Copyright issues

[Kevin WS]

Mike - See my PM.

[Kevin WS]

Copyright is complex. The copyright on devices is also different to the copyright on art.

The reason I say this is that a paper model can be continued as art in its basic form. In this case generally (check for your own country) the art generally rests automatically with the artist.

Now, moving onto subjects note:

• An artist who paints as Spitfire is not infringing the copyright of an artist who has painted the same Spitfire. In the same way a photograph does not result in copyright infringement if someone else has photographed the same plane.
• A tradename can be infringed. BNSF for example will not let people use their "BNSF logo". Tesla may be the same. Most companies don't care - good advertising for them.
• By definition, models of say a Spitfire, will look like other Spitfires. Obviously. Nothing wrong with that. And Douglas Bader's Spitfire will look like his Spitfire. It is a model, a replica of a real object. No infringement there.
• So a model of real object is not an infringement.
• A model of a subject that is fictional and unique may be. So you may not be able to model Star Wars without permission.
• In terms of the actually model design there only a few ways you can design a model. So if the basic design is the same there is no infringement. Let me illustrate this - I design a wooden packing crate. It will always be a six sided box with or without tabs. No infringement. If the pattern on the crate is someone else's its an infringement. If its mine the I hold the copyright to that crate because of the artwork only.
• With a more complex model, say a plane, if you have designed it, the assembly and parts will not be the same as another kit of the same subject. And if you then do the paint scheme, you have not infringed anyone elses artwork.
• It is rare that companies object to their logos being used - like airlines. Check on their home webpage for the story.
• Take BNSF - they say: Approved brand vendor: BDA is charged with enforcing the BNSF brand standards, and is the only provider approved to produce and sell BNSF-branded merchandise. Any other merchandise that includes a BNSF likeness produced by another vendor will be considered unlicensed and is strictly prohibited. Clear enough. If it says BNSF and you SELL it, its merchandise. The TESLA Logo is copyrighted and cannot be used on merchandise (again that you sell). If its on a model you make for yourself and few friends, and its free, you are very unlikely to get a "cease and desisit" letter from Tesla Legal. If you do, then just cease!
• The link Rick provided is interesting - on what grounds was the writer being challenged? Given the subject, if is was just another ORIGINAL aircraft model of the same subject there are no grounds. If was a copy of the actual model design with just the artwork changed, then there are grounds.

[Mike1158]

In my humble opinion the likely winners will be the lawyers.

[Kevin WS]

Correct - but if they have grounds... If there is no case there is no cause.

[airdave]

Originally Posted by rickstef

There is mention about something being challenged >>> Here

I don't know what Ryan's original post is about so my comments are not directed at him or his question.

Rick's post leads me to a thread about airliner repaints, specifically a refit/repaint of a Citycraft airliner model.

I see comments about crediting Canon papermodels. lol
And then an admission that a project has to be put on hold.

Crediting the original designer that you borrowed from without their permission isn't acceptable.

Some of Citycrafts airliners are Canon models
...modified/repainted/redistributed...but without the permission of Canon.
This is basically theft of someone elses designs.
Looks like Canon airliners models are originally designed by K Kiyonaga

This isn't about copyright ownership, this is about stealing someone elses work and redistributing it for your own benefit.

Stop doing things with other peoples work without their permission
and you won't need to whine about why your project has been put on hold.

Stepped down.
Soapbox available.

[Madbrit]

Airdave your remarks are a tad confusing. You may wish to ascend the soapbox to clarify.
If I take someone's design, model etc and make changes merely to build the model more to my own liking and for no other reason is that acceptable ? Taking the same model, making alterations and distributing it without the originator's permission is, one takes it and correctly so, totally unacceptable as this is plainly theft. And to return to my first question, if one makes alterations to the build and posts said build then the originator should receive due credit for the piece's original design, yes ? I yield the soapbox to my illustrious colleague...

[airdave]

You are quite correct in assuming that you can modify, kitbash, repaint, burn, wipe yer bum with... any kit you want, as long as its for your own personal use.
ie not redistribute the modified version (either for free or profit) without proper permissions.

You can also share photos of your remods on forums like this, or anywhere you like.

I think the issue with the Citycraft airliner kits (if thats what was being discussed in the referenced post)
is that airliner kits were originally acquired through the Canon Creative Park site
and have been modified, altered, repainted, etc into other airliners and redistributed on a totally different site (the Citycraft site).

They look like nice kits, with nice artwork, and I'm sure the basic intention is only to add more kits to the hobby.

The Canon logos were left on the kits...the original designer appears to be credited.
But apparently no permission was asked of Canon and Canon has complained about their intellectual property being used in this way.

Yes there are copyright issues here (who owns the rights to the original kits),
but I've always said that resharing models (without permission) on a different website is theft...
because it often steals web traffic from the designer's site
and rewards the privateers with web-traffic and various revenue.
(This is my issue when resharing my Koolwheelz models on other sites...I lose the website traffic that I need to keep my websites alive)

Even if the kits are shared free, the resharer is often benefitting financially from ad revenue through web traffic on their own site.
*this is most common on the Russian pirate sites and why they exist.

Lets also not forget that the privateers are rewarded with praise, notoriety and acclaim that should have gone to the original designer.

[Draco]

About the Canon permisions: About two years ago I wished to make a repaint of the Canon 777 with the LOTR livery. I wrote to the Canon site and asked if they would be interested to publish my repaint.
They answered me that it was ilegal and placed a warning in their place against any change to their models.
Of course I lost any interest about making that or any other Canon model!

[Draco]

I mean, I asked them if THEY WOULD LIKE to publish my repaint, I believe that more legal I couldn't have been!

[airdave]

So, its all your fault?!

lol

While it might seem on the surface to be a bit unfriendly and unfair,
its their right to do whatever they want with their own intellectual property.

That same right might protect you and your intellectual property one day.

And in Canon's defense, they supply art, product and technology to some of the biggest companies in the world.
They might have exclusive permissions from the Airlines they already represent on their models.
If you come along and redress one of their models in a competitors livery, it might spark controversy or create legal issues for Canon.
You are not important enough for them to risk it.