Licensing of Model Kits

Don Stauffer wrote:


Actually, I know if a case where this applies. Photographing places of business may violate the business' copyright. My middle-school daughter went to a birthday party held in the food court of a local mega-mall. The mother-in-charge thought it would be really cool to have a Scavenger Hunt by giving the girls a list of things to find and having them fan out into the mall to take photos of the target items with a digital camera. At virtually every business, the girls were told they could not take photographs inside the store of any merchandise or even the exterior of the store. I later asked my attorney brother-in-law what the deal was and he answered "intellectual property rights". The businesses has exclusive rights to their logos, product images, etc. and therefore have a certain amount of contorl over how images of those items are presented, used, etc.
BTW: The Scavenger Hunt was a bust ;^)
Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I understand copyright law today, this can already be the case (depending on several factors). But the essence of it: you can take the photograph and use it for private use assuming you otherwise have permission from the designer to take the photograph. If you have not been granted the right to produce copies of the design and you do so for material gain the designer may have a case.
Several examples of towns or businesses attempting to stop the taking of photographs of public art and buildings ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html http://www.truefresco.com/dcforum/DCForumID61/2.html
I understood you meant the copyright of the designer's image. In my example, the photographer/publisher was sued by the artist of the art piece that was in the photographer's photograph of the building. The artist claimed copyright on all images of his artwork. The judge disagreed in this case, partly because the artwork was on public display and partly because the book was about buildings, not artwork.
(if i remember correctly and google isn't helping me find the case)
Some museums allow you to take photographs - for example, the Museum of Fine Arts here in Boston allows pictures (albiet w/o flashes). Some don't - a Harvard University museum with a Dega exhibit I went to this summer explictely stated on the ticket (and big signs all over the entrance) that photographs were forbidden.
I believe in the MFA case, you own the copyright to the picture you took. But, I've never read the fine print on the ticket and there could easily be language in there that prevents me from making money off the picture. And, keep in mind much of the art in museums was created long before copyright law came into effect.
But again, I am not a lawyer. And, as in many things law related, it depends a lot on context.
More copyright info ...
http://www.copyright.gov / http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html http://nyls.blogs.com/ip2005/2005/10/control_of_modi.html
--
snipped-for-privacy@food.skaterat.net
All foods should be removed to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The PIMA air museum has a strict policy of no photography for commercial use allowed without prior permission. I would assume that permission would cost $. There was no prohibition against photography for personal use. I have been to probably 100 museums and that is the only time I have encountered that policy.
This will get interesting and sticky.
Here is an interesting thought. If I am photographing the MILITARY MARKINGS of an aircraft, they certainly aren't protected by the copyrights, trademarks, patents or any other property rights of the aircraft manufacturer or designer, but by the rights of the company or agency that had them marked that way.
So now the arguement would be how many entities would own the various rights marks and patents involved.
Take a picture of an aircraft, identify every company or organization that has rights to the various components, markings, or labels and get a signed release before you upload that next picture to your commercial web site.
This is prime lawyer fodder .
John McGrail wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It may be able to be argued that your hypothesis would apply to national markings only; in that the stenciling could be considered "inherent to the design of the aircraft", and therefore intellectual property of the manufacturer...externally speaking.
Heaven help you if you open up any doors or bays...
--
- Rufus

Jeff Barringer wrote:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Barringer wrote:

Here's another interesting example: the National Air and Space Museum has a large collection of photographs, many of them from official sources. If you want to use one of "their" photos in a publication, you have to pay a fee and they REQUIRE that you credit them. This is from a US government institution which is in most part funded by the taxpayer. Their application form says that none of their photos can be reproduced, resold, or commercially used without their permission.
See http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/WebPDF/BookApp.pdf
For commercial web usage, they want $125 per image. For non-profit web usage, the price is "negotiable".
Interestingly they mention that some of their materials may have an NASM copyright, but by law the US government does not copyright its materials. i.e. US Code Title 17, sec 105: Subject Matter of Copyright: United States Government Works - " Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise".
John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer wrote:

From what I was told, a copyright is not automatic - the copyright (or the intent to obtain copyright) must be declared in some fashion by the originator, either by a labeling the article, and/or filing the paperwork.
Something that comes up in webpage authoring classes - you get a bit of copyright law as regards posting work to the net.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2005-11-03, Rufus wrote:

While that used to be true, the Berne convention/treaty changed all that (at least for the countries that signed it). Now, copyright is granted as soon as the work is created. You get additional protections by filing the paperwork (ie registering), but your works are still protected regardless of whether they are registered or whether they contain 'copyright (c) ...'.
Except if the works were created before the Berne Convention was signed (and I forget what year that was). Then a whole different set of rules applies ;)
A very useful resource (at least for US-ians)
http://www.copyright.gov /
Particularly amusing is
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#elvis
--
snipped-for-privacy@food.skaterat.net
All foods should be removed to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John McGrail wrote:

Ok...I know the laws change, and my info was several years old. Thanks.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Superczynski wrote:

Well, sheeeit! Where were all you air- and tread-heads when the manufacturers started licensing for *car* kits? Maybe we can put together a discrimination class action suit so AMT can make a '68 ROADRUNNER instead of a '68 'Belvedere' hardtop. See if we teach *you* how to do a mirror-finish gloss coat ever again! -- C.R. Krieger Car Guy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C.R. Krieger wrote:

The difference is that military hardware designs are usually paid for and owned by the USG, car designs are not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It would be nice if they did the same with NASA - I read an article today that in general there are few models of exploration spacecraft. According to the article JPL and CalTech have an agreement with LEGO that they have the rights to exploratory spacecraft models. According to the article Lego had the rights to the two Mars craft that crashed/disappeared. Joke was they would have had to market it as the Mars Failure Set.
Val Kraut
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
THANKS guys. Kurt, ya had me goin' there for about 3 seconds!!
NOW, all we have to do is e-mail/call our Senators and Congresspersons (NOTE MY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!) to actually pass the bills and send them to the President to sign!!!!! They still haven't gotten around to passind the defense bills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
THANKS GUYS!! Kurt, ya' had me goin there for about 3 seconds.
Now, all we have to do is call/e-mail/otherwise annoy our respective members of Congress and get them to actuall pass the Defense bills so the President can sign them.
HINT!! HINT!! HINT!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK. I'm getting concerned. I checked the Congressional website which shows pending bills. The defense bill is there alright but I didn't see a word about the licensing issue.
The bill I saw that came out of conference committee didn't say anything about it. OH NO, MR BILL!!!!!!!
Is there someone out there with some professional expertise on the legislative process such as a staffer who could help?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Hopfully, the language previously posted about which I raise concern was removed in Committee. That would be fine by me - they can certainly do better, for what we pay them.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.