On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:57:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote in :
In fact, oddly enough, it is a matter of copyright law.
We discussed this in 2003 and again in 2005.
Here is the background information about BUILDINGS, reprinted from one of my posts from February 14, 2003, and February 9, 2005:
The copyright law was amended in 1990 to explicitly prohibit building more than one BUILDING from a set of ARCHITECTURAL plans.
"In December 1990, President Bush signed into law the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. Prior to this legislation, copyright protection for the work of design professionals was afforded only to drawings and specifications. The author of the design had no copyright remedy if a duplicate structure was constructed from the original drawings and specifications or from the building itself, provided the drawings and specifications were not copied.
"The 1990 Act retains copyright protection for drawings as "pictorial" or "graphic" works, and building from the original drawings or building is now a copyright infringement.
"Under the 1990 Act, a "building" encompasses habitable structures, such as houses and office buildings, as well as structures which are used but not inhabited by human beings, such as churches, pergolas, gazebos and garden pavilions. The Congressional Committee Report2 specifically notes that interior design is included in the definition of "building." Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not "buildings" under the definition of architectural works."
I suggest that model airplanes are NOT buildings and that plan sets are NOT architectural drawings in the meaning of the act. The framers of the legislation deliberately excluded things that are not BUILDINGS from this particular act. A model is not now and never has been a BUILDING, and so plans for models do not enjoy the protections given to plans for buildings under the 1990 act:
"A building in this context refers to a structure habitable by people, including houses and office buildings. Another exception to the copyright arises under the doctrine of fair use. Under certain circumstances, a use that might otherwise be deemed infringing is excused. In evaluating whether a particular use is a fair use, certain factors are considered?the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of a copyrighted work. For example, copying an article from a six-year old periodical for purposes of personal use would be fair use, while repeated copying of articles from current issues of the same periodical for commercial purposes would not because the latter would tend to deprive the copyright owner of subscription sales."