Author Topic: Plan copyright (Read 4212 times)

Maurice Bishop · « **on:** December 16, 2009, 10:31:28 PM »

Guys,

For the benefit of all, I am looking for clarification of the subject.

I see plans being copied and distributed with surprising regularity between members of this forum. It is surprising as:

- on the one hand the designer/author/creator of the original has released the plans for the benefit and development of Control Line stunt community and receives great pleasure from seeing his or her design used by so many people.

- on the other hand, all plans I have worked on are clearly labelled 'Copyright' and I understand that this means that you are not permitted to make copies of the plan without written permission from the copyright holder.

If Dee had a dime for every plan copy of his Oriental, he would be an even more wealthy man.

Any thoughts or comments?

Merry Christmas to one and all.

Maurice

Bill Sawyer · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:21:34 PM »

When I talked to the copyright office I was told that any drawing you do is automatically copyrighted even without being recorded. What happens is if the drawing is not recorded by the copyright office and if a lawsuit occurs it is up to you to prove ownership and the date the drawing was done. If I pay someone to do a drawing for me then that work is my copyrighted property. To get the copyright office to back me up in any lawsuit I must record the drawing with them. When I have a plan drawn for my kits I register them and I also register the files used to cut the parts.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:30:34 PM »

If I use someone's plan as a basis for another drawing, then it gets interesting. Like if I use a plan for the Oriental to design my own take-apart version or change the appearance but use the moments and airfoil, etc. But if I simply copy a set of plans that have, say, been published, then you run into problems.

I routinely copy plans to build a plane, but that is to make templates, not to pirate the plans to send to others ... unless it's my design.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2009, 12:07:38 AM »

Seems a moot point, I'm afraid. Only time CL designers get paid, that I know of, is when they sell (or license?) to a CL manufacturer, which means Brodak. I don't know if RSM buys rights or simply makes a gentleman's agreement with the designer. I wonder what the situation is with the Ringmaster. I believe there was a copyright issue that made John decide not to do a ring-a-ding. But then other folks do ring-a-dings. Our cottage industry folk don't crank many kits out. We're long past the era of the profitable CL design. No money on one end, no money on the other end. If you're designing an object without much life (profit) in the market place, how can you expect to get money for your ideas. Designers of CL art works understand this, I'm sure. I've never heard of any of them giving design rights much thought. At least not in public. How long is it before a CL design copyright runs out, anyway, and becomes part of the public domain. Books for instance, have a copyright that runs out, unless the copyright is registered and renewed. Since xerox (way back when) and now the easy and quick duplication of print via internet etc., protecting book copyrights for one off copies, has been untenable.

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2009, 05:25:52 AM »

I am not a lawyer. The length of a copyright seems to vary over the years, at one time it lasted 50 years beyond the death of the holder. Here is the catch, if you are selling the plans for profit you are in violation.
At Black Hawk Models we are always very careful to get the designers permission before we produce any kit, not for leagal reasons but for ethical reasons ... it is just the right thing to do. There have been some designers who did not give us permission to make their designs and some that have limited the designs that we could use and we ALWAYS honor there wishes.
We feel that when your time comes to an end you will be remembered as the person who lied, cheated and stole or the person who could be trusted, honored and respected ... we chose the latter.
Larry
Black Hawk Models

EddyR · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2009, 05:41:43 AM »

Here is a small article on Copywrite and Public Domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain. The simple answer is yes all plans are covered by copywrite protection. In the real world more than likely no one cares if you copy there old plane from years ago. Copy and sell some thing from the last few years and you may have problems. Another problem comes up. You ask the designer of the plan for permission and he gives it but he may not own it. The publisher may have the only say on it.

. If you change the plan in some way and show the difference and say that you changes are and improvement and don't use the original name it would be almost impossible to prove you using the same design and who would bother unless there is huge amounts of money involved.
Maybe you are really asking is it morally correct

? Some magazines have gone to watermarks so I would think they take it as important.

Ed

Dick Pacini · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2009, 06:23:03 AM »

When I did the article for Flying Model Magazines in late 1972, I was paid $135 for the article and the plans for the Spirit of Saginaw III. At the time, it was a decent chunk of change. They retained the rights to reproduce the plans through Carstens.

Recently, I bought two sets of plans of my own airplane from them at a cost of $8.00 each. It was really strange to unroll them as a customer and not a designer.

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2009, 06:28:32 AM »

when I asked for the rights to produce a kit from one of their plan sets (FM) they referred me to the designer who said "No" so we did not. So it goes beyond who has the rights.
Larry

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2009, 06:39:11 AM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on December 17, 2009, 06:28:32 AM

when I asked for the rights to produce a kit from one of their plan sets (FM) they referred me to the designer who said "No" so we did not. So it goes beyond who has the rights.
Larry

I sold two plans to magazines, Flying Models and Model Aviation. I guess the above statement indicates that the really generous payments they gave me licenced THEM to sell copies of my designs, but maybe didn't give them the rights to sell the rights?

pat king · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2009, 07:19:11 AM »

Larry has it right! It is much more important to do that which is moral rather than that which is "legal". Some of my plans are completely original designs. Some are CAD drawings of designs that are no longer made or sold. If someone pays for drawings, either on CAD or drawn by hand, they own the rights to those drawings. This is a very small community, none of us needs to interfere with the rights or business of others in the community.

Pat

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2009, 09:31:04 AM »

As to the "geting paid to do drawings" There is a fine line on that. If you as the CAD or artist, are commisioned to create a drawing, then the person commisioning the work has certain rights to use the drawing for the purpose he commisioned it for, but YOu as the drafstman also retain rights to the work and the commisioner cannot legaly transfer YOUR rights away. However, if you produce the drawing as an employee for a company ( read that as full time, hourly or salary) then you retain NO rights to the work and the employer has all rights.

For me, I am highly offended by people that copy and disperse the works of others with no regard for the creators rights. My designs, while not published, are MINE and it is a personal show if disrespect for what I have created that someone would feel they can "steal" my work and give it away.
Now having said that, I am thrilled if someone wants to use my plans. Its kind of funny, if someone asks permission, I will usually just send a copy of my plans to them free, or for the shipping. Heck its an ego stroke, and I like to see my stuff appreciated, but I dont like to be disrespected.
In short, I guess the bottom line is, my work is a labor of love and I enjoy sharing it, but I want to know that its appreciated by someone since thats often the only real payback I get on my efforts.

Hoss Cain · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2009, 09:58:03 AM »

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright Law of the United States of America
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 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.

"....General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; ...."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Lots of leeway there as long as there is no commercial use of the plans. "Comment, criticism, and research can cover MUCH ground. Lord only knows just how many "Originals" had Nobler wings, slightly changed fuselage lines, and were not only in magazines as an ?original? design but were also kitted. Same applies to the "Detroiter".
So if you copy them and build a model of your choice, then it's only "research" and "comment". RIGHT? Right!

Now when you start selling your stuff, well that could be a whole 'nother ball game!

Bill Sawyer · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2009, 02:57:05 PM »

If anyone wants to check further:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who created
the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights
through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not
the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of
the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as:
1 a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or
her employment; or
2 a work specially ordered or commissioned for use

For works done for hire the copyright duration shall be 95 years
from oubklication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter.

Shultzie · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2009, 04:20:32 PM »

Hummm?
Maurice.....In other words FRETT NOT! FART NOT

Whether it be in toy airplanes for your own personal use and not trying to obtain meager wealth from our precious few by "re-creating" for personal profit....

Personally, IN TRUTH and HONESTY I could give a rip whether they copy my model or even try to make money over a modified version of their own....

That brings to mind a few years ago and had a chance to fly a slightly modified Avenger that was published of mine by a young man from Northern Calif who was visiting Seattle.... (waaaay back in the mid 70's) After I landed his model...I tried in vain to help him trim that out of alignment, out of balance, poorly built model.
The builder gave me quite a razzing on just how much time he wasted and then told me that he wished he had built a STING RAY instead of my "KNOCK-OFF" Avenger.

At first I actually felt like STOMPIN on that model of his..and maybe even considered "KNOCKIN" him on his butt when he gave me that pitiful' song and dance routine about just how much he didn't like my design...
but for some reason...I found it QUITE HUMOUROUS instead because he "just didn't understand how to successfully build either Bob Gialdini's beautiful Sting Ray or my so called "MODIFIED" STING RAY! Bye the way...that gent also sells copies for $$$$ of both Bob Gialdini and my AVENGER

Phil Coopy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2009, 06:28:36 PM »

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing because when I designed my Gee Bee Sportster, I modified a Brodak P40 drawing for the wing plan. Trying to be on the safe side and not to ruffle John's feathers, any copies I give away are marked "not for sale" and I give Brodak credit for the basic wing design. I have not heard from any of John's lawyers yet so I think I'm in the clear so far.

Phil

phil c · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2009, 05:36:09 PM »

Copyright is just what it says, you own the right to copy your own work. So a magazine plan, or any other written work, drawing, painting, photograph, etc. is owned by the author. If you sell the rights to a mag, they own them, not you. Flying Models and Model Aviation send you a check saying "for all rights, US and foreign", which means technically you can't even copy your own plan. They deferred to the designer in the one case mentioned, but they didn't have to.

There is also something called design patent, which you have to pay for, otherwise a design of anything is not protected(and a design patent doesn't give much protection). So anyone can draw a plan for a Ringmaster or a Nobler, they just can't copy the original plans. It's perfectly legal, but as Larry points out, it isn't a good example of ethical behavior.

The other thing is trademarks. Top Flite owned the trademark FlightStreak, with the type style, colors, the paint scheme on the plane on the box, and anything that distinguishes that particular model from all the others. Great Planes bought Top Flite and still uses the Flitestreak and Nobler trademarks, so they might get upset if anyone else used them without permission. You can draw up a set of plans(a new drawing, not a copy of the mag or kit plans) to build the Nobler, but technically you can't sell them as "Top Flite Nobler". A title like "Reproduction of the Aldrich Nobler" might be OK, but the trademark owner could take you to court if they disagreed.

Shultzie · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2009, 05:49:51 PM »

Hummm?

After reading all this rather A-retentive copykitty-krappola'....I am even having doubt whether one can begin to even consider whether or not.....anything that is created from the mind of a human being is truly an orginial...and I guess I then would have to ponder-yonder that even our beloved Ringmasters, Smooooooooothies, Noblers, Sharks or any published toy airplane for that matter can truly be considered "an original?"

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2009, 07:55:53 PM »

One cool (?) thing about CAD plans, is that the CAD guy can take the basic plan that he sells to a magazine or kit producer, shuffle this n' that around, make a new title block, whatever, and call it a different drawing, and keep/sell it as his own version. Like it or not, it is different. Probably different enough that lawyers would get rich and everybody else would get poor.

The manufacturer might not be happy, but for decades, the designers submitted plans to kit manufacturers and the manufacturer then did whatever they wanted with it, to make the kit cheaper, or fit a smaller box, or just because they had some wood that was too small and wanted to use it up. The designers weren't happy, but there was nothing they could do about it. Now, the worm has turned, and the CAD guys have the manufacturers much more under their....mouse. The buyers of the kits are the beneficiaries...hey, that's most of us!

Steve

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2009, 01:17:55 AM »

Ok , Here's one for the discussion. I have a bunch of old Modern Hobbycraft Corp. that I am going through and trying to preserve. They are on really crunchy and fragile paper. I intend to nurse them through the copy machine at the office supply store I use and get at least one good copy of each. These are control line scale and free flight models, and the plans were offered for sale in groups fro adds in Air Trails magazine The copyright dates on them are in the mid and late 1940's, 60 years ago or better in some cases. I would bet a dollar to a donut that the original designers haven't walked this earth fro a long time, and their descendants probably have no knowledge of their existence. Air Trails magazine has been defunct since the mid-50's. I know of several guys that would be interested is copies of these, just because of their age, and who knows how many others would once they saw a layout of the plan? There are lots of different neat designs and many warbirds. I have never, ever heard of anybody talk about these plans, ever seen them offered anywhere by anybody. I haven't checked my old Pond catalogs yet, but I don't think he had any of them. Given the nature of the crappy paper that they were printed on, I doubt that very many of these survived, and I may have some pretty rare plans in my collection. If I decided to sell copies of these, I wouldn't make tons of money, maybe a little more than my costs. Would someone turn me into the copyright cops just because I tried to make something that no one else has available to keep them from disappearing off the face of the earth?
I think copyright law is there mainly to protect the artist from some one stealing his or her work and claiming it as their own, and then from making large scale profits from it. Copyright law, it would seem to me, was really tested when the audio and then the video tape was invented. The government wasn't going to shut down a whole industry on the slim threat that someone at home was going to tape episodes of Magnum P.I. or some other show and then sell them for profit. It was determined that the devices was purely for home and personal use and as long as that is what they were used for, no problem. The pirating of movies and even TV snows that goes on over seas is a whole different matter and scale. I don't think it's any different with model plans, to a certain extent.
I would never take current published model design and sell copies of it, but there are extenuating circumstances for older designs. For instance, there are many, many designs that Flying Models published and sold plans for over the years, but they can't offer plans for these now because they don't have the master drawing, or archives that go back far enough due to floods and fires over the years. I have provided them with construction articles for designs that they do have, but didn't even know what year of month issue the design was published in, and I helped them fill in some blanks. Otherwise, they may have been lost for good. Would they come after me for selling copies of plans that they didn't even know existed? It's the same for the MHC plans that I have. I'll bet that 90% of the people reading this didn't even know that company or plans list even existed.
In short, I think this copyright issue gets blown out of proportion and mis-understood. I can remember going into a self service copy store to make a copy of an article and full size plan so I could build the model and not mess up my magazine, and the old gal running the place about had a cow! She would not let me make the copies because they were copyrighted, she said. I asked her what she would do if I went ahead and made the copies, call the police? Then I showed her a line of copy from the article telling the reader to make copies of the plan so as to not mess up the magazine. She really didn't know what to say then. then I asked her, would she really like me to go to the competing store down the street to spend my money, even though it was only going top be a couple of bucks, or would she rather I go ahead about my business, make my copies and leave the store a happy customer who would be coming back into her store in the future for other business? She apologized, and said she saw my point. This has happened more than once to me, and I just use the same logic on the clerks to convince them that I am not stealing some one else's work, just trying not to destroy my original so could use it again in the future.
I'm really not thinking of getting into the vintage plan business. I don't have time to build the models I would like to build, much les trying to become an entrepreneur! But after I get finished going through these things, and if someone sees them and wants to pay me for a copy of them, I don't think I'll lose much sleep worrying if I'll be doing time in the big house over it!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!

Dan McEntee

John Stiles · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2009, 05:00:40 AM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on December 21, 2009, 01:17:55 AM

Ok , Here's one for the discussion. I have a bunch of old Modern Hobbycraft Corp. that I am going through and trying to preserve. They are on really crunchy and fragile paper. I intend to nurse them through the copy machine at the office supply store I use and get at least one good copy of each. These are control line scale and free flight models, and the plans were offered for sale in groups fro adds in Air Trails magazine The copyright dates on them are in the mid and late 1940's, 60 years ago or better in some cases. I would bet a dollar to a donut that the original designers haven't walked this earth fro a long time, and their descendants probably have no knowledge of their existence. Air Trails magazine has been defunct since the mid-50's. I know of several guys that would be interested is copies of these, just because of their age, and who knows how many others would once they saw a layout of the plan? There are lots of different neat designs and many warbirds. I have never, ever heard of anybody talk about these plans, ever seen them offered anywhere by anybody. I haven't checked my old Pond catalogs yet, but I don't think he had any of them. Given the nature of the crappy paper that they were printed on, I doubt that very many of these survived, and I may have some pretty rare plans in my collection. If I decided to sell copies of these, I wouldn't make tons of money, maybe a little more than my costs. Would someone turn me into the copyright cops just because I tried to make something that no one else has available to keep them from disappearing off the face of the earth?
I think copyright law is there mainly to protect the artist from some one stealing his or her work and claiming it as their own, and then from making large scale profits from it. Copyright law, it would seem to me, was really tested when the audio and then the video tape was invented. The government wasn't going to shut down a whole industry on the slim threat that someone at home was going to tape episodes of Magnum P.I. or some other show and then sell them for profit. It was determined that the devices was purely for home and personal use and as long as that is what they were used for, no problem. The pirating of movies and even TV snows that goes on over seas is a whole different matter and scale. I don't think it's any different with model plans, to a certain extent.
I would never take current published model design and sell copies of it, but there are extenuating circumstances for older designs. For instance, there are many, many designs that Flying Models published and sold plans for over the years, but they can't offer plans for these now because they don't have the master drawing, or archives that go back far enough due to floods and fires over the years. I have provided them with construction articles for designs that they do have, but didn't even know what year of month issue the design was published in, and I helped them fill in some blanks. Otherwise, they may have been lost for good. Would they come after me for selling copies of plans that they didn't even know existed? It's the same for the MHC plans that I have. I'll bet that 90% of the people reading this didn't even know that company or plans list even existed.
In short, I think this copyright issue gets blown out of proportion and mis-understood. I can remember going into a self service copy store to make a copy of an article and full size plan so I could build the model and not mess up my magazine, and the old gal running the place about had a cow! She would not let me make the copies because they were copyrighted, she said. I asked her what she would do if I went ahead and made the copies, call the police? Then I showed her a line of copy from the article telling the reader to make copies of the plan so as to not mess up the magazine. She really didn't know what to say then. then I asked her, would she really like me to go to the competing store down the street to spend my money, even though it was only going top be a couple of bucks, or would she rather I go ahead about my business, make my copies and leave the store a happy customer who would be coming back into her store in the future for other business? She apologized, and said she saw my point. This has happened more than once to me, and I just use the same logic on the clerks to convince them that I am not stealing some one else's work, just trying not to destroy my original so could use it again in the future.
I'm really not thinking of getting into the vintage plan business. I don't have time to build the models I would like to build, much les trying to become an entrepreneur! But after I get finished going through these things, and if someone sees them and wants to pay me for a copy of them, I don't think I'll lose much sleep worrying if I'll be doing time in the big house over it!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!
Dan McEntee

Why not just put them all in a book and sell the book

John Witt · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:14:17 AM »

A copyright is good for 70 years after the death of the author. If copyrighted by a company (a work for hire) it is good for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. As usual with the feds, there is more detail, but essentially anything published before 1923 is public domain. If plans are in a magazine, they were likely to be works for hire and the copyright owned by the publisher.

See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_copyright

Another point: Companies in the last few years have been sticky about using their logos on models, beginning I think, with Union Pacific a few years ago. So if your plans (for sale) has some company's logo, better get their permission.

If works are truly orphans, you can copy them, but keep in mind the world of publishing is complicated and a magazine may be gone, but its publisher and copyrights may still be active. When in doubt, do your homework and get permission.

John W

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #21 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:18:21 AM »

Dan-

A few years ago there were several people who expressed interest in copies of the old A.R. Weyl articles that had appeared in series installments in Aircraft Engineering and The Aeroplane just during and after WW II. These were, at that time, also half a century old, but well known among aircraft engineers, historians, and hobbiests. The pages I copied from bound volumes were brittle (crumbling) and discolored war-time stock. The articles had obviously been copyrighted, but Weyl's descendents were not known to me. So I was wondering about the periodicals' publishers themselves. It seemed an awful nuisance to contact the present-day companies, which probably had little regard for their predecessors. One experienced and knowledgable acquaintence gave this advice: you may re-publish without fear and probably fully legally if the following conditions are met:

1) The documents are scholarly.
2) Profit is zero or minimal.
3) There is no apparent intention of the original owners to re-publish.

Under those conditions, you were seen as performing a public service and operating within the spirit of the law. I went ahead and copied and bound 50-60 of these compilations at OfficeMax, selling them for my cost and a small nuisance fee (a nickle or so per hour?). Everyone was happy, and no one ever objected from outside. These "books" were well received, discussed, and publicized on the internet and among some professionals. People still ask about them, but no-one has cared about any possible infringement.

I doubt that there would be objections to your preservation and distribution of rare plans among the small group to whom they are important. Go for it!

SK

Dick Pacini · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:39:23 AM »

This copyright situation is taken to the extreme at the Walmart Photo Center. They watch the self-serve photo machines like a hawk. I have taken in a family picture from the early 1900's, that was cracked and crumbling, to copy for my kids. But oh no, that was a professional photo protected by copyrights and they wouldn't let me copy it. I protested that the photographer was long deceased and the studio defunct for 90 years, but it didn't make a difference.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:57:02 AM »

Go to another Wally World if you have one. Might even try a photo shop.

GGeezer · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2009, 02:30:55 PM »

In the real world, a copyright or patent is only as good as the money you have to protect it. The holder must spend the money to sue for infringement; so whatever is protected must be worth the cost. It is also extremely expensive to sue in other countries like China for instance.
In this day of mass communication via the internet, protecting a copyright is almost impossible; look at all the trouble the movie and music industry is having protecting their rights, and they have very deep pockets.
I'll bet $ to (o) that copyright permission was not obtained for the majority of J. Pond's vast collection of old time model plans, now owned and profited by the AMA.

Orv.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #25 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:26:19 PM »

I think the real consideration here should be not so much what is legal or isnt, even what may or may not be prosecuted, but instead what is MORALLY correct.

John Miller · « **Reply #26 on:** December 21, 2009, 05:05:34 PM »

As one who is involved in the creation process, I'm in complete agreement with Mark on this one.

I don't ever expect to get rich from my drafting efforts. I only charge a very modest profit over my costs for my work, but, it would bother me a lot if someone decided to sell copies of my work without permission. I usually have a considerable number of hours involved in a set of plans. I don't break even for my labor until thousands of sets of plans are sold. Probably not going to happen. It's a labor of love, and the pure joy of trying to create a pleasant, good flying design for my fellow modelors.

I'm one who does not usually sell the work outright, rather, I license my work, with specific limitations, and understandings, so most of my work is still copywrited and owned by myself.

GGeezer · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2009, 12:17:23 AM »

I was talking about the real world and not the ideal world. I agree whole-heartily that intellectual property should be respected just like any other personal property. I for one have, in the past, been involved in expensive patent infringement litigation (more than one) and what I have learned is that a good idea will be knocked off.... and a really good idea will be knocked off by everyone. Just look at the grief the Wright brothers had with their patent covering the control of a heavier-than-air flying machine.
And closer to home, how many (manufacturers and designers of models) are paying compensation for using the intellectual property covering the control system that guides our control line models? I know that the Walker patent was broken because he "borrowed" the idea from the original inventor. the inventor saw no compensation and his estate continues to see no compensation for the universal use of his idea.
In an ideal world, kits and plans would not contain or have reference to, the control line system, but instead, would say "use your favorite control system".
I know I'm taking this argument to the extreme since everyone considers the control line system to be in the 'Public Domain'...... but really, is it....... from a MORAL point of view?

Orv.

Shultzie · « **Reply #28 on:** December 22, 2009, 04:22:14 PM »

Does that mean that my Imitation "knockoff Rolex watch ,"knock North Face jacket and generic Viagra pills makes me a------CRIMINAL CROOKED DIRTY DIRTBAGGA?

GGeezer · « **Reply #29 on:** December 22, 2009, 08:37:53 PM »

Shultzie hit the nail on the head. We enable this intellectual property theft by seeking the lowest price.
Money left to jingle (a good Christmastime word) in your jeans trumps morality virtually all the time.

Orv.

LARRY RICE · « **Reply #30 on:** December 22, 2009, 08:49:06 PM »

Shultzie, YES.
How much are you worth? In the end, and we will all come to one someday, you are only worth your good name, how much will you sell it for? A jacket? A watch? How much are you worth, some pieces of silver?
Larry

Shultzie · « **Reply #31 on:** December 22, 2009, 09:22:29 PM »

Quote from: LARRY RICE on December 22, 2009, 08:49:06 PM

Shultzie, YES.
How much are you worth? In the end, and we will all come to one someday, you are only worth your good name, how much will you sell it for? A jacket? A watch? How much are you worth, some pieces of silver?
Larry

Hummm?
Certainly not "30 pieces of silver"....because I am about 28 pieces short.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #32 on:** December 22, 2009, 11:03:09 PM »

Quote from: Shultzie on December 22, 2009, 09:22:29 PM

Hummm?
Certainly not "30 pieces of silver"....because I am about 28 pieces short.

Shultzie,, you may be a bit generous with that estimate?

( by the way, The Avenger is back on the bench for a sanding off, and repaint now, finally,, )

Shultzie · « **Reply #33 on:** December 23, 2009, 09:38:28 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on December 22, 2009, 11:03:09 PM

Shultzie,, you may be a bit generous with that estimate?

( by the way, The Avenger is back on the bench for a sanding off, and repaint now, finally,, )

Mark...
Looking forward to hearing and seeing a progress report...
Knowing you have more than earned the coveted honor of CLPA MAGIC-PAINT MASTA ...and HOPEFULLY.. if the ARK ANGEL OF PAINT WILL AGAIN CONTINUE TO SHINE ITS RADIANT LIGHTS DOWN UPON YOU---- AND ALSO KEEP THE PEEL N' STRIP DEMONS, DYING DING BATS AND GREMLINS AWAY FROM BOTH YOU AND RANDY!!!!
I know for certain that all of us STUNT GRUNTSTERS..will be in for an EYE CANDY TREAT THAT CAN'T BE BEAT.
May the GREAT LORD FINALLY TAKE A LIKING INSTEAD OF A LICKIN' TO YOU N' YERS' !!