Copyright issues

[Lex]

What used to happen in the event of copyright infringement, is it's the legal office of one big company talking to the legal office of another big company. That was the situation for which copyright laws were made and tuned for.

However there have never been a time, until now, that content creators can create, publish, and have their creations known, all on their own and without being part of a big publishing house / music label / film company etc. Thus, we hear stories of companies, bringing their legal machinery to bear, on these individual in what seems like an overkill. I don't see it as an over-the-top reaction or anything, it's just a symptom of the fact that copyright laws and how these laws are enforced are not fit for the internet 2.0 era, and there isn't much middle ground right now between doing nothing and filing a full copyright lawsuit in your face.

[Draco]

Originally Posted by 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....')

Ok, but what I would like is that ANY (or at least a lot) of the modelers who release kits include what we can repaint and what can't. And what happens with the defunt sites. I come from the world of flight simulator repaints. ANY... ANY model included the legal rights and disclaimer. Some requested just the acknowledge of the original modeler, some requested a writen autorization, some don't let you do nothing, but the rules were clear. The attached MD-87 is a plane made with the autorization of Historic Jetliners Group and can be downloaded FREELY only in the HJG page. The 737 is fully freeware, you can release it anywhere, and you just need to acknowledge the original developer. Both cases, the rules are clear.

[airdave]

As far as what you can repaint, its simple in all aspects of model making...
for your own private use, there are no limitations.
For public consumption and redistribution (free or retail) you need to have permission from the owner and/or designers involved to use their artworks in any way.
Unless they have already publicly given permission for the reuse, and/or redistribution of their designs.

You can copy designs manually (eg redraw a kit based on another designers pattern) as long as the design is not patented.
You can't digitally reproduce (import) the design into software and repaint it,
but you can look at how I designed a wing and fuselage pattern for example, and copy/draw your own based on my design.
Again, unless its a patented design.

Flight Sim repaints is a funny area.
At least what I have encountered (and I know some guys who are big into this).
Most repaints are based on existing patterns and aircraft templates already available from the game.
The rights and permissions to use those aircraft and company names is already in place within the games.
The community of modders and repainters is a fairly controlled and close knit group.
The mods and repaints are specific to a game and aren't really used outside of that..

I think there is a tolerance for allowing the mods and repaints as long as it is used within the game and community
If you started pulling patterns from the game files, to make paper models and sell those on a large retail scale,
copyright owners would take note and demand you cease or pass along royalties.


I think the same goes for aircraft designs in general....Boeing isn't too worried about small fry scale modelers recreating Boeing aircraft...
but do it on a larger retail scale (make more profits)
or start using the Boeing name and logos to promote your work, and they will take notice.

The bigger worry is the other companies that have paid for the rights (to Boeing)
to use the Boeing name, logos, and/or designs. (Model and Toy makers, etc)
They are affected by production and distribution of similar products.

Notice I didn't mention for sale products...free models are an even bigger threat to them.
If I have the choice of $20 plastic model vs $10 paper model vs free paper model...
which am I taking first?

But then there is the use of corporate logos and idents...like Airline names and logos.
Even if there are copyright permissions to use logos and names within the flight sim game,
those rights do not extend beyond that specific use.

You guys that repaint airliners with all the different companies and artwork
are doing so without any permissions and are risking action from those companies.
The fact that your paper models are "small time"...not well known, not wide spread, is keeping you under the radar.
Once again, free or paid doesnt matter.
Its how the company is represented and whether there are paying license owners that will decide if they take action against you.
But you have a greater chance of hearing from a Model company about the use of a specific subject.
Since a company like Revell has paid for the use of names and logos and designs.

[RyanShort1]

I dunno Airdave. I think we need to roll this back to the 1950s when people weren't upset at free marketing. I don't want to play the lawyers game.

[dhanners]

Originally Posted by RyanShort1

I dunno Airdave. I think we need to roll this back to the 1950s when people weren't upset at free marketing. I don't want to play the lawyers game.

They view it through the lens of copyright protection, not free marketing. At least in the U.S., once you've copyrighted or trademarked something, you are more or less obligated to challenge ALL violations, big and small.

Say I hold a copyright and Person A violates it. I don't go after him/her. Then Person B violates it and I sue. Person B walks into court and shows that I failed to defend the copyright when Person A violated it. Person B makes the argument that I am singling them out since I let Person A get away with it. And the court sides with Person B. I have seen it happen.

[airdave]

Originally Posted by dhanners

Say I hold a copyright and Person A violates it. I don't go after him/her. Then Person B violates it and I sue. Person B walks into court and shows that I failed to defend the copyright when Person A violated it. Person B makes the argument that I am singling them out since I let Person A get away with it. And the court sides with Person B. I have seen it happen.

Exactly.

Precedent is everything in the Courts.

[Lex]

Ah... Common law...