rule, permission should be sought from the rightsholder to reproduce any “substantial parts” of any copyright work. This includes literary works (eg text and tables), as well as all photographs, slides, line illustrations, or other artwork. Whether or not the material that is being reproduced is a “substantial part” is a subjective test that depends both on the significance of the copied material and the quantity of material used.
When is clearance of rights not required?
• When the material is not subject to copyright protection.
o Copyright protects only original (i.e. creative) materials (NB: threshold for creativity is low).
o Copyright protects only the particular form of expression of a work, and not the ideas or facts contained in it. So, for example, a fact in an individual article would not be protected, although if it were arranged in a table in a particularly unusual way, that table would benefit from copyright protection.
• Fair Use/Fair Dealing (varies by country)
o Includes copying on a limited basis for purposes such as education and research, known as “fair use” in the US or “fair dealing” in the UK.
o “Fair use” involves the analysis of a number of factors (including the purpose and character of the use, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work)
o Prior to relying on “fair use” instead of obtaining permission, your publisher should be consulted
• “Public Domain”
o These materials have no copyright protection and can be reproduced without permission.
o Includes all materials for which the copyright term has expired or in relation to which the copyright owners have chosen to release the materials into the public domain, and materials prepared by officers or employees of the US government as part of their official duties.
Use of photographs and illustrations
• For photographs and illustrations, the publisher will not always own the reproduction rights; rather, the photographer or illustrator might have retained these rights. If the source from which the material is borrowed does not indicate who owns reproduction rights, the publisher’s response to a request for permission will often indicate who does.
• Photographs or illustrations of fine art objects (sculpture, painting, decorative arts, antiquities, etc.) may be subject to copyright, and permission may need to be obtained from the holder of the reproduction rights in the photograph (usually the photographer, the publisher or the museum which owns the object).
Regards Allan
-
COPYRIGHT - A MODEL BOAT MAYHEM POSITION STATEMENT.
From MARTIN, the Site Owner.
....Copyright is intended to protect the originators value in the material. To breach that right is stealing.
I do wish people would stop using that term. Breaching copyright is NOT stealing - they are two quite distinct crimes. Supporters of a strong copyright regime like to conflate the two, but this is blatant propaganda, intended to make people forget that copyright has two aspects - the right of the creator to a limited monopoly on the use of an expression of an idea, AND then the later right of society at large to make use of that expression for free when it enters the Public Domain. Copyright is NOT only about the 'originators value', and trying to pretend that a copyright breach is stealing when it is not completely ignores this latter point.
It would be much more appropriate for Mayhem to say 'To breach that right is against the law'.
-
Would be nice though., just think out of 4767 members if each active and able (ie scanner etc) could scan a couple of copys it would soon be done. These scans then passed onto MB / MHS (members on the forum could have access) and then the worlds your oyster...I know its unlikely to ever happen but then they say we landed on the moon once so you never know.
This cropped up on another forum in that some members offered to do a "Free" service to scan a complete set of a specialist mag for the benefit of the original publishers. The set would have fit easily onto 1 DVD and the intention was that the publishers could sell this for the benefit of all at a reasonable price. With ANY material, there is ALWAYS those who will copy and try to make a fast buck (B******s) but given that it would have been done on the cheap (FREE) by dedicated enthusiasts, the resale costs could have been kept to a minimum. The offer was declined, as it transpired that the publishers (No doubt at great expense) had them "Professionally" scanned (And what a pigs ear THEY made of it) so that a yearly subscription only service is provided. VERY short sighted and stupid but we live in "Commercial" times.
Sadly, due to short sightedness and legalities, many tombs of wisdom will be lost due to crumbling and disintigrating paper copies of the originals which, although it does take time and effort to scan and edit, is ultimately worth the effort. The two feet of "Model Maker" I gave to someone whom I thought would value them still cuts deep, dumped at the local tip due to family problems but Computers and scanning were far into the future for domestic use.
Thank heavens that the cottage NON industry of giving someone a quick "Flash" to help them out is alive and well and thriving, %) PM's work wonderfully :-)) and "Dropbox" is a VERY useful service.
Regards Ian.
-
The two feet of "Model Maker" I gave to someone whom I thought would value them still cuts deep, dumped at the local tip due to family problems but Computers and scanning were far into the future for domestic use.
My Piles :} are protected under a prenuptial agreement <*<
-
In regards to selling a free plan or something copyrighted what do you lot think of this....
http://www.model-dockyard.com/acatalog/Easy_Build_Designs.html (http://www.model-dockyard.com/acatalog/Easy_Build_Designs.html)
scroll down to a plan called Betsy Bev now first thing that strikes me is that hull, its a modified Springer! superstructure is meaningless for that plan, clearly its not a springer the plan offered is modified so I'm not sure where it stands in copyright law but it is a direct rip off of an existing free plan charging £7.50 a pop....
So if thats the case and this can be got away with then the best way to sell plans you have purchased is to redraw them and make a modification to the plan in such a way that its not noticeable or the part you modified won't effect a build to much, and sell it on as your own, with out fear of copyright infringement!
-
Presumably the Betsy Bev was a "freebie" plan with a particular magazine issue. Printing however many thousand for inclusion with that mag is not a particularly expensive process per item, and no doubt the magazine proprietors would be able to verify that whatever copyrights that were involved were covered. However, the springer is a hull size and shape specification rather than a design, whatever goes on top, and inside, is for the builder to decide. It is perfectly reasonable to publish an alternative superstructure drawing.
£7.50 seems perfectly reasonable for storing for an indeterminate time and printing individually. Presumably the author gets his cut from this procedure, as he should, to encourage him to have another go.
This redrawing business. Street plan makers have a habit of including, within their maps, the occasional little street that doesn't actually exist. This is to act as an individual signature, and serves to convince the judge that the map that the originators are not being paid for was produced by them, but someone who wanted the money without the work involved had taken the short cut of copying without doing the work and being involved in the associated expense. Much the same happens with drawings. Copying something that you have paid for for your own use should not be a problem. Copying and selling on without any thought of recompense to the guy who did the work is, and in a relatively small world like model boating, word gets round quickly, and lazy copying is often detectable.
-
Hi Prophet, the 'Betsy Bev' is a plan supplied by Traplet Publications Ltd, the owners of MMI (Marine Modelling International) which is another monthly magazine for model boat enthusiasts. This springer plan by Maurice Mould may have been included with their magazine and it's currently in their plan catalogue. Here's their site - scroll down for marine plans and look in their 'easy - build' collection:
https://shop.traplet.com/plans/
It's very easy to get confused. :}
-
As the "Betsy Bev" plan was published in the April/May issue of Marine Modelling and I can find no reference to the "Springer" design until well into the 21st century, could it be the other way around and the Springer is the "direct rip off"?
No it couldn't as even the most cursory examination of the two designs would show that they are quite different. So, all you Springer owners can sleep at night, you have not contributed to copyright theft and should not expect a knock on the door tonight.
Glynn Guest
-
April/May what year Glynn?
-
Published in 1988!
-
mea culpa, 1988 it was!
Glynn Guest
-
We're all sinners. :}
For general information, the 'British Library' is a repository for ALL printed works in the English (British) language including newspapers, magazines etc. They are likely to have most, if not all, model boat magazines archived in their huge facilities. All UK public libraries are linked to this national archive.
http://www.bl.uk/
-
Fascinating legal minefield this.
Unauthorised duplication contravenes applicable laws
...Says my copy of the Anatomy of the Ship Dreadnought book.
I take this to mean that I can't (quite rightly) do what a Russian website has done - it has some remarkably "familiar" images on it - but does it mean that Conway Maritime Press own my build of this ship, since it is, effectively, an unauthorised duplication of the contents? %%
Andy
-
They cannot be regarded owner's of the 'fruits' of your lawful research. You could have obtained/looked at their book via a library? (Libraries enjoy special exemptions in UK copyright rules.) :-)
-
I paid My Hobbystore 15 GBP for a plan including postage that was a freebie in the Model Boats Feb 2004 issue. I'm now minus 15 GBP and no plan >>:-(
Fortunately a fellow Aussie member "Gra" has offered his copy for free....could have bought a few beers with 15 quid >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Yesterday I met fellow Aussie member "Gra" and now have his copy of Jenny Sue 2 along with the Feb 2004 Model Boats mag on loan. Yippee O0
Still no sign of the MHS store bought plans or my 15 quid {:-{
Martin du