More copyright woes ?

More often than not, the answer is yes. And it's getting worse. Defense manufacturers, in many cases, are demanding exhorbitant fees/royalties from companies producing kits of subjects that were developed with taxpayer money in the first place. There is a bill in Congress that will prevent them from doing so. For full information, click on the following link:

Every manufacturer or owner of a copyrighted product seems to want a piece of the pie, no matter how small the pie is. For example, there was a guy in Canada who was producing aftermarket decal sheets that would allow you to create different spacecraft from the basic Enterprise starship. We're talking about doing nothing more than changing the markings. He was a true garage manufacturer, in that he was producing them in his garage and selling maybe 50 sheets a year. Paramount (the studio that owns the Star Trek franchise) went so far as to serve him with a cease and desist order. The alternative was a fee demand that was far beyond his total sales. Result? Out of business.

This kind of thing is not only depressing, it also partially explains why our kits cost so much. And why some kits with limited sales potential are never produced in the first place.

Richard Marmo

Oops! The link to the page about the Congressional bill concerning fee/royalty demands didn't post completely. Here it is. Sorry about that!

Richard Marmo

What is worrying is that I think 3D computer simulation represents the future for all kinds of modelling.

(kim)

More and more they do (both model and decal companies). I personally feel that owners of copyright and other rights are taking advantage, and using these rights beyond the intended purpose. I'd like to see some company with deep pockets take this to court!

Copyrights may be more applicable than trademarks. Both were originally intended to protect a business from someone else "counterfitting" their product. No one in their right mind buying a model of something believes they are buying the prototype! Now, with something like logos, the law does include "derivatives", so this area is a bit different than a trademark.

Also, there has to be "damages". How is a copyright holder damaged by a decal company including a given logo on an image of decals for, say a racing car? Seems to me the logo was intended for advertising, and in decal form it gets even more exposure, hence there is no damage but rather an advantage.

Unfortunately, you are applying something that today is in seriously short supply. Common sense. The problem is that we are butting heads with something that has far more power. Greed.

Richard Marmo http://modelersweap> > I know this has been discussed before but what's the answer to all this? > >

3D computer simulation will ultimately take over modelbuilder...if it hasn't already. Will there be a place for physical scale models? The answer to that is a qualified yes. But they will be few and far between, limited to those who understand and appreciate the value and place of a physical model.

If you want an idea of where things are going, look up the current definition of a modelbuilder. Modelbuilders are now described as someone who creates three dimensional models on a computer screen. Worse, there is an actual software program called Modelbuilder. Google that word and the first three pages are nothing but entries related to mathmatical and graphic computer modeling...with a single exception. On the third page, about a third of the way down, Google does get around to listing my modelbuilding services website. Makes you feel like the last dinosaur, doesn't it?

Richard Marmo

Richard Marmo said the following on 24/05/07 16:46:

Then it'll get to airshows and the photography of aircraft with the equivalent of something like a playlist that clubs have to say how many times they've played something and who by. It's gettin' crazy I tells ya!

What made me smile was the response from a Publicity Officer from the MoD who said that the roundel was protected to keep it in the best light.

So, no more wars then! :-)

Richard.

kim said the following on 24/05/07 15:18:

There has been a machine since the old DOS days that, connected up to a computer, would make a resin shape from a CGI 3D shape.

That would be one way of reverse engineering - of sorts.

Richard.

Why go to all the trouble of making a physical model when it will one day be possible to display a 3D likeness on a flat screen monitor which is identical or even superior in some respects to a physical model? It's not that far away.

(kim)

kim said the following on 24/05/07 19:13:

Well, if you were a manufacturer for short run kits, you could take a fuselage part for instance then make your own mold rather than have to do milling and all sorts of other tooling up.

Richard.

kim said the following on 24/05/07 19:13:

Actually a plastic kit part is useful as a reference tool where drawings with few cross-sections on a plan don't suffice. Take the F-104 fuselage for instance!

So, hurrah for plastic kits (from a CGI person).

Richard.

on 5/24/2007 1:46 PM Richard Brooks said the following:

I always thought that the British roundel looked like an archery target. :-)

on 5/24/2007 2:13 PM kim said the following:

Where's the fun in not getting glue and paint all over your hands?

message

message

Besides, a physical model touches the soul in a way that a 3D likeness does. This also applies to an honest-to-God book with pages you can touch and turn versus an e-book where you simply scroll down the screen. There's a place for both. One shoudn't replace the other.

Richard Marmo

Why ask why?

;-)

WmB

Because you can't feel it. There's no tactile input. It's just a pretty picture. As much as I like great pictures I really love to run my fingers over my models while building them. I like to look at the finished product, I like moving them around to get different perspectives. I think gazing at a screen will be so much less. I feel sorry for those who will think that's the bee's knees.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

Couldn't have said it better. Art (dare I say models are art...they certainly can be, just like a real book) touches many more senses than just sight, which is what computer-gen is limited to. It's a no- brainer to me.

TF

You are entirely correct. Models are, indeed, art and we modelers are artists in the true sense of the word. There is such a thing as computer art, but it still doesn't replace art that is painted on canvas. If only more people would realize that fact.

Richard Marmo

I think that a number of people, like us, want to work with their hands and computers don't do it for us. Some of these crafts have stuck around for a very long time - my wife and daughter make quilts, largely by hand. My wife was adding to her stash and the lady at the fabric counter could NOT understand why people would want to MAKE clothes. My daughter does "CGI" for The Sims as a hobby, yet she also quilts. And, no, she does not make quilt patterns on the computer. Of course, to be honest, I should mention that my son is a stage carpenter, his job is surprisingly like our hobby - just 1:1 scale. But he works with -live stage- , which is another old fashioned survival.

I don't think that hand-made things are going anywhere. What they are may vary - remember the retired Phillipino Dentist and his hand machined Corsair? It's on one of the big modeling sites, I don't remember which one. People still even make scrimshaw.

Model trains and train watching are still going strong.

There is, and will be, a place for all kinds of hobbies. I don't care if what I like is popular or not as long as it is popular enough to keep me supplied. Besides, we boomers are going to start retiring soon and people will be looking for things to keep their minds occupied.