Producing laser cut kits from existing plans, a question on Copyright.

[David Pearce 4]

I am hoping to produce some laser cut parts for a couple of my favourite plans. There are no existing ‘short kits’ or laser cut parts available for these. I am considering producing a few extra sets of parts to sell to my fellow club members at a small profit so that my own costs will be covered. I am NOT intending to produce loads and go into competition with existing plan/parts suppliers.

My question is: Does this infringe the copyright of the designer/publisher? Obviously the plan is the copyright of either the designer or the publisher (magazine) but does that cover my redrawing and cutting of the parts?

I wouldn't want to break any rules or upset a designer but producing an extra four or five to sell locally would help with the cost of this hobby!

I am lucky in that I have 20 years professional experience of CorelDraw and I understand the process in producing files for laser cutting.

Does anyone know the copyright position? Input from the Magazine or designers welcome!

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 12:19:49

[Matt Jones]

[armchair lawyer mode engaged]

Speaking with absolutely no law experience or training but using some basic common sense I would strongly suggest your would be in breach of something. Think about it, you're taking someone else's design and producing / selling it for profit.

[David Pearce 4]

Posted by Matt Jones on 13/02/2015 12:31:42:

[armchair lawyer mode engaged]

Speaking with absolutely no law experience or training but using some basic common sense I would strongly suggest your would be in breach of something. Think about it, you're taking someone else's design and producing / selling it for profit.

I think you are probably right Matt, but it's still worth asking to get a full answer.

Cheers

[Dave Hopkin]

I dont think it is a copyright infringement under the 1998 Copyright and Patents Act - the printed plan IS copyrighted therefore any attempt to copy the plan and re-sell it would be litigous

But the plan is sold for the purpose of construction for private use therefore the sale implies a right to reproduce components of the design in any medium - That is the critical part - if that right was not granted then anyone building the design could be argued to be infringing the copyright

If these components were reproduced for by a third party for personal use then that would be ok.

if however the third party were to sell these components to anyone who had NOT purchased a plan from the copyright holder then a case could be made for copyright infringement

[David Pearce 4]

Thanks Dave, that's very helpful.

As I would only producing the shaped parts, ribs etc, there is no way a builder could complete it without purchasing the plan from the copyright owner.

Thanks again.

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 13:24:30

[Phil 9]

I have seen many parts such as short kits cowles and other fiberglass parts made from a plan sold by numerios third parties.

Another example is upgrade parts for heli's where the parts are "compatable" with the original.

Would it be possible to contact the copyrite holder? if you parts mean more plans will be sold it may be of benifit of both parties

[David Pearce 4]

Hi Phil

You make some good points. Regards contacting the copyright owner it's a possibility but first I need to ensure that the accuracy and quality of my work is up to a retail standards. The speed I work isn't great so there's no rush.

Thanks for your response.

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 13:47:23

[Phil 9]

if selling parts is a break of copyright does that mean if you build a model from plans you can not sell it?

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Phil 9 on 13/02/2015 13:56:28:

if selling parts is a break of copyright does that mean if you build a model from plans you can not sell it?

Not at a model is not a plan, therefore intelectual rights (which is actually what we are talking about rather than copyright) does not transfer from the plan to the model

[kevin b]

As far as I can gather, you are basically alright until some lawyer finds they can make money out of it.

[Erfolg]

I have pondered the same issue.

I guess much comes down to how close the items conform to the original drawing.

It does seem to be a contentious area, as in recent years, many have tried and often succeeded in stretching the concept a long way. For instance, full size aircraft manufacturers, chasing plastic model manufactures for infringement of copy right. Again with aircraft, Christan, pursuing flying model kit producers for copyright infringement with respect to colour scheme and design.

Yet there have been instances where replacement part producers have been chased for copyright infringements and some have failed.

Slightly differently Apple failed with one of their patent actions, i do not remember which one, although i was pleased. Particularly that many issued are a nonsense, such as the one granted for phones that always landed, on the back. Apparently no detail of how it was to be done. Which now means any phone manufacturer who actually devises a method that works, infringes their patent, absolutely crazy.

Back to your issue, if some major aspects of your parts differed, potentially you would be all right. here is a big but, American firms, seem to revel in threatening and using financial muscle to dissuade people from what you could be legitimately be entitled to do.

So in short, some one is bound to threaten you at some point, even if you are not breaking any laws.

[kc]

Your drawings are likely to be be somewhat different to the original when you redesign the parts for laser cutting. You could ( should) make a point of ensuring there is as much difference as possible!

But if it helps the sales of the original plans then I cannot imagine any problems. Keep the whole thing low key and just for friends & club members.

[Dave Hopkin]

Have to disagree Erf - Intelectual Property applies to pretty well anything ORIGINAL - hence the potential for a scale model maker being sured for using a full sized companies LOGO's which are copyrighted in thier own right.

Replacement part producers get sued for making clones of copyrighted (sometimes patented) parts

Apple. Nike, Volkeswagen, Rolex etc have all tried to sue Chinese concerns for copying designs as fakes - as far as I know not a single case has been upheld by chinese courts!

Your example of a phone that lands on its back refers to a Patent taken out in 2011 by apple - Full details of the Patent application are available from the US Patent Offiice under "Protective Mechanism for an Electronic Device" where how it works are documented (it uses accelerometers, position sensors and imaging)

Your final point: Intelectual property rights will exist on the plan as a whole, the component parts are mere shapes so cannot the copyrighted on thier own UNLESS there is some significant original constructional method involved in whicg case is could be suitable for a patent application - however as 99.99% of model aircraft share three of four methods of construction this is highly unlikely!

[iqon]

ok another armchair expert , cut an extra piece, its now been modified,use the extra piece as an ornament

[bert baker]

I was told that the zp engines were Zenoah engines but had something like 5 modifications on them to get round some legal stuff. don't really know

Redraw it and add some extra bits and rename it.

Speak to Replikit they may be able to help

[Masher]

Perhaps discretion would have been the best course of action rather than publicly asking the question

[David Pearce 4]

Thank you for all your input. I think Dave Hopkin's opinion makes most sense to me.

Interestingly I will be making changes to the original as I intend to add extra parts for conversation to electric. Then, of course, there is the oportunity for scaling up or down.

But I repeat, I am not planning a commercial operation at anyone's expense. Just a few extra set of parts for friends.

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 16:35:44

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 17:03:24

Edited By David Pearce 4 on 13/02/2015 17:04:22

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I side with Masher, don't tell anyone David

John

[Erfolg]

Dave

I do not think we do disagree.

My point is that copy right has been stretched from full size to models.

There has been a relentless pressure to extend the concept. You can see why, a can of own brand coca cola is worth less than a 1/4 of the real thing. In many respects, it is the trade mark, the can art work, the bottle, it is the image. Who ever owns the IP, owns the real value. That is why so much IP is held in tax efficient locations, because that is the real value.

In case of the Apple device, I was reporting what was written in a magazine. The authors opinion, was that the patent it was so widely written, that it prevented others from producing a device that achieved the objective, yet so little substance to the application, that one could not be built. In essence a set of principles. To me that is as valid as me saying the an object could be teleported by dismantling all the atoms, determining the arrangement, then assembling a group of atoms in an identical configuration in a alternative location.

It would appear that a lot of phone patents, before the extension of the definitions, would have been dismissed as being of a trivial or of obvious in character.

In my opinion there is enough IP protection as things stand, no further extension is warranted, however much some press for it.

Suggesting that Copyright can be difficult would not be an exaggeration. The company I worked for, paid another to under take design work on their behalf, then to be told that the contractor held the copyright, as the contract had not explicitly stated that the IP belonged to the company i worked for. This lead to a lot of complications with regards sales of both design and product.

I am not sure where you got the last paragraph from, I certainly do not understand it to be honest. My position is that for a shape, it has to differ materially to avoid copyright. Again, I see this as a grey area, a matter of interpretation and subject to markedly differing opinions on how different is different. As I understand copyright functionality is of no consequence, in this aspect.

I for one would be wary of commercially producing formers other than individual basis, initiated by a customer, as i see doing so is potentially fraught with problems. In my case i would be happier with individual drawings of items, produced/generated by the customer, than a copy of a drawing from a third party.

[Mowerman]

I would think you will be O.K. so long as the plan publisher is not already producing and/or selling laser cut parts for that plan.

Reminds me of a case years ago when a manufacturer of Kit-Cars had been producing a kit called the Sierra for some years then Ford decided to call the latest version of the Cortina the Sierra and went to court to claim ownership of the name for a car. The outcome was that the kit car then had to be called the 'Sierra Kit' So if in doubt just call your bits the "??? Kit"

[bert baker]

Hmm I seem to recall Panic's and What fours being copied many moons ago, although they weren't being resold

[Pat (rActive) Harbord]

DP - Sounds like you intend to profit from someone else's Intellectual Property. So why not ask permission of the designer that drew the plans?

I'm a designer myself (not aircraft) and would be very upset (although slightly flattered) if someone else took one of my designs and passed it off as their own (not that you are doing that). Or reproduced it to make profit, (just not ethical in my mind).

I'm not sure if you are just covering your costs or making a small profit - I think that makes a big difference to how any law would apply.

If it's very small scale, for club-mates only and not for profit, I would think you'll pass under the radar. You could approach the whole thing another way and go for a group discount - use your group buying power to reduce the cost of laser cutting for everyone - everyone else pays you, you pay the bill - you get a kit of parts for free (for your time and effort in organising everything)

What plans are you thinking about? - I may be interested

[Plummet]

Just to add to the gerneral confusion......

One...

I wanted to copy model plans so that I could build over the copies and keep the originals pretty - and a well known stationary company that I will not name but they sell computers, paper, and STAPLES and the like refused to do so for copyright reasons. I had had verbal permission from the supplier to do this, but no go.

Two...

Copyright? How about Copyleft? **LINK**

Plummet

[Erfolg]

Pat

From memory I seem to remember hat making anything for yourself, for your use, circumvents the patent laws. I am not sure now that this is true for copyright.

I know you say you are a designer, there was a period in my life that I certainly was a designer. Yry you do not need to be a designer to be able to claim protection under copyright. Nearly everything we do, could enable us to claim copyright, that is if we took the necessary steps. But just as with Tracy Emin's bed, most of us think, what a waste of time. It could be that letter we wrote, that table we made, almost everything we do, could under many circumstances be copyrighted.

I guess I am not unique, in that I have spent much of my life studying. After completing my principal studies, a subsequent one year long study, was product design, which incorporated Patent and copyright law. I also undertook a week long course sponsored by my company on the same subject. I know I am not an expert or knowledgeable, as so much has changed, and it all was done so many years ago, that I have forgotten much of what I possibly knew.

What struck me about both areas, unless you had money, there was little at a practical level, that ordinary people can do. For many small business, it often makes sense to forget taking out patents, as defending them, could be so costly in money and time, to be counterproductive. Best to exploit your ideas before bigger organisations move in.

There was one other comment made to me after completing my studies as a young man. Your ideas are worthless, unless they are in our employment, then they may have some worth. Which sums up, without money or the backing of a company prepared to fight, it is difficult to enforce your rights.

The position of Dylan is different, in that even if what he is doing is not clearly infringing some one elses legal rights, without money, defending his position, can be counter productive,

[Pat (rActive) Harbord]

You can have 1 copy of just about anything for personal use - I imagine Staples turned you away because you asked for multiple copies? They are just being silly.

Copyleft - absolutely necessary for real open source collaboration, great idea