I was after a areo kit plan a few months ago. I tried to buy them from j..... But thy where not interested and couldn't be bothered to return my calls. So I asked on this site some kind member did PM me one 😊 but not before I was accused of promoting illegal activity on this website. And that was for just discussion the copyright that really p.. me off. I have spoken to a friend who is a top RC aircraft designer and he said it was for 25 years and was hard to enforce . he did not want his name mentioned because is publisher will not be happy

Fireboat,

I publish plans and pictures on my websites. I go to the rights holders first, and get agreement to do this. it doesn't seem difficult to do, and I now have agreements from most of the major model companies. For pictures of Aerokits from the old Keil Kraft catalogues, go to Amerang (now part of Ripmax)...

Hi Martin,

The drawings were once downloadable and unfortunately the website received a copyright warning. The plans cannot be published on the internet for free download.

Without going to court and losing... the alternative was to blur the photos.

Stephen

Thanks, Dodgy. Will do.
I'll leave you to deal with the protectors of the webmaster. Even I can copy clear photos, but I can't be arsed with excuses, hence my bowing out of this forum.
PM coming.
Cheers,
Martin

We know that he runs a web page, so presumably can handle pictures. We can recognise pictures scanned from a catalogue. I run some similar web pages for a different set of boats and I have no problems with getting agreement to produce decent pics.


Martin, Message me as eezebilt at hotmail.co.uk, and I'll send you some better plan drawings...

I think it's very unfair to accuse the author of blurring the photos intentionally. They're only there to support the article which nobody has even bothered to mention if I'm correct. Those photos are a dime a dozen on the internet and we have no idea whether the author is skilled at copying and pirating photos from one source and placing them on another. We also don't know if they're photos he's taken himself with an old brownie box camera many years ago. They may have been out of focus from the outset, but he may have used them to overcome copyright issues which the site owners may enforce.

How about looking at the donut and stop complaining about the hole. it's not going to go away.

Thanks, DG.
Looks like I'll have to find reference elsewhere as whoever runs this outfit clearly isn't going to answer, so I'm out. Keep in touch, mate.

Martin

However, I can see Martin's concern. This board seems to offer some research material about fireboats and aerokits generally, but many of the images are intentionally so poor as to be useless. That seems to be intentional, since many of them are scanned from much better initial sources.

As an example, there's a person currently on the Model Boats board who wants to know what the Aerokits yachts Tara and Sea Hawk looked like. There is a picture of TARA on the board under the Aerokits section, but I can't refer him to it - it's just a blob. And it must have been scanned from the catalogue, where it would have been available in readable format. Why are all the pictures so poor?

I have followed this thread with little interest and to quote the bard, Much ado about nothing 😁


Alan

But I've seen some of those photos bigger and clearer, so to publish them blurred is a strange thing to do. Peoplefret far too much about copyright.
Who's going to give a toss about a few ancient shots of a boat of which a mere 2 examples were built?
I'm still waiting to hear from whoever put them up here! And so, I suspect are a lot of others.
As to a screen grab, I have no idea how to do that and shouldn't need to.
Martin

It's actually against the law to claim copyright on another person's works. if the photos and plans on the site weren't taken or drawn by the author, he or she has no claim to copyright. Unless the copyright has expired (in Australia it's the life of the author plus 50 years in most cases) it's also illegal to take photos from another web source and use them in an article unless the original source is acknowledged. That's internet piracy.

I think the Model Boats site uses the Copyright notice on most of its pages. it's terribly old fashioned because a screen grab easily overcomes the problem.

A link like the one I used is totally legal and that's all any author need to do. Being directed to another site can be very beneficial.

The original photos may have been out of focus and you can't put back what wasn't originally there.

Yeah I've seen those, but my point is why put them on here and then make them not only copyrighted, but useless?

This should be one of the sites on the net where such research can be done

Martin

There's a heap of research material for this boat on the net without worrying about the blurred photos on this site. Here's one link that may help. it's the MkII version I think and the large photos are crystal clear:

http://www.vintagemodelworks.co.uk/?page_id=18

The plans will be out there for sure.

Well, there's odd. I just went on that ppage again and the pictures could be saved, but then I went on the plns page and they were still copyrighted, even though many are the same photo!
Come on, whoever put them up there, give us the plans, preferably clear, but I'll take em as they are!!

Martin

Frankly, DG, sod the mouse, it's the shitty little pictures and plans of the Crash Tender I'm interested in which will make nobody any money and can only help people. if they were available as a pack for, say £3-50, I'd buy them, but if they are going to be on here at all, let them be readable and downloadable, otherwise they're a waste of cyber space. Who runs this show, anyway? Why haven't we had an answer yet from someone who can do something about it?

Martin

Edited to say that when I first saw that page I did indeed download some of it. Later I got the copyright tosh. How does that happen?

The copyright legislation is known in the US as the 'Mickey Mouse' law - because Walt Disney required the legislators to pick dates so that the earliest Mickey Mouse films remained in copyright.

The concept of copyright is based on a social bargain. Someone writes something which is of general interest to humanity (or, for patents, invents something which is of similar use). To make any money out of it they would have to keep it secret and only allow limited access to it - as the Guild system worked in the Middle Ages.

The idea of copyright was that if an author published widely, the state would enforce a monopoly for a limited time, so that the author was teh only person who could get paid. But after that, the document would be free for public use. This original time was quite limited - 14 14years (if extended). But companies have had it extended - currently to 2 lifetimes. When it was pointed out to some lobbyists that they could not have 'indefinite' copyright, since the concept clearly required it to be 'limited', one lobbyist proposed the term of 'forever minus one day'.

It is a truism that copyright as it stands is broken and oppressive. But who is going to stand up to the Mouse?

So who's behind it all and that silly "copyright material thing"?

That's like having a no photography rule in a public museum!

Martin

I totally agree Martin, I have just tried the "snipping" tool to get a better look, but still very blurred.
It seems pointless to have a pic of them on the site, if you can't see anything of any use.