Questions of legality.

[Jeffrey Olijar]

There is a bit of a grey area I would like to ask the community about.
I am planning to start my own business selling model airplanes and custom laser cut stuff.   

I want to sell kits and while I have several of my own designs I would also like to feature designs from other builders.

Many older airplane magazines have plans published in them (full size or otherwise) (I probably have 2000+ magazines in my collection)
I have seen people sell laser cut kits for several airplanes made by companies that no longer exist (sterling, jetco, etc...)

Do you think it is wrong to copy plans from an old magazine and make a laser cut kit to offer to the public? 
What about producing kits for planes made by companies that are no longer around (sterling, jetco, etc...)

I have a feeling that the answer legally is no...
But I have also thought about this

Buying a plan from a legitimate plan service or a Magazine that contains plans gives you the right to build said airplane, yes?
you also have the right to sell your plan or magazine should you decide you no longer want it.
Same goes for a plane built or half built that is created from said plan.

So could I potentially buy plans/magazines, make a kit, then sell the plans/magazine and kit together?
 

Just want to provide good products to my customers and avoid stepping on anybodies toes.  I also don't want to be hated like the ebay sellers that sell digital plans that they don't own. 

[Chuck Feldman]

Go for it.  After all this is just a hobbie/sport.  We don't have any serious issues here. LOL

[ChrisSarnowski]

There is one company that sells laser cut short kits without plans. They tell you where to get the plans from which they generated the laser cut parts. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. It is not a bad idea to ask permission to kit from their plans.

If you buy an old kit or old kit plans and create your own new plans drawing and laser cuts from that, then no one should complain.

It is a good idea to stay away from currently available kits of old designs. Do something that is not currently available.

Basically you should observe copyrights and other people's ownership of redrawn plans. That is my 2 cents.

-Chris

[Dick Pacini]

I would make every effort to obtain the designer's or the last producer's permission, if at all possible.  I know of one airplane that was kitted for a short time and then discontinued.  Another builder wanted to kit it and the designer said no, that perhaps he would produce them again someday.

[Chuck Feldman]

Make me a Kenhi Panther.

[Tim Wescott]

If you buy an old kit or old kit plans and create your own new plans drawing and laser cuts from that, then no one should complain.

As far as I know, this is 100% kosher as long as you don't purport to be the original kit manufacturer, although if you do this with a magazine plan it would be good to check with the designer first.

So, you can say it's a reproduction of a Veco Tomahawk, but unless you track down the current owner of the remnants of Veco and buy them, don't say that you are Veco, or that your Tomahawk is produced by Veco.

[Mark Scarborough]

well there is actually quite a bit of discussion on this topic about a year ago (?)
In MY opinion, regardless of legal issues,, if the designer is alive, you should respect his efforts and get permission to do this.
if the design was published in a magazine, I am very certain that reproducing the design would be in violation,,

however as Tim says, LEGALLY, you may be able to skirt the issue if you did not call the plane the same name,, or represent yourself to be the original designer or company,, is this right? I don't think so,, not if you are trying to generate any sort of profit off of someone else s intellectual design work.

[Tim Wescott]

I had a long reply that I trimmed down, and lost too much of the "what is right" part in the process of cutting down the "what is legal" and eliminating the "what you can get away with" parts.

Legally you can do a lot more in this arena than you can morally.  And practically, you can do even more than you can legally, because there aren't any "intellectual property police" out there -- the IP owner has to come after you in court to make it stick.

So, practically and probably legally, if you're honest about where it came from I think you can do nearly anything (except, check to see if the airplane name is copyrighted if it was a kit or if you're doing a scale plane).

Morally -- yes, do your best to dig up the original designer and get his sign-off before you proceed.  I honestly don't know what deals were generally made by the magazines, but it's altogether possible that they could have asked the designers to sign away their legal ownership of the IP.  I think this came up in that thread a year ago, too, but I don't remember what the prevailing standard was.  At any rate, if someone is selling the plans under the original magizine name (or if the magazine still exists), then check with them.

For a magazine plan, the best way to proceed may well be to get permission to reproduce the plan (expect to pay), or to make arrangements to make bulk purchases, and include that plan with your kit.

[Larry Renger]

The three kit manufacturers I know make every effort to contact the designer, or at least the original manufacturer to get permission to do the kit.  I know of one case where the right was refused because the designer had already given another mfr. the right to the design.  Copying exsisting plans is likely a copyright violation.  You can do a 1-off for yourself, of course.

[Tim Wescott]

Copying existing plans is likely a copyright violation.  You can do a 1-off for yourself, of course.

Eh, all that stuff that I trimmed out, and now I'm putting it back in piecemeal:

With electronics, my understanding is that you can copyright a schematic but you cannot copyright a circuit design.  I'm not sure about whether you can copyright a board layout or a parts arrangement within a cabinet -- but I doubt it.

Plans are certainly a copyrightable piece of intellectual property.  If they don't have a copyright notice on them then the law gets all smoky about who owns what -- so to be kind, if you're making a plan set that you intend to be used by whoever for whatever, you should put your name on it, and something like "released into the public domain".  If you want to keep the rights, you should put "Copyright <so and so>" and the date, and maybe even terms like "for personal use only", "all rights reserved, mine! mine! mine!", etc.

Trademarking individual names and/or silhouettes comes in there somewhere, but I don't know the specifics.  It's all out there on the web, though.

If you're seriously interested in producing work for the world to use, do a web search on "Creative Commons License" -- they have a whole slew of licenses that you can pick and choose from, that pretty let you choose your level of control.  One thing, in particular, that a creative commons license will aid (but not guarantee) is to let you release your work into the world in such a way that anyone can build a plane from it, but so that some honkin' big toy company can't easily claim that they got there first and not only start producing your stuff without paying you, but take away your rights to let others build to your @#$% plans.

There's a whole slew of law about what you can and cannot restrict folks from doing -- copying some copyrighted work outright and selling it is definitely out, though, unless the copyright notice specifically allows this.  Building a plane from it is definitely in.  Making a Xerox of it is a gray area -- there's a slew of court decisions about what is fair use of copyrighted material, all of which are colored by whether or not the plans say "no copying allowed at all" vs. "copies made for personal use are allowed", or anything in between.

So if you weren't feeling particularly community spirited and you wanted to rip off a design, but you wanted to stay on the right side of the law while doing so (or perhaps you wanted to put the law to the left side of you), then you would at least need to draw up your own set of plans, with all the elements rearranged from the original, and you'd have to leave out the original author's name and the name of the kit company or magazine under which it appeared.  You'd probably also want to start running for office, because you'd be morally equipped.

I take it as morally acceptable that if a kit company were totally gone without a trace, or if a designer was similarly gone without a trace, to go ahead and produce a kit with all due credit to the original designer/company all the while making it clear that you ain't them.  But if you do so, be prepared to get a letter out of the blue that starts with "Hey!  Whadda ya doing with our stuff!" and goes down hill from there, and be prepared to halt shipments of kits right then and start your apologies/negotions if you do get that letter.

[Jeffrey Olijar]

I take it as morally acceptable that if a kit company were totally gone without a trace, or if a designer was similarly gone without a trace, to go ahead and produce a kit with all due credit to the original designer/company all the while making it clear that you ain't them.  But if you do so, be prepared to get a letter out of the blue that starts with "Hey!  Whadda ya doing with our stuff!" and goes down hill from there, and be prepared to halt shipments of kits right then and start your apologies/negotions if you do get that letter.

That's pretty much sums up what I was thinking.  Also I am not going to copy others planes and call it my own... that is definitely far far into the wrong...

I also like the idea of using creative commons... Ill probably release my stuff under it after I do some more research.

Most of the planes I am into are fairly old so tracking down the proper owner will be a chore but definitely worth it in the long run.

thanks for all the comments guys it helps alot. 

[Tom Niebuhr]

I have never produced a kit without specific permission from the designer and/or the applicable magazine. I know there are some who think that they can reproduce just about anything, but maybe some people have no scruples.

I have some of my own designs in the wings, and I have explicit permission for at least 2 Classics. I will yell loud if someone tries to republish these items. You can look at the current Stunt News as an example. We got permission from Model Airplane News to write the Curtiss Swift article and sell a NEW Cad drawing.

Tom Niebuhr
Blue Sky Models

[Tim Wescott]

Most of the planes I am into are fairly old so tracking down the proper owner will be a chore but definitely worth it in the long run.

I suspect that this site will be a big help for that, not just for individuals but for who owns what kit manufacturer's rights.

And don't assume that just because a magazine isn't out there that it doesn't have successors -- Flying Aces became Flying Models, and I know there have been other mergers or renamings, etc.

[Brett Buck]

Just want to provide good products to my customers and avoid stepping on anybodies toes.  I also don't want to be hated like the ebay sellers that sell digital plans that they don't own. 

  My recommendation is to find a lawyer with relevant experience in copyright law. I know everybody means well and that the chances of getting in trouble for infringement are not high, but legal scholars we are not.

   Brett

[Tim Wescott]

but legal scholars we are not.

And if one of is a good smart lawyer, he knows to keep his mouth shut!

I know some because I'm an author and I try to know at least a little bit of what I'm signing for (or away) when I put my John Hancock on a contract.  But the best real legal advise that I can give you is -- get a lawyer, then grin when you pay your bill.

[Avaiojet]

Kit your own designs and you won't have any issues!

Charles

[Hoss Cain]

Kit your own designs and you won't have any issues!

Charles

That reply, Sir Charles, definitely says it all. 

Back in the '50s -'70s there were numerous "Original" designs, yet with some looking things over, one could usually tell that "A Nobler is always a Nobler!" 

Just as a point of information:

Copyright Law of the United States of America
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 40

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; ...."

[Avaiojet]

Sir Hoss,

I never liked the lines of the Nobler.

Charles

[Tom Niebuhr]

"Kit your own designs and you won't have any issues!" 
Charles is right on this one.

The two Classics that I mentioned above are exceptions. One is a past Nats winner, by a personal friend, that was never published. The other was published in the '60s and I have permission to do it, but it will either be a very short kit, or just ribs. That particular airplane and its designer has a personal connection with me.

With the addition of N30, the market is so watered down that potential sales of any airplane is very low at best. Look at past surveys by others and you will see people wanting planes A thru Z but never enough of one airplane to make it worth the effort in time and money to go further.

I will be kitting sone of my own designs or supplying ribs as with the "Top Hat'. The "Hobo" will be in Model Aviation later this year, and after the required waiting period it will probably be a kit, with a different set of plans.

[Avaiojet]

Tom,

As you know you cannot sell the plans that are published in MA. That's how they work.

Obvious reason for your different plans.

I personally would never enter into any contract with any publication. Sure they pay a grand or so, but they get it back in the sales of plans over a long period of time. Plus they have to have content.

Why would someone purchase your "different" plans, when the model, featured in the Mag, is their plans?

That's my question.

Charles

[Larry Renger]

When I did the Baby Magician article, I got permission from both Jim Silhavey, the designer and from Midwest, the previous kit manufacturer.  In fact, Jim sent me a bunch of information that improved the model a lot!

[Avaiojet]

When I did the Baby Magician article, I got permission from both Jim Silhavey, the designer and from Midwest, the previous kit manufacturer.  In fact, Jim sent me a bunch of information that improved the model a lot!

Larry,

Understandable.

I have written permission, from the actual designers, to produce a few kits. I also have permission to make changes with one of them, and rename the same looking model.

But, and it's a big butt. Who will buy them?

Why do you think kit makers are "prospecting?" We see them doing that. They only want to make what modelers will buy. Can't blame them.

I, on the other hand, build what interests me only. Someone wants a kit, I'll figure a way to do it.

Currently, I'm drawing everything in CAD. Just in case of laser cutting.

"The New American," available as a kit, of some nature, but not really.
As I said, someone has interest in the model, I'll find a way for them to get one.

The New American is the first model I designed that I have the parts for in CAD.

I did this only so others could enjoy the model.

Yea, I could call the Mag and do a feature article. No interest.

Charles

[Tom Niebuhr]

"Why would someone purchase your "different" plans, when the model, featured in the Mag, is their plans?"

The answer is very obvious.

The magazine publishes and sells the plans presented in the magazine article. Reprinting the magazine plan for any resale is stealing!

The reason for a "different" plan is not to compete with the magazine plan sales. it is for the kit! This yields the luxury of adding any updates to the kit plans.

[Avaiojet]

Tom,

Yes, I know all of that and more.

You're plans aren't the model in the featured article. They have to be different.

So, you actually cannot refer to the model in the feature article to pitch your plans or kit.

They have differences.

Isn't there already a CL model called the Hobo? I thought I saw a build?

Also, there's a Font called Hobo.

What's the model look like? You must be excited about it?

Charles

[Tom Niebuhr]

The kit is the model that was published. There might be updates included but, that would not change the name to anything but a "Hobo" or whatever. Any designer continually improves his design. Even full size airplanes are improved through their production run.

There is also nothing wrong with stating a reference to the article in the kit. That is good advertising for the mag. Usually any updates are small changes or improvements.

The build sequences that you have seen are of my building the prototype. 

I know there is a font called Hobo, but I use a different font that I like better.

[Avaiojet]

Tom,

Are you Sky Blue Models?

Great looking model, the "Hobo."

Here's a plug.

Now please tell me your covering method, step by step. 

You did a great job with that.

I see you hired a professional model to model the model.

Charles

[Tom Niebuhr]

"Are you Sky Blue Models?"

Bingo!

The "Hobo" has met all of my design goals. Easy, fast build, modern airfoil and moments, wide variety of engines, will do any maneuver you can dream up, easy step-up from the shaking and twisting profiles, competitive for Intermediate and Advanced, and "kit bashing" encourage. The "Hobo" has personality.  This airplane has nothing in common with all the 40 to 50 year old airplanes that have been re-kitted except for the simple box construction. Everything is laser cut and self jigging.

There has been much interest, and I am certain that the Model Aviation article will draw even more interest. I am creating a special list for those that express interest in building a "Hobo"

As for the finish, it is really simple. (I did not want to have an extravagant finish.) Several coats of clear on the frame work with sanding up to about 320 grit. Apply Polyspan shrink lightly with a $coat iron. Then spray analyn dye mixed with clear and thinner. Apply to get density you desire. Apply trim colors. (I used Brodak Gold and Madrid red.)  After applying the graphics, (in this case vinyl stencils were used), then a coat of auto clearcoat (I use PPG Global) That's it.

Oh, the character holding the "Hobo" just crashed the party.... almost broke the camera!

[Avaiojet]

The "Hobo" has met all of my design goals. Easy, fast build, modern airfoil and moments, wide variety of engines, will do any maneuver you can dream up, easy step-up from the shaking and twisting profiles, competitive for Intermediate and Advanced, and "kit bashing" encourage. The "Hobo" has personality.  This airplane has nothing in common with all the 40 to 50 year old airplanes that have been re-kitted except for the simple box construction. Everything is laser cut and self jigging.

Tom,

Sounds like you're talking about The New American. 

Charles

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Glad to see this topic come up - I have in mind producing a few kits myself and have permission from a couple of well-known designers, plus great connections with a few more.

What I'd really like to see is perhaps some differentiation between what is legal and what we consider ethical.  It's been my observation that a few of the better-known players have strange ideas about the latter ...  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"

Personally, I wouldn't feel right about kitting someone else's design without their permission.  But what happens when the designer is deceased or can't be located?

The other observation I would make is this: When Brodak produces an F-51 Mustang or Yak-9 with a wing structure that doesn't inculde shaped & notched leading and trailing edges, is it a Sterling Mustang or Yak-9?  When Pat Johnston produces the P-51D Mustang with a beautiful shaped and notched leading edge - but modifies several other components - is it a Sterling Mustang?

I think most who produce kits of the old designs - including the 2 providers mentioned above - are doing a great service.  But I would like to see more explanation when the original manufacturer's name is included in ads or listings and the structure has been modified.

Good topic!


Dennis
 

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Tom, I was looking at your website just an hour ago and might have to break down and buy a Wow kit.  A good friend built a Wowee in the '50s and I have that kit, but always thought the bigger one would be fun too.

A question if you don't mind, and for the group too:  How do you go about obtaining permission to do a model that's been out of production for years?  How far must one go to hunt down the rights to a design and/or the original designer?


Dennis
 

[Tom Niebuhr]

Dennis,
In the case of the Wow, Brodak has the rights to the Consolidated kits. John had no desire to kit the Wow and gave me permission.