Copyright issues

[Vermin_King]

One of the main reasons I enjoy making models that aren't available. If no one has done it before, then I run less of a chance of violating copyrights ... maybe

[airdave]

Originally Posted by 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!

Canon has no rights to anything Lord of the Rings.
Canon has no rights to use that material.
Canon would benefit by the use of someone elses IP.
Thats what they mean by it would be illegal for them to distribute a model with LOTR artwork.

Its like Donald Trump using Rolling Stones music at his conventions.
He has no rights to use the music...especially when it benefits him.
And the Stones are now demanding he stop.

[airdave]

Originally Posted by Vermin_King

One of the main reasons I enjoy making models that aren't available. If no one has done it before, then I run less of a chance of violating copyrights ... maybe

true...but you and I both know, its still someone elses IP.

I skirt the edges of IP ownership every time I put out a new Koolwheelz model.
There are a lot of gray areas to take advantage of.

But there are some very clear areas too.

And if the IP owner claims their rights and asks you to stop,
you must comply with respect and understanding...and move on to another project.

[Vermin_King]

That's why I put the maybe in there. There is no hard and fast rule for avoiding copyright violation except to not design anything.


I'm not ready for that yet

[Draco]

Dave, I think that you're right. But the mail I received said:

"Gracias por escribir. Le valoramos a usted como cliente de Canon y apreciamos la oportunidad de asistirle con su solicitud.
Con respecto a su consulta, no es posible realizar ningún tipo de publicación en ninguno de nuestros sitios, debido al tema de los derechos reservados.
Esperamos que la información brindada le sea de ayuda. Por favor, permítanos saber si hay algo más en lo que podamos asistirle con su consulta."

The relevant part is "Regarding your inquiry, it is not possible to make any type of publication on any of our sites, due to the issue of reserved rights."
It's so vague that, until you told me about LOTR copyrights, I didn't cross by my mind.

[N96HBK]

Originally Posted by RyanShort1

Has anyone here had anything taken down over copyright claims?

Slightly off topic regarding the current discussion, but I have seen several fan made free models being terminated by the logo owners over the years. The McLaren MP4-22 model was taken down from Paper Inside by a request from the McLaren Mercedes team back in 2008 according to the blog, and I vaguely remember two models designed by a designer on a German card modelling forum, a Pan Am DC8 and a L1011 being prevented from being released.

I think the whole copyright concept is a bit obscure when it comes to freely distributed models... And the fact that people generally consider reading terms and conditions a waste of their time makes these issues occur frequently, I guess.

However, I do find some cases seem to cause people to feel as if the action taken was excessive, and as if the big company dudes want to stop a few bucks being "stolen" from them. We really need to bring this discussion into the light, so maybe issues could be more comprehensive to both sides. It would be helpful of the distributors make more clear and detailed explanations before these things start happening..

But as far as I know, I don't think there's really been much fuss regarding paid models... Correct me if I'm wrong...

Interesting read about web traffic and ad profiting, I never really thought about it. I figure there might be people who use bots and all sorts of gizmos to harvest those things and make a considerable amount of cash.

Sometimes, I think we weren't quite ready for the 'net...

[airdave]

Maybe this relates...
Disney is very protective of everything Disney related and its uses.
Especially when it comes to using something Disney related on a product.
There are literally thousands of companies and vendors that pay good money for licensing rights to a Disney image, name, or Disney related subject.

Disney works very hard shutting down anyone who uses an unauthorized Disney property.
This is not only to protect their own intellectual property
but also to protect those who paid for licensing rights or who may have exclusive rights to something.

In the case of McLaren Mercedes, they have their own art and advertising departments.
A paper model is something they can produce themselves...maybe they already have.
It also involves sponsor logos, and McLaren has to be very careful of what logos appear on a car, how accurate everything is, and when.

Corporate sponsors pay big money to McLaren Mercedes, and won't be too happy to see their logos incorrectly used.
And who are they going to complain to?

Lets not forget all the toy makers, model makers, and diecast manufacturers that pay for licensing rights to McLaren and Mercedes.

So McLaren Mercedes is smart enough to stop a problem before it happens.

In most cases, we paper model designers, are all small fry, unknown by these big corporate entities...
a company like McLaren or Mercedes probably would never hear about us,
unless someone specifically alerts them to our product or complains.
And then they must decide if we are a threat to existing commercial ventures
or just an annoyance that might affect any of their customers and/or licensed vendors.

I learned early on, to reach out to certain people and ask for permissions.
It exposes you, but it also illustrates your respect and consideration for intellectual properties.
At one point I wanted to release a commercial Air Racer kit in a certain corporate sponsored livery.
It was all about the paint-scheme...its the reason people would have bought the model.
I contacted the company involved and asked for their permission.
Unfortunately they said no, citing their licensed franchisees, and I dropped the idea immediately and moved on.

But others have happily agreed to my requests, usually because they appreciated the tribute and it didn't affect them financially or personally.
Bud Granley springs to mind...he not only said yes, but offered to provide me with photos and other reference material.
I was honest about the fact that this was a retail model, but that I sell only a handful of models each year...it was of no apparent concern to him.
He just appreciated the tribute, and it did not affect any product licensing he already had in place*.
*There are no models that I know of, of his aircraft Golden Hawk or Lickety Split.

And then there is a the free fan appreciation stuff.
In some cases you may be producing what you claim to be strictly "fan-art"
and you may not understand a negative response if you ask for permissions.

Fan-art is a widely accepted and tolerated subject these days,
most people are not making direct profits from fan-art, and limited quantities keep it under control.
But free or paid, intellectual property rights still stand.
And the owner of the IP has the right to control who uses it, and how its used, regardless of whether money is made or not.

[Vermin_King]

If I released my little model of Skully the Parrot from Jake and the Never Land Pirates on Disney Jr, I imagine they wouldn't be happy, but since it is only a piece of decoration that I did for my grandson's birthday, I should be good.


Hopefully Warren will like it more than Calico did

[Kevin WS]

Very good! Cute!

[gregbal]

As much as it sometimes seems to hobbyists that a company is being overly 'unfair' -- or worse yet, greedy -- in the denial of the use of trademarks and logos on seemingly-innocuous hobby items like models, it should be remembered that the complicated tangle of applicable laws don't always recognize such distinctions.
A corporate entity that doesn't aggressively defend its rights in 'small' cases may have that laxity used against them in disputes over such intellectual property where much larger financial stakes are on the line. I'm no more a fan of predatory lawyers than anyone else...but in some instances, a good case can be made for their frustrating and seemingly-unreasonable behavior.
(And, no, I'm not a lawyer; 'I just play one on TV....')