As a follow up to the earlier problem with Magicalia and the issue of a Plans Catalogue as an alternative to a normal MEW issue, its legal representatives have written to a number of the YahooGroups who have posted old articles from ME and MEW demanding their removal- or else. Magicalia claims that the copyright still remains valid.
From what I can gather, the 'offending' postings have been removed.
>From what I can gather, this removes all the construction notes on the
remaining plans in their new catalogue.
No doubt, we will each take our own view of the present situation and re-act accordingly.
Is there any reason why you might imagine the copyright does not remain? Copyright in the UK exists for 70 years from the death of the author. Since MEW has only been going for about 10 years it is difficult to see how any copyright *could* have expired, unless they made a habit of re-printing very old articles (which they haven't).
There *are* circumstances in which copying of in-copyright material is permitted. Publishing them in their entirety on web-sites for anyone to make use of is definitely not one of them.
Tony, from what I can see - or rather NOT see in my Yahoo Groups folder
- it seems to be the "Geometer" and "Beginners Workshop" groups at the least, Norman may know of some others.
These had many of the old "Duplex" articles in them which were quite interesting. James Early had spent a considerable time making PDF's of these which may otherwise have been lost to many.
I have been in touch with Carl Carlson of the Quorn groups. Please tell him that I am supporting his concerns.
Again, I believe that J W Early has most of mlathemods ones. Here, I helped post the Martin Cleeve stuff from the 50's. I have also written to James
My quick scan this morning suggests one large chaos with only photos left in many groups. By all means, readers can have any support from me. I feel that this is the beginning of the end of model engineering. I hope that I am wrong!
Interesting. The situation as I understand it (at least, for the articles I have written for the mags over the years) is that what the mag bought from me was essentially the right to publish the article in a single issue of the mag; however, I retain the copyright to my articles. The wrinkle here though is that the magazine retains copyright of their particular choice of layout, etc. - so you can't reproduce pages of the mag without infringing both the mag's and the author's copyright, but if you were to present the same material in a different form (on a web page, say) where it was obvious that you hadn't simply photocopied bits of the mag, then only the author's copyright would be infringed.
So if these were PDFs of scanned pages from the magazine, then Magicalia actually has a legal right to tell the group to remove the material. However, if you take the trouble to transpose the text, pics, and drawings into a suitable word processing/image editing/CAD format, and post that on the web somewhere, and you have the Author's permission, then, assuming the Author has the same agreement with the mag that I do, I believe you can raise the proverbial digit in the general direction of Encanta.
For example, many of the articles I have written appear on my website
- not as magazine page images, but as web pages of my own construction. If I chose to do so, I could grant you the right to publish those articles on your website, post them, on a Yahoo group, or whatever, and Encanta would have nothing to say about it.
The Question still remains of whether it is 25 or 70 years for what is 'copyright' in this instance. There are greater minds which have gone into this than mine.
Perhaps a better view is to see what has been written and a visit to the wreckage of these sites will still contain sufficient detail to know more.
I did write minutes ago to Carl Carlson at snipped-for-privacy@earhlink.net of all this.
Being somewhat of oblique mind, there is nothing in any of the articles which is actually ground breaking. Even Chaddock's much vaunted Quorn is development out of yet another Tool and Cutter grinder!
Norman, for once I don't agree with you, model engineers are inventive, determined and resourceful individuals who will not be thwarted by the money grabbing accountants currently running various organizations.
With any research project one reads the "source" and uses the information gained to write a "new" interpretation of the same basic principles. So an updated presentation of this information even giving due recognition to the original source would I feel not give Magicalia or any other such organization any cause for concern.
I for one would certainly be willing to "research" some historical model engineering articles and present MY version of the engineering techniques that have been successful for many. I would of course be very happy to give recognition to my source material and also waive any copyright I may gain in presenting the fruits of my research.
So the classic ' Bird with the Broken Wing' worked!
Now for the 'Wooden Horse' It just so happens that I have crates of Martin Cleeve stuff. I have the 'Stent' drawings( no copyright that i can see) In my garage are the Kennet drawings. Big question mark but the Quorn Operating instructions are NOT copyrighted.
When do you want them? I warned of a devious mind.
Obviously you are, model engineering was around for decades before the internet was a twinkle in someone's eye so the ide that a copyright owner trying to protect their legal property from piracy on the net is going to end the hobby is quite laughable. I have a radical suggestion for you, why not spend a few bob on some genuine books as almost all of us have done in the past, if people don't then where's the incentive for anyone to write any more?. Greg
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.