CLASSIC" TALON " PLANS WANTED

[Denny Melancon]

Greetings.  I am looking for a set of plans for the " Talon " .  This is the jet style classic stunter. I have heard that there have been some flown at the vsc.  If anyone has plans for it and would like to share or sell them,  I would really appreciate it.  I will buy them,  pay for a copy and shipping,  or if you sent them to me,   I will copy them, ship them back along with the money you spend to get them to me.  Thanks much  Denny    ps,  If you would, please email  me at denny@cajunrc.com with TALON in the subject and your phone number.  

[Gary Mondry]

Denny,

Jim Kostecky's Talon is in the Flying Models plans list, CF62, from the December 1966 issue.  Although it hasn't made it into their work-in-progress on-line catalog, I've got it on a hard copy list from several years ago.  Give them a call.

By phone: (between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time)

(973) 383-3355 or (888) 526-5365

[Randy Powell]

I have that plan. Never built it mostly because I really want to build the Formula S

[Wynn Robins]

i'll e-mail it to you on Monday - just take it to kinkos or similar and get it printed .......the one I have is Dave Rees

[Denny Melancon]

Guys   Thanks so much.  I love the jet styling,   I am looking forward to getting them.   Thanks Again   Denny

[Dean Pappas]

Two words: copyright infringement.
Dean Pappas

[Randy Powell]

Dean,

Exactly.

[Neville Legg]

I've looked in the 1966 FM that the Talon plan is in, and there is no mention of a copyright on the plan! I built the Talon in the '60's directly from the magazine, my pencil marks are still on the page. There is a scale on the plan to allow you to scale the plan to the correct size, so if I draw the plan up to full size, using the scale in the magazine, then make a spare copy of it, is that copyright infringement? I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here! Is the copyright with the designer who is sadly no longer with us, does the copyright die with the designer?

Cheers

[John Miller]

I've looked in the 1966 FM that the Talon plan is in, and there is no mention of a copyright on the plan! I built the Talon in the '60's directly from the magazine, my pencil marks are still on the page. There is a scale on the plan to allow you to scale the plan to the correct size, so if I draw the plan up to full size, using the scale in the magazine, then make a spare copy of it, is that copyright infringement? I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here! Is the copyright with the designer who is sadly no longer with us, does the copyright die with the designer?

Cheers

You've posed some good questions.

Copyrights have changed in the last 20-30 years. It is no longer necessary to register the "Art work" for it to be copyrighted. The copyright is automatically created at the same time the "Artwork" is created.

It's no longer necessary to have a copyright notice on the work, but it is good form to use one.

When the copyright holder passes on, the rights transfer to the estate, and the heirs.

In the case of published plans, The copyrights are usually transfered to the publisher, and remain with them as long as they are in business. after that, the rights revert to the heirs of the publisher.

[Wynn Robins]

Two words: copyright infringement.
Dean Pappas

so all the plans that people have copied and built off over the years are all infringing on copyright? how about tracing parts - or for that matter photocopying parts so you can cut them out? that is a copyright violation also.

 Looks like there are a LOT of people in trouble around the world then.  I can list at least 30 people on THIS forum alone that have copies of plans that I know about.......

the whole point of me collecting plans was to preserve them for the future and also so people can use them/build from them - guess I will just have to sit on the 20,000 plans I have collected over the last 9 years and let the moths eat them in fear of being persued for trying to help out fellow modellers who want to keep the classics alive ...my bad.

apologies to ALL that have received plans in the past - please DESTROY them so nobody can use them....

[Terrence Durrill]

Nobody is going to bother you about a a copyright unless you are making money by selling the plans, kit or what ever.  A lot of people around here want to create an air of exclusiveness on certain designs.  Unless you are making money by selling this stuff or costing someone SIGNIFICANT MONEY by giving away plans and kits, you will not be bothered, except by those people who want to create that air of exclusiveness mentioned earlier.  I have been around the obtaining and drawing of plans activities, building and flying of model airplanes since 1953.  Don't sweat it!.....TDurrill                    

[PatRobinson]

Hi Guys,
I think Terrence has it right about the law, but not necessarily the motivations of other folks concerned about the use of plans. I asked my local UPS store guy about copying a set of plans to build on and a set to cut up for parts templates and he said "No problem, but if you asked for a hundred copies then they require proof of copyright ownership because you are obviously selling plans and that can create legal hassles they want to avoid.

I have another question on this subject that doesn't get mentioned. Let's say Joe D. Stunter designed a plane and sold it to Potomac Publications/American Aircraft Modeler in 1968. In other words, it seems that Joe has sold the copyright and commercial rights to this design. Then Potomac Publications/American Aircraft Modeler go out of business, so they do not renew any copyrights to anything. Does Joe D. Stunter's design then enter public domain?  Did the original contract Joe signed have a clause that defaults the copyrights and commercial rights back to Joe if the the company goes out of business?

If Joe was the only source of plans then he and his estate clearly retains all ownership to the design, however If an ongoing company like Carstens Plans/Flying Model bought the design then I would presume that the copyright and  commercial rights to sell plans of the design is transfered to Carstens/Flying Models. Is that the case?

So,any copyright infrigement would be against Carstens and not Joe D. Stunter, or do I have this wrong? 

I think it is laudatory for Kit makers to go to the original designer or his family for permission to use a design.
I also think that it is common sense for stunt people to buy their plans from Flying Models because Flying Models has been a faithful source of stunt imformation all these years. This also applies to all our cottage plan suppliers who made the effort to make so many out-of-print plans available to us all. New plans suppliers like Pat Johnston and John Miller deserve our support for their hard work, so please buy from them.

However,I think it is also common sense that a casual non-commercial sharing of a plan with a buddy is not a huge moral crisis. Common sense, perspective and good will should guide our way in all this.

                                                                                  Best Wishes,
                                                                                                   Pat Robinson

[Ward Van Duzer]

Joe D. Stunter designs a model airplane and sends photos, text, and sketches of his creation to Flipping Models.

Flipping Models editor adds captions to the pictures and has the plan drawn and inked by Danny Draftsman.

(This is the way it happens, right)?

So, who owns the plan?

W.

[John Miller]

Joe D. Stunter designs a model airplane and sends photos, text, and sketches of his creation to Flipping Models.

Flipping Models editor adds captions to the pictures and has the plan drawn and inked by Danny Draftsman.

(This is the way it happens, right)?

So, who owns the plan?

W.

Ward, I'll take a stab at answering your question.

Joe D Stunter starts out owning the rights to the design as he concieved it. Now, since he never created what could be called plans is only a minor issue.

He sold the rights to the publisher, "Flipping models", and was paid for his work, and rights. He can, and sometimes designers do, reserve some rights, and reversion back to them, should the publisher cease to exist.

In this case, "Flipping Models" commisions, and pays Danny Draftsman to create the plans. The copyright belongs to the entity that commisioned and paid for them. Had Danny Draftsman not been paid for his work, then the copyright belongs to him.

In most cases, when you buy a set of plans from a publisher, you are actually buying a license to create models from that set of plans. It could be argued that you don't actually own the plans, just the license to use it.

Pat's question about not renewing copyrights, and public domain, is a little more difficult to answer, as there have been changes in the copyright laws where many of these pieces of "Art Work" do not have the copyright run out. Many older copyrights were grandfathered into these new regulations.

What most kit makers today do is the following.

They seek the permission of the original designer if possible, or the heirs of they can be found. If the plans were published, and the publisher is still around, they seek permission from them also.

While it is common practise for hobbiests to swap and share plans, the practise can, in fact, be in trouble with copyright issues, should the owners chose to persue the matter. Most will not persue the issue unless  the hobbiest is hurting their business, selling large amounts of their plans.

In a more perfect world, I would like to see us using the plans service from the publishing houses if they are still available first. If the plans are available from a source that holds the copyrights, I feel they should be our first choice.

If the plans are not available from such sources, then you should not have any problems with copyright issues when you trade and sell individule sets of plans.

It's a whole 'nutther issue, when a new document is created from an old drawing. Under most conditions, it becomes a new document with a new copyright going to the creator of the new document. There are some specific rules for this though, and simply copying the plans into a new format like CAD, Is not enough to make a new document.

[Terrence Durrill]

Isn't it true that a copyright, like a patent is not automatic, but must be applied for through the Bureau of Patents and Copyrights (United States Government bureauracy).  There has to be some authority to confirm your right to the item.  Anyway, the rules for copyrights and patents in the United States are outlined in, YES, the Constitution of the United States (I taught it for 31 years in the Public Schools).  Check it out.... TDurrill    

[John Miller]

It used to be so, but the rules governing copyrights were changed some years ago. Now, unless they've been changed again, you no longer have to apply for the copyright, it's created at the time the art work is created. Plans such as the ones we use, are considered art work. Only the document is copyrighted, and you cannot patent airplane design in whole.

I beleive that in the case of a dispute, the one who proves the oldest document wins.

Electronic documents are often time stamped in the file, which makes proving the origin date easier. Of course the disputing document would have to be nearly identical to the other for there to be a dispute.

Still, remember that most likely no one is going to bother with hobbiests trading plans with each other.