Pick -a- 'plane discussions

[Hugh Coleman]

Yep, Uncle Willie sure is a strange caracter.

I have also trawled through each page, occasionally coming across a jewel... A 50" span DH.60 Gypsy Moth for 40 power for instance...  It was the 80" Catalina that really caught my eye though...

I have made a list and will be emailing him.

 

Cheers for the link.

 

Hugh

[Hugh Coleman]

Damn!  Uncle Willies Email Address is invalid. 

Any thoughts?

 

Cheers,

 

Hugh

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Just to let everyone know - we'll close the voting on 1st March. See the home page news item. 

 

[Terence Lynock]

H Hugh,

                   try www.myunclewillies.com - this is his new site and lists a lot of stuff but look at his eBay list first where you can usually pick stuff up a lot cheaper, he has some pretty rare stuff and most of his plans are really worth the money.

I have had good large scale plans for Lancaster, Spit 9, A10 Warthog, Vampire, an excellent set for the 109K, Meteor, Ju 52, P-38 and F-82 twin Mustang, Horten IX, U2A for power or slope, Shinden , Ju 87,F7F Tigercat and loads more.

He has a lot of vintage plans too and his Spook 72 are good, it is a gull wing design from the early 40's that people are still building today,

 

regards,       Terry

[Terence Lynock]

How do you upload photos direct off me computer now? I used to be able to do it but all I can do now is select from  my album, the option to upload direct is missing,

 

regards,   Terry

[David Ashby - Moderator]

You can put them in an album Terry and then upload from there.

Have a look at this.

[A.A. Barry]

THanks Graham D, at least someone has their" head out of the clouds"   Barry

[Hugh Coleman]

Got through to Uncle Willie, Terence.

Within 24 Hours, I have Plans for a DH 60 Gypsy Moth, a DH Chipmunk, a PBY Catalina and a Sopwith Triplane.

I will have to change my voting for the pick a plane now as two of my choices, I just got!

Very esily done... Just don't tell the wife that I used her Paypal account!

Now to take the files down to the local print shop and get them printed!  Woohoo!

Thanks again for the link Terence.

 

Cheers,

 

Hugh

[Dave S.]

Hugh, better check the copyright on the plans before going too far (at least in public ) as 'Uncle Willie' has something of a reputation for being less than scrupulous in that regard - check the US forums.

[Erfolg]

I would guess that much of the work is still covered by copyright, as the artist has to be dead for over 70 years, before becoming copyright free.

 

In many cases I am sure the designers do not care.

 

In the case where the copyright was transfered to a publisher, does the 25 year rule apply, as it is a typographical publication? If so, may be copyright free. although I would guess the publishers would argue the drawing is artistic.

 

Strangly there is a plan that is strangly like the Vic Smeed Playboy, I cannot remember what Uncles Willies version is called other than it had "boy" in the title. How close do they need to be, or different, to infringe copyright.

 

Any way, I await the result of the vote and the decision, with anticipation and interest.

 

Erfolg  

 

 

 

 

[Dave S.]

It might be worth remembering that the owners of this site have a long-established business selling plans, and also that designers such as Brian Taylor & Nick Ziroli have frequently complained about copies of their plans being sold on-line.

 

 

[Terence Lynock]

Willie actually sells Ziroli plans for a couple of aircraft and Nick Ziroli doesnt seem to care, they are both in the U.S so it would be too hard for Nick to stop Willie if he wanted to.

One of my main gripes concerning the RCM&E plans are that the plans lists are the pits when it comes to information and decent photos of what you are actually looking at, it doesnt even distinguish between the Mks of Spitfire or Me 109, no colour photo or info on scale or power requirements etc then they expect you to pay over ten quid for something that may not be of use to you,

 

regards,    Terry

[Hugh Coleman]

Along with the Tiff files that were emailed to me, was a "permission to use" in which Willie grants the purchaser use of the plans for personal "Non Profit" use and to print 5 hard copies.  I can only assume that he has some right to grant that permission.

Given that these files cost 5-10 US each, I guess Willie is making some sort of capital from the venture.

 

I ithink of it this way.  If I build a model and in a public forum give the original draftsman of the plan credit, then the original designer is still getting the credit for the design. 

 

I may be wrong in thinking this way, and am perfectly prepared to be corrected.

 

The Chipmunk will have been built from Robert W Nolitz plans and that is how it will be presented.

The DH.60 is designed and drawn by Dick Watz and if and when built will be presented as such.

The Catalina seems to be Willies own work and the Tripe is by Jerry Behrens.

 

The plans I chose were those that;

A) Interested me subject wise

B) were of a size and power rating that I thought would be appropriate to my skill level

 

Cheers,

 

Hugh

[Erfolg]

Some of this discussion has set me thinking.

 

We often feel free to copy the form of a full size aircraft. Yet the manufacturers are more frequently stating that this form/shape is their copyright. This appears particularly true in the USA, where ownership of "Intelectual Property" is seen as an important asset.

 

There has been many moves particularly from the USA to extend the concepts of IP into areas which at present are unaffected. Ownership of your own image being one. It is an area of increasing conflict.  Motor manufactures are once more pressing for recognition of their copy right on reproduction/replacement car conponents, wings, door trims, oil filters etc.

 

That is unless you are an employee, where the ideas etc. are worth your salary only.

 

The some producers of plans do feel hard done by if they are copied, as for some, it is income. Others, hobbyist, generally take a very relaxed view. I wonder how Nick or Tony for that matter feel about the claimed IP of say the BA Hawk,. Say they were required to pay some fees, to repropduce the form. Some IP owners, can be very assetive claiming infringement, if "look and feel" are reproduced, even if the differences can appear to be large.

 

I personally feel it is a grey area and preffer a relaxed approach.

Erfolg  

[Dave S.]

Selling other people's copyright material is not a 'grey area'; it is form of theft. Read this for more about 'good old Uncle Willie' http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155971

 

[Hugh Coleman]

Ok, so it appears that I have been scammed after viewing his website and deciding to purchase some of his plans.

My question is this:

Where exactly do I stand as regards the plans that I purchased, considering that his theft of them appears to have been of an electronic nature.  I do not dispute that it is theft and that technically, I am in reciept of stolen goods.

Can I still build from the plans and fly the models at club or have I just blown US$30 on plans that are realistically useless to me?

 

Cheers,

 

Hugh

[Erfolg]

Dave

 

Copyright is a grey area in the context, that organisations continously attempt to expand the deffinition of copyright, many disputes occur.

 

We have performing artist who wish to extend their protection, as existing copyright is running out.

 

Also scientific organisations attempting to copyright  the DNA gene.

 

We have had Disney attempting to expand Mickey Mouse to all forms of cartoon mice etc. They have adopted asimilar approach to the still image (trademark).

 

On this basis it is not unreasonable to claim copyright on the form of an aircraft, what ever the scale. As it is an adaptation of the physical form

 

Copy right infringment is a Civil matter as I understand the legal status, where as theft is a criminal offence isnt it? I know I am splitting hairs hear.

 

With regard to plans, I can see that it can be very annoying. But as one who has been involved in design, I see ideas expressed in a physical form, which owe their existance by adapting prior work, this ranges from various aspects of architecture, automotive components, aircraft etc.

 

On this basis rescaling a model from one size to another breaches the originators copyright. The argument then revolves how different does it need to be so as not to be an adaptation. 

 

I am a little suprised that there has not been many cries of fowl regarding outrunner motors, as most are either reworked ideas and concepts. Yet this is true of much, from electronic circuits to toasters.

 

What is often the case is that those who are eager to seek protection for themselves, are often more than ready to infringe others rights if they have the financial muscle to do so.

 

I do have sympathy with current designs. Although designs from +25 years in reality have so little value, other than that generated by those who do re-draw and market, the work. In these instances other than to make a token payment, would seem excessive in most cases.

 

 

[Dave S.]

I worked on copyright clearance of photographic and similar material for BBC television for many years, believe me that there is world of difference between 'similar' products (eg all cartoon mice) and a direct copy of work produced by someone else. This is about the selling of duplicates of plans, the copyright of which is owned by someone other than the seller, not models of similar outline, but illegal duplicates of plans.

 

I have a modest collection of plans, some bought from the likes of RCM&E/Aeromodeller over the years, others that were included free with magazines. Each plan is my own property, and my understanding is that I may sell these plans to another individual if I wish. What I may not do, however, is make copies of these plans, whether electronically or on paper, and then sell the copies. That is what Uncle Willie (and a whole other bunch of E Bay scammers) is doing.

 

I once bought a copy of a plan for an An-2 on E bay. On receipt, it was clearly a copy of the plan sold by the publishers of Aviation Modeller International (Model Activity Press). The same seller is continuing to sell copies of the plan on E Bay. The plan is not expensive, but it is still a crime. He is depriving  MAP, the copyright holders of the plan, of a legitimate source of income.

 

 The concept of material 'in the public domain' is frequently misunderstood and abused. Just because it is technically possible to copy a plan from a magazine, or a photograph fromm a newspaper, does not make it legal to do so. I frequently had to argue this poiint with TV news producers who felt that they could get around the copyright laws by using photgraphs in newspapapers rather than negiotate useage fees. In every case in which they did this, the result was hefty legal fees.

 

Hugh, I am sorry that you have fallen foul of this character; it might be worth making a demand for reimbursment of your money. Most people would just forget about the legality and build the models anyway. I used the An-2 plan to help light a fire. 

 

 

 

 

[Erfolg]

Dave

 

Like you I have had dealings with copyright issues. It is not as simple as you would like to suggest.

 

Some countries (USA being one) are increasingly minded to take a reproduction of form or likeness, of what ever scale as an infringment of copyright, particularly the USA. Take your image, it matters little if the scale of the reproduction is twice, or some reduction, it is still a likeness. On that basis most scale models infringe copyright

 

My area of involvement has been principally with machines or that of shape/form. It is not such a simple matter to determine ownership or how different a design needs to be. Even ownership can be contentious. The company I worked for always insert a clause that all work done by subcontractors or contracted agents, was done as employed agents, all IP belonging to them. Many subcontractors would have variances in their documents which sought to undermine our claimed IP, in some cases going to court.

 

You are right that substantial sums can be spent on establishing IP rights. Remember Apple taking on Microsoft over the "Look and Feel" of windows and thier MAC.

 

In the case of model plans, it is almost certainly not worth the fight, for most. Yet there is more than a passing, similarity with many non scale model designs, eminating from seperate individuals. The big question is how different does something need to be, not to be a mere copy or rework. This question vexs the fashion industry nearly every year, ironically often the some designer getting up tight about be ripped of, for a design, that they ripped of some one ,20 years earlier, but "designed for now "! 

 

My understanding that copyright enforcement is a civil matter not a criminal matter.

 

This discussion reminds me of what our legal section said to me.

 

a) Is it worth fighting over

b) Who has the most money, will a victory be phariac, to us or them

c) what are the consequences of loosing, to us and to them

 

Erfolg

 

  

[Dave S.]

Erflog,

 

I feel that we are talking at cross purposes to some extent. I am aware of the (to me nonsensical) issues of the manufacturers of full-size aircraft demanding 'licencing fees' for the production of scale models, which I have always thought were more related to the US product liability laws than those of copyright, but the plans sold on E bay and through personal websites are direct copies, not modified versions, of designs for which copyright does already exist. Not the grey areas of reverse engineering ( as in the outrunner example), but simple photocopies of plans.

 

To give a practical example, if I were to take a few boxes of my my collected plans (most of which are available from 'my hobby shop' here) to the local copy shop, and offer the results for sale on line, how long would it be before I heard from lawyers representing the injured party?  Not long at all, I suspect.

 

Nick Ziroli, Brian Taylor, and the publishers of Radio Control Models magazine have all publcally accused the plans copiers of  undermining their businesses. Of course, we are not talking about multi-million businesses such as Ford, GM or microsoft here, but it comes down to modellers ripping off other modellers. I always thought we were better than that.

[Terence Lynock]

 The same seller is continuing to sell copies of the plan on E Bay. The plan is not expensive, but it is still a crime. He is depriving  MAP, the copyright holders of the plan, of a legitimate source of income.

I know exactly who you are talking about, until recently there was a seller in Poland who had a line in giant scale repro's of magazine plans from many of the top periodicals, he was charging anything up to £30 for scans of these plans but many were so over enlartged thelines were 1`/4'' thick.

I informed him that what he was doing was illegal but he carried on, I told him either stop selling them or he would be reported but still carried on, I made a complaint to the European Commission for Trade explaining all the details and he vanished off eBay about a week later and has not been seen again.

 

If someone is blatantly infringing copyright try and find out who can stop him, it may not be the publishers of the plans but in Europe there are others who do have the clout to do it,

 

regards,   Terry

[Erfolg]

I certainly do not condone the selling of plans, such as the ones you mention.

But i am glad that plans are made available from the 30s to early 60s, at prices that are sensible. I do have sympathy with those who redraw, or perhaps create computer files of designs which otherwise would disappear into oblivion. But it leaves the question of the copyright, the publishers generally have no interest in marketing these plans or making them available.

 

I would also guess that the designers such as Bob Palmer, Endrich? (the Nobler) etc. will have received trivial amounts for their efforts. The copyright being transfered to the publisher, be it a magazine, book or other. It seems that there efforts, go unrewarded, beyond a small payment.

 

Yet the holder of the historic IP sees it as of significant value. The justification is that they must market the designs and bare the cost. So i support and symathise with RCM&E et al, with there current catalogue. But have little to no symathy to those who seek to benefit from the renovation of old/non current designs, where they have made no effort to market them.  

 

I thought that Reli kits was a brave venture, in a niche market and do support them. Best if legal.

 

I do have a lot of symphy for the people you mention, not least in that they make designs available to us all, by their efforts.

 

I believe that RCM&E et all should have my support because of the added value, from making avaailable, canopies, part kits etc., in addition to the publication of the design.

 

Yet uncle willies is dealing with old designs, that the original publishers can no longer sucessfully market. Let him do it, as they are no longer capable.

 

Rant over, fertig, zu ende.

 

Erfolg

[Dave S.]

The issue of copyright of old plans can be resolved, there are many old RCM&E/Aeromodeller plans available from the X list

 

As far as I know, they are completely legitimate, so must have reached an agreement with the copyright holders.

 

Anyway, time to put my feet up, sup a beer or two and chew the glue from my fingertips!

[Hugh Coleman]

Here's another take on the whole thing.

 

I used to play the trumpet in a couple of orchestras (ameteur).  When the orchestra hired a score, each part (for the brass at least) had only one copy.

We were allowed to photocopy that part for practice purposes so as to avoid damage to the original, but by some strange rule, we had to play from the original in the performance.

In many cases, I transposed the parts (generally written for C, D or Eflat Trumpet) so I was reading the correct notation for Bflat Trumpet (This was before I invested in the C, D and Eflat instruments).  I played from these hand written sheets in the performances.  Was I in breach of the publishers copywrite?

 

Yes, If I buy a plan form RCM&E or MAP then I have paid for the right to make copies for my own personal use, whether it be changing the scale, or printing multiple copies in order to preserve the purchased copy form glue spills.

 

For instance, I purchased plans for a 1/6th Felixstowe F2a from MAP.  Dreadful print.  I looked at the finished size of the subject in that scale and decided that I had no way of transporting the model.  So I have had the drawings reduced to 1/8th scale. 

I will still give the original designer credit if I build in 1/8th, it will still have been built from a "XXX" plan... (That is, if I can source two .15 size engines)...

 

The issue with Uncle Willie, is that he is selling copies of others plans... But the plans (3 out of the 4 I purchased) have the original designers/drafters name etc in the title blocks, so he is not trying to hide the fact that these are not his work.

 

I do not think that makes what he is doing legal though.

 

I will email him as inform him that I will expect a credit.

 

Cheers,

 

Hugh

[Terence Lynock]

What a lot of people dont know aboutr Willie is he has many plans found in attics etc sent to him and he then completely redraws them in CAD or on the board and scans them into digital (TIFF) format.

THis is what he sells on his site with most of them actually selling for pennies, I have bought many of Willies self-generated plans for less than a quid a time and he is happy to sell them at that because virtually all the money left over after expenses like website costs, eBay costs etc goes to good causes.

He actually supports a south American orphan and pays for his clothes and for him to go to school in Venezuala,

 

regards,   Terry