1:32 SR-71 Blackbird - Design & Build

[dhanners]

Stunning model both in terms of design and build. And presentation.

[3Turner]

As I am sure the photos were taken by members of the military...Yogi is pretty much right on. Government photos are public domain as soon as the shutter flaps. Although, classified things and areas are of course always still a no-no. On the flip-side, if the photos were taken by someone representing the magazine, those would be copyright by the magazine company....you or anyone else could not use them at all in any other publication unless given permission. Photos of other people or private property without having to obtain a model release or property release is what falls under the use of editorial work or textbooks without repercussions as mentioned by Lancer. Oh, and I'm no lawyer either....I sell stock photos on the side through a website and those two situations (photos of government and releases) are mentioned in their agreement.

Originally Posted by Retired_for_now

Re photos: if they are US Gov't photos (and you attribute them to the originator) there should not be a problem. Chime in all - but I don't think US Gov't photos are copyright (the government are us, or is supposed to be anyway). Thinking of your mention of "declassified." Private property ain't subject to classification - so unless it's gov't sourced, gov't purchased, or gov't confiscated...
Yogi

[Nh3ave2009]

WOW!!!!! Ken that is the sexiest thing (without boobs) I have seen in a very long time! Applause, BRAVO!!!! OMG!!!! Applause! :D

[HMCS]

these were taken by the pilot himself,.. posting here purely for inspiration and nothing else,.. if anyone has an issue they will be removed immediately,.. now and for all time I give you the view from 80,000ft

[HMCS]

now billy has some great reference for cover art! hint hint

[cotlet]

Going back to the Ken's final gallery shots ....

That is a one hack of a model. This beast is huge and impressive. Great work designing such a beautiful machine. I don't even want to imagine how laborious designer's work is ... Congrats!!!!
And of course I'm still looking forward to Billy's progress updates.

[lancer525]

Originally Posted by 3Turner

On the flip-side, if the photos were taken by someone representing the magazine, those would be copyright by the magazine company....you or anyone else could not use them at all in any other publication unless given permission. Photos of other people or private property without having to obtain a model release or property release is what falls under the use of editorial work or textbooks without repercussions as mentioned by Lancer.

First, that's misleading because it is not what I said, and second, it's incorrect. I recommend that you do a search on "Fair Use Doctrine" as it applies to republishing copyrighted materials. You are not subject to the DMCA or any other copyright law if you are using the materials for education, satire, or public information, and if you attribute the material in question properly.

[HMCS]

sweet,.. so I guess I fall under those guidelines!,.. NOW BACK TO THE BUILD!!!

[3Turner]

Originally Posted by lancer525

First, that's misleading because it is not what I said, and second, it's incorrect. I recommend that you do a search on "Fair Use Doctrine" as it applies to republishing copyrighted materials. You are not subject to the DMCA or any other copyright law if you are using the materials for education, satire, or public information, and if you attribute the material in question properly.

I'm sorry if I mis-lead you or anyone else reading my post...but what I typed up there was not incinuating that you said everything I typed in your original post. Secondly, the information I provided is not incorrect. It deals with photography copyrights. Not the "Fair Use Doctrine" and not the DMCA. The information I provided may not entirely apply to this situation, but it is a heads up...additional information on top of the outlet of using photos in an educational manner. I use photography copyrights, model releases and property releases everyday when I sell photos. Well...wait....I don't use releases. I try my best to avoid having to NEED them. I tend to stray from taking photos that would require me to get releases because...frankly, I hate asking for them. So you will never see my photos with people or private property in advertisements or in a commercial manner because I just don't like messing with releases. Photography copyrights can be a pain in the but when the photographer comes after a person for a copyright infringement because they made a profit on photos they did not create and re-published them.

I was agreeing with your portion about "educational purposes" highlighted in your quote below in your #4 and related to my quote with the short word highlighted "textbooks". And then I was merely providing additional information that I know will help keep HMCS from getting slapped with a copyright infringement suit. One of his previous posts he mentions that those photos were used in a magazine....if the magazine photographer had taken those shots, they are copyright by the magazine and/or the magazine photographer. HCMS could not use those photos without permission. And its too bad the library of congress website is down right now, but I did find a nice little article that references the LOC and provides a nice little translation from the legal mumbo jumbo website here, snippit taken from near the bottom of page before Hall of Shame section:

Unauthorized deriviative works is also copyright infringement. This means if you make a painting based on a photo, or make a photo part of another photo, or edit the photo and republish it, you still need permission from the copyright holder. Original works do not need to be registered to be covered by copyright law.

However...and luckily...they were taken by the pilot who would be a military member, that falls under public domain. Now the "heads up" portion I provided about the releases...one would be needed from the pilot if the photo were used in any commercial venture (selling as part of a model kit) or advertising....but NOT in editorial or educational purposes...textbooks....like you use. Of course one could argue that a model kit can be educational...especially if a brief history of the plane is provided with photos ....helped me learn before building. LOL! A "flesh-eating ambulance chaser" will have a tough time with that.

Originally Posted by lancer525

I am not a lawyer, but I do understand a good bit about copyright and publication rules, and there is something that covers you here. As long as 1) you don't claim ownership 2) attribute the photos fully, 3) are using them not for your own profit and 4) are utilizing them for educational purposes, then you fall under what is known as "Fair Use Doctrine" which allows for republication or dissemination of copyrighted materials, under the above conditions.

Originally Posted by 3Turner

On the flip-side, if the photos were taken by someone representing the magazine, those would be copyright by the magazine company....you or anyone else could not use them at all in any other publication unless given permission. Photos of other people or private property without having to obtain a model release or property release is what falls under the use of editorial work or textbooks without repercussions as mentioned by Lancer.

And just for safe measure if anyone cares to read it, the fair use doctrine:

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[3Turner]

Originally Posted by HMCS

NOW BACK TO THE BUILD!!!

+1!!

I concur!!