Ethics of kit conversions

[airdave]

Hey, airdave, it is cool with you I go sell or give away my repaint of your c-130?

sure! would you like to try to sell my Car too?
I really need a new one.

I agree with everything the Major has said so far... 100%
The rest of you can go jump in the lake!
You first Allen!

[spaceagent-9]

i didnt read all this thread, but i have a comment.
ethical means basically to consider as you would feel, if you were wronged, as if you were in the other guy's position, and how you would feel about it.

so, if you are not claiming credit for the author's work, or you are not ruining the sales of his product, or if you are not taking some interface middle man position, cutting off anyone who tries to go thru you to get to the author, you are NOT BEING UNETHICAL.
however, some people are very touchy about thier work.
to avoid an artist's hurt feelings, you might want to send him an note about it first, carefully read what the author says and see if he even cares about others moding his work.
that is about all that can be said, anything else falls into another person's opinions about thier feelings.
i suggest that you change the topic from ETHICS to WRONG.
an ethical act mean that you are determining your position by thoughtful consideration.
an WRONG act depends on the reactions of those who are wrong. once you do that, you can discuss what is wrong about mods to no end .
jim

[charleswlkr54]

A 1/33 B-52? Good Lord, that must be a MONSTER!

[charleswlkr54]

I'll more than likely do that, Space-agent, project is off in the future though.

[cdavenport]

Originally Posted by charleswlkr54

A 1/33 B-52? Good Lord, that must be a MONSTER!

Yeah, I have one, unbuilt. The wingspan is almost 6 feet.

[charleswlkr54]

Lol! :-) Yes, they were!

[charleswlkr54]

Sound like you proctically need a hanger to keep it in! And I thought the old Monogram B-36 was huge!

[paperairforce]

Awww shucks…..I saw it…it’s an interesting discussion…it‘s pertinent….good fun…so my two (twenty?) cents…..

1. I think murky copyright issues will ultimately come down to what is determined by a judge if an “injured“party sues. There is a provision, as stated by Malted Falcon, of derivative work pertaining to copyrighted material - which paper models fall under, being design works on paper. I think it would come down to each judge or lawyer’s talent to outline where that boundary is with each case, and which ruling may change from judge to judge.

2. I respectfully disagree that almost all paper designs could legally be considered derivative works (if that is what is being said). I do agree, that much of the design will be based on the real plane. As such, many models based on that plane are going to look extremely similar. Especially the wings and tail.

But, P-51s don’t come built in paper pieces we can use to make our models. They have compound curves. It is very much up to each independent design to convert those curves, and that plane, into paper. It is an art as to where and how the plane is chopped up. That is the first step. There are many ways that it could be done, and each design in converting the plane to paper is an independent design in itself. Sometimes, there are even discrepancies in the shape of the cross sections, wing thickness, etc that are interpreted differently by each designer. Many bulks must be “designed”, because bulks may be needed in paper models sometimes where they don’t exist in the real planes. The resulting pieces are the hard work of the designer, and are the design, and are copyrighted as such - and understandably so I hope. Taking someone’s pieces is to take, or steal, their design - and isn’t right.

Now - you might make your own design and wind up with something that almost indistinguishable by accident. But, the chances of their being exactly the same are very slim to none - even though they are based on the same works.

3. Taking someone’s proprietary pieces, making them bigger (or smaller), chopping them up as needed (to be joined back together, producing a resized but same piece), shrinking and joining 2 pieces together, or adding or removing color, I believe would all be considered direct and blatant derivative’s copied from someone else’s work.

For instance, I don’t consider I can just take someone else’s model, remove all color, blow it up, chop it up, add removeable tops and moving control surfaces, (maybe re-arrange the sheet pieces) and call it my own. I think that would be stealing someone else’s model, even if the end modification and resulting pieces are barely recognizeable from the original. And actually it would be more trouble than it is worth.

4. Comparing plastic kits. If you took a plastic kit, bought necessary molds, and started reproducing them exactly - even with a few “improvement” modifications - It’s my belief the model company would feel compelled to tell you no unauthorized reproduction is legal and to quit making copies - even for your own use. It’s the same with video tapes ( I think) . You can’t copy them. Period. Sale or private use. But people do. As long as they don’t go trying to distribute them, I never heard of anyone getting bent out of shape, or into trouble about it….

With paper models - it’s so easy to make the reproductions. That is where the confusion is. But when you scan it, or print it - you are making almost an exact copy. Just as if you made a mold and made another plastic kit. The kit company would not be comfortable with that. Even if you change the color. (say gray plastic, to red plastic) . It something different to buy their plastic kit, and modify it for your own one-time build. That is ok. Making a reproduction of it for an unlimited build of plastic kits, would probably not be. The plastic companies would almost certainly want you to buy a second kit.

5. Aftermarket parts. If you want to go ahead and make your own work, that will fit an existing kit out there, and is not a copy in any way of that kit - I don’t see any issue with that. I think it is your own original work that you have made, and not in any way stolen from someone else. For example - if anyone would like to make a cockpit kit for my airplanes - and sell them - feel free! I’d be honored and thrilled and won‘t be trying to sue you. I’d buy one. Maybe lots of them.

These are my thoughts, right or wrong. I don’t feel comfortable stealing anyone else’s kit and just removing its color, resizing it, and I don’t want anyone “taking” one of mine without permission - downsizing my parts, adding color, joining them together, etc. Whether it can legally be done, without being considered a “derivative” of a copyrighted work - will be up to the judge who decides each case. I don’t think it would fly honestly, and if anyone would admit to a judge to copying the outlined pieces of the work in question, but just changing it a little.

And just so you know…no lawyers were harmed in the formulation of these arguments…

[Darwin]

Originally Posted by paperairforce

And just so you know…no lawyers were harmed in the formulation of these arguments…

Gee, that's too bad. Better luck next time.

[charleswlkr54]

Hey, watch that business about lawyers!I'm going to school right now, a course in Legal Office support staff, hope I'll end up working in a court, though! ;-)