General Discussion

Melbournesparks · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:00 pm

I've been watching this with some interest, but won't comment just yet.

Just a question in the meantime though: What if I was to use a plan that was not drawn by the original designer of the piece of rollingstock, but rather someone else that has drawn it from measurements of the prototype? It's pretty rare that I can get the original plans, but often railway magazines and books publish "non official" plans and diagrams. I'd be very surprised if the authors of these plans have obtained permission from the original designer to draw them.

And another thing: To what extent must I use a plan or diagram (official or not) to be "building a scale model from the plans"? Some of the non official plans are not always accurate, so I don't copy every dimension or feature as it is on the plan. And in the case of official plans, often I may see them, but don't have copies of my own. So all I can do is note a few measurements or whatever from the plan. Or even just study them for a while and commit some parts to memory.

So it could be very difficult indeed to prove weather I used plans or not, and to what extent.

"I thought plan B was set something on fire..."

gallop3 · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:23 pm

A good point Alex, but I would say that it might apply the same as hand measuring the vehicle.
It's a bit of a can of worms in the interpretations.
Cheers
Ian

gallop3

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:28 pm

Melbournesparks the magazine would have to get permission to be able to print the plans or they would leave themselves open to action. If the plans are from measurements of the actual item then they would still be regarded as illegal copies.

steam4me · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:30 pm

According to G033.pdf, ".... You may draw, paint, photograph or film a building without permission." So I guess the textures for your building are not an issue.

According to G010.pdf ".... However, the Free Trade Agreement did not include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1 January 2005, it stays expired, and the material can be used freely (at least within Australia)."

ARG, read the PDFs that Alltrains pointed to a page or so ago. They contain much useful information.

No-one in the US appears to worry much about copied shapes, more so the logos. To quote one (payware) contributor .... "Frankly, I do doubt that anybody anywhere, GE, EMD, or Joe Blow really cares about what we are doing."

Alexander, looking at old AMRMs, the copyright notices I've seen usually point to the person drawing the plan rather than the loco builder / designer. This is an issue that certainly seems to have "slipped under the radar" thus far - maybe no loco builder does really care............

Yuri.

team-ALCO site (payware)

Steam4me site (freeware)

Bomn · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:18 pm

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:26 pm

If you are employed by a company and design something during your employment then that design is owned by the company that you work for and then the copyright has a life of 70 years now. when it involves a company there is no death clause in it it is from the date the design is completed. If you as a private person design something in your own time then it has a life of "from your death + 70 years", but seeing that we are talking about companies the from your death is not included

Bomn · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:39 pm

I'm not trying to start an argument or flame war and if I come across that way I apologise from the outset. I would hate to see peoples hobbies curtailed through incomplete information, misinformation or mis-understood information.

In using the 50/70 year rule you are assuming the company's involved hold the copyright. So since you don't know who the copyright holder is, the full information should be given so people don't scared confused.

You also stated that you would have to seek permission to have buildings in a game. In the Copyright act seems to show that this would not be the case. Reference.

Microsoft, in their flight sim game, acknowledge companies like Boeing for use of their respective trademarks but as far as I can see don't give acknowledgement for the copyright of their designs.

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:02 pm

With the likes of Flight sim Microsoft have had a licence for years to model airports, aircraft and buildings since the very first Flight sim. With companies that produce a product under there name like say ALCO not team-ALCO but American Locomotive Company they have a design dept and they employ people on their own staff to design their locos, now those designs are the property of ALCO and not the designer because those designers were employed and were paid to perform that task. Now when ALCO ceased production in 1969 they sold their designs to Montreal Locomotive Works of Canada who continued to build locos under the name of ALCO who were then the copyright owner of all ALCO designs. The Montreal Locomotive Works was sold to GE and in 1993 GE closed the Montreal Locomotive Works so now the designs are owned by GE.
Now the difference between the death + 70 and the just 70 is that this web site was designed by Michael Greenhill who is an individual who now owns the copyright and this copyright is valid for 70 years after Micheals death. Team-ALCO is a company that employs you to do their design work. Any design work that you do as an employee of Team-ALCO is owned by team-ALCO and the copyright is owned by Team-ALCO. Now as Team-ALCO cannot have a death date + 70 years this equasion cannot be used so the death part of it is dropped and it just becomes 70 years

podolski · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:47 pm

Alltrains, no one could give a smeg, to put it bluntly, up until now. Things seemed more "ease-free" before all this copyright mubo jumbo was brought up.

gallop3 · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:56 pm

Somehow, Podolski I would be taking ALL this advice very seriously.
With this country becoming a litigation fest copying the yanks.
Just because we are a few years behind in some ideas, litigation
lunacy is here already and well established.
If you dont give a smeg , go a head and not get the proper permissions.
But then again you are probably underaged so it would be your parents that would give a smeg.
Ask them and see what they think.
I for one would love to hear a quote of their reaction.
Cheers

gallop3

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:59 pm

podolski unfortunately Australia is becoming more like America every day with litigation in the courts for the simplest thing and when you do a raid like we did last night and scooped over 500000 pirate movies and the computers that were used to produce them and arrested three men so they could be sold at markets this weekend, then piracy and copyright breaches are a worry and a big business. To give you an idea one computer last night produced 10 copies every three minutes, now that is big business and a lot of money the lawful owner of the copyrights is not getting. How would you like to be the lawful owner of the copyrights?

podolski · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:23 pm

I'm not saying your wrong or anything along those lines, but as I stated before, everything was more relaxed around here before all this talk about who owns what and copyright issues.

Gallop3; I didn't say I didn't give a smeg, but that it was not a recognised concern for almost everyone here until all this talk about copyright. No one knew (or remembered) the extent of Australian copyright laws until alltrains pointed them out. (And I am of age, so no quote heading your way any time soon.)

Bomn · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:40 pm

gallop3 · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:54 pm

Now where does it say that Michael Greenhill did anything for team-ALCO.
If you read the post again it is 2 statements comparing the difference.
If you hadn't noticed there is a full stop after the word death.
This if you didn't know is the use of a full stop.
The education departments of today need investigation judging by some of the grammar used here.
Cheers

gallop3

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:58 pm

Bomn, you are not reading it properly the examples that were given are two seperate examples one was for Michael Greenhill and one was for Team-ALCO. So go back and read it again but this time stop when you come to the fullstop at the end of the Michael Greenhill example. Then start reading again at the start of the Team-ALCO sentance. All companies that manufacture there own designed product own the copyright of the product that they manufacture