Intellectual property and the problem with reproductions

.

Intellectual property and the problem with reproductions

Joined: March 25th, 2011, 12:57 pm

May 7th, 2012, 2:57 pm #1

Hello gents,
I was on another site discussing this fabulous "faux" Spitfire that was at the Planes of Fame Air Show (and yes, that P 40B is gorgeous and the Judy was an amazing piece of history to visit) not to mention a squadron mate of Ginger Lacey was there talking about his adventures and the Spitfire Mk XIV. Anyway, during the exchange on the thread the topic changed a little regarding how close to the real thing you can get without a copyright infringement. Some gentleman in Arizona built the aircraft, a faux Spitfire which is very close to the real deal, but a true Spitfire lover like myself (I'm not and expert but I know a little something about them) can pick out the discrepancies. One of the chaps on the other site were able to send me a pic and a description of the aircraft (hopefully someone can do that here) with the appropriate information about it. One of the responses mentioned something about copyright infringement, and how an exact copy of a Spitfire or other military aircraft could start a massive, and very expensive legal crisis involving corporations and the government. I heard that in the States 10 percent or more of a change in the copy from the original will not be a copyright violation? I wonder how that would play out? As I was discussing these issues I remembered the last Revell P-39 reissue from several years ago with that prominent Bell Aircraft sticker on the box. I was wondering why after all these years Bell would sue for copyright violation/licensing fees? Is Boeing, with all its derivative companies going to sue the whole industry, driving the price of the kits up a couple of more dollars? Or have they been collecting fees all these years? Just think what the cost of a Phantom or a Mustang could cost if we take this to it's logical extreme. I am sure that someone out there would know which companies are being paid off for replicating their "intellectual property" in plastic form. I would hate to see kits become so expensive that either less people could afford them, or the model companies just quit issuing kits because of the legal ramifications and associated fees. I am sure there are "business types" out there who would know about this. Feel free to chime in on the Spit or Kit issues.
Cheers
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 29th, 2007, 2:02 pm

May 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm #2


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2006, 1:18 am

May 7th, 2012, 5:32 pm #3

Hello gents,
I was on another site discussing this fabulous "faux" Spitfire that was at the Planes of Fame Air Show (and yes, that P 40B is gorgeous and the Judy was an amazing piece of history to visit) not to mention a squadron mate of Ginger Lacey was there talking about his adventures and the Spitfire Mk XIV. Anyway, during the exchange on the thread the topic changed a little regarding how close to the real thing you can get without a copyright infringement. Some gentleman in Arizona built the aircraft, a faux Spitfire which is very close to the real deal, but a true Spitfire lover like myself (I'm not and expert but I know a little something about them) can pick out the discrepancies. One of the chaps on the other site were able to send me a pic and a description of the aircraft (hopefully someone can do that here) with the appropriate information about it. One of the responses mentioned something about copyright infringement, and how an exact copy of a Spitfire or other military aircraft could start a massive, and very expensive legal crisis involving corporations and the government. I heard that in the States 10 percent or more of a change in the copy from the original will not be a copyright violation? I wonder how that would play out? As I was discussing these issues I remembered the last Revell P-39 reissue from several years ago with that prominent Bell Aircraft sticker on the box. I was wondering why after all these years Bell would sue for copyright violation/licensing fees? Is Boeing, with all its derivative companies going to sue the whole industry, driving the price of the kits up a couple of more dollars? Or have they been collecting fees all these years? Just think what the cost of a Phantom or a Mustang could cost if we take this to it's logical extreme. I am sure that someone out there would know which companies are being paid off for replicating their "intellectual property" in plastic form. I would hate to see kits become so expensive that either less people could afford them, or the model companies just quit issuing kits because of the legal ramifications and associated fees. I am sure there are "business types" out there who would know about this. Feel free to chime in on the Spit or Kit issues.
Cheers
because it (or the company name) is what is trademarked or copyrighted, not the object bearing the company logo.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, as I am not a lawyer.

I'm not really a pompous ***; I just play one on HyperScale!

Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
IPMS-Canada #1426
Carrollton, Texas
Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
IPMS-Canada #1426
CAHS #5646
Carrollton, TX

Proud IPMS-USA Low Number Thumper!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm

May 7th, 2012, 9:46 pm #4

Hello gents,
I was on another site discussing this fabulous "faux" Spitfire that was at the Planes of Fame Air Show (and yes, that P 40B is gorgeous and the Judy was an amazing piece of history to visit) not to mention a squadron mate of Ginger Lacey was there talking about his adventures and the Spitfire Mk XIV. Anyway, during the exchange on the thread the topic changed a little regarding how close to the real thing you can get without a copyright infringement. Some gentleman in Arizona built the aircraft, a faux Spitfire which is very close to the real deal, but a true Spitfire lover like myself (I'm not and expert but I know a little something about them) can pick out the discrepancies. One of the chaps on the other site were able to send me a pic and a description of the aircraft (hopefully someone can do that here) with the appropriate information about it. One of the responses mentioned something about copyright infringement, and how an exact copy of a Spitfire or other military aircraft could start a massive, and very expensive legal crisis involving corporations and the government. I heard that in the States 10 percent or more of a change in the copy from the original will not be a copyright violation? I wonder how that would play out? As I was discussing these issues I remembered the last Revell P-39 reissue from several years ago with that prominent Bell Aircraft sticker on the box. I was wondering why after all these years Bell would sue for copyright violation/licensing fees? Is Boeing, with all its derivative companies going to sue the whole industry, driving the price of the kits up a couple of more dollars? Or have they been collecting fees all these years? Just think what the cost of a Phantom or a Mustang could cost if we take this to it's logical extreme. I am sure that someone out there would know which companies are being paid off for replicating their "intellectual property" in plastic form. I would hate to see kits become so expensive that either less people could afford them, or the model companies just quit issuing kits because of the legal ramifications and associated fees. I am sure there are "business types" out there who would know about this. Feel free to chime in on the Spit or Kit issues.
Cheers
Can you seriously see British Aerospace suing someone because they built a replica Spitfire?

And I've always wondered - if I take your resin part and change something, then make copies and start selling them, who gets to measure the magical 10%? Ten percent of what? How do you measure "change"? Shape? Size? Number of rivets? I'm not sure that's actually true, and even if it is, it's utterly impossible to enforce.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 26th, 2005, 11:18 pm

May 7th, 2012, 9:48 pm #5

because it (or the company name) is what is trademarked or copyrighted, not the object bearing the company logo.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, as I am not a lawyer.

I'm not really a pompous ***; I just play one on HyperScale!

Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
IPMS-Canada #1426
Carrollton, Texas
they get worked up about the "name" (notice there are no "Jeep" kits, but instead "4x4 truck" is what is on the box), or even the actual "shape" of the object... such as the grill of a Ford F-150.

its actully pretty rediculous. But welcome to the USA where you better have a lawer in your back pocket to do anything but clock in at the 9-5 job.

Andy




Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 25th, 2011, 12:57 pm

May 7th, 2012, 9:59 pm #6

because it (or the company name) is what is trademarked or copyrighted, not the object bearing the company logo.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, as I am not a lawyer.

I'm not really a pompous ***; I just play one on HyperScale!

Michael McMurtrey
IPMS-USA #1746
IPMS-Canada #1426
Carrollton, Texas
Licensing issues from what I heard. I guess they don't make enough so they got to go after a model company that has made a model of their aircraft that has been in production on and off since the early 1970's. I just wonder if the other model companies were shaken down too?
Cheers
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2005, 7:12 pm

May 7th, 2012, 10:40 pm #7

Can you seriously see British Aerospace suing someone because they built a replica Spitfire?

And I've always wondered - if I take your resin part and change something, then make copies and start selling them, who gets to measure the magical 10%? Ten percent of what? How do you measure "change"? Shape? Size? Number of rivets? I'm not sure that's actually true, and even if it is, it's utterly impossible to enforce.
If you take a resin object and ADD something to it, you have IMPROVED that item, and under copyright and patent laws, you have nothing to worry about as you've made an improvement to an already existing item. Though you used a 'known' item, by and an "improvent" to it, you've created a new item, not subject to copyright oe patent law violations. The real problem come from proving you did it before the original manufacturer did.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2005, 7:12 pm

May 7th, 2012, 10:40 pm #8

Can you seriously see British Aerospace suing someone because they built a replica Spitfire?

And I've always wondered - if I take your resin part and change something, then make copies and start selling them, who gets to measure the magical 10%? Ten percent of what? How do you measure "change"? Shape? Size? Number of rivets? I'm not sure that's actually true, and even if it is, it's utterly impossible to enforce.
If you take a resin object and ADD something to it, you have IMPROVED that item, and under copyright and patent laws, you have nothing to worry about as you've made an improvement to an already existing item. Though you used a 'known' item, by and an "improvent" to it, you've created a new item, not subject to copyright oe patent law violations. The real problem come from proving you did it before the original manufacturer did.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2010, 12:22 pm

May 7th, 2012, 11:21 pm #9

Hello gents,
I was on another site discussing this fabulous "faux" Spitfire that was at the Planes of Fame Air Show (and yes, that P 40B is gorgeous and the Judy was an amazing piece of history to visit) not to mention a squadron mate of Ginger Lacey was there talking about his adventures and the Spitfire Mk XIV. Anyway, during the exchange on the thread the topic changed a little regarding how close to the real thing you can get without a copyright infringement. Some gentleman in Arizona built the aircraft, a faux Spitfire which is very close to the real deal, but a true Spitfire lover like myself (I'm not and expert but I know a little something about them) can pick out the discrepancies. One of the chaps on the other site were able to send me a pic and a description of the aircraft (hopefully someone can do that here) with the appropriate information about it. One of the responses mentioned something about copyright infringement, and how an exact copy of a Spitfire or other military aircraft could start a massive, and very expensive legal crisis involving corporations and the government. I heard that in the States 10 percent or more of a change in the copy from the original will not be a copyright violation? I wonder how that would play out? As I was discussing these issues I remembered the last Revell P-39 reissue from several years ago with that prominent Bell Aircraft sticker on the box. I was wondering why after all these years Bell would sue for copyright violation/licensing fees? Is Boeing, with all its derivative companies going to sue the whole industry, driving the price of the kits up a couple of more dollars? Or have they been collecting fees all these years? Just think what the cost of a Phantom or a Mustang could cost if we take this to it's logical extreme. I am sure that someone out there would know which companies are being paid off for replicating their "intellectual property" in plastic form. I would hate to see kits become so expensive that either less people could afford them, or the model companies just quit issuing kits because of the legal ramifications and associated fees. I am sure there are "business types" out there who would know about this. Feel free to chime in on the Spit or Kit issues.
Cheers
is that, in the past, once the US government has purchased an aircraft from the manufacturer it was considered to be public domain. However, I think that at some point in the last decade or two a lawsuit changed that to some degree or another. These corporations build multi-million-dollar products and they're going after small-change licensing fees for replicas of designs that are, in some cases, over 70 years old. Of course, anything produced by the Naval Aircraft Factory would still be public domain, I believe. In the 1910s, 1920s & 1930s the US government not uncommonly purchased the design from one aircraft manufacturer, then awarded the production contract to a different one when a lower bid was placed - I don't know how that situation would be addressed in the unlikely event someone came out with, say, a Martin PM-1 in 1/48 (HA!!!! - That'll be the day!). Of course, I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge. I'm sure others know more.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 22nd, 2008, 2:04 am

May 8th, 2012, 12:21 am #10

and go after these "license issues" and then approach the "client/manufacturer" and say "hey, we found this issue and for x% we can bring in this amount" so it may be a third party finding and stirring up the .........

It must be easier than chasing ambulances! Wonder if the barratry laws cover that?

What do you have with 100 lawyers up to their necks in sand?...
Not enough sand!

(It's a joke ya see)

Old Digger Pilot
Last edited by do-bee on May 8th, 2012, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share