Copyright

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

If you want to avoid trouble you can make 1copy of 1 article or 10% of a book in the UK.

 

So if Fred needs a few installments of a series, that’s about the (legal) limit.

 

Ultimately, it depends on whether or not someone has the will and the wish to pursue you.

 

Ethically, are you helping one model engineer and ripping another one off?

 

Or is it all harmless fun? I’ve had one picture published several times, but only a couple of those had permission – I was flattered!

 

Neil

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Ethically speaking, for the older issues the writer is probably long dead, his heirs and assignees are probably not traceable, and so nobody is likely to get hurt.

 

There is no method provided in law (that I have heard of)  for a publisher to establish good faith, eg suppose ME decides to reprint some issues from the forties, tries to establish rights, and can’t trace anybody. They should be able to go ahead and publish on the basis that the writer will get a reasonable, standard, predetermined payment if they ever show up and claim it. As things stand, you can’t budget for reasonable costs, someone can just show up and sue you.

 

Copyright is actually supposed to be a kind of deal between writers and the community. The ownership of a copyright is not a natural right, it is a right given by legislation to encourage the production of artistic and literary works. (The natural state of affairs is that you would be free to copy anything you can.) The opposite side of the deal is that after the limited period copyright expires, the work is supposed to go into the public domain. This state of affairs has been distorted to the point that you cannot safely determine that anything is in the public domain anymore, and this is unacceptable. 

 

Writers are rather prone to start saying” but I wrote this, I own it. “. Well, so long as you do not publish, you can cherish the ownership all you like. Once you publish it, you then get copyright protection…This does not imply ownership of the work, or of all the copies of the work, only the ownership of the right to make further copies, or control who makes tem. (With the exceptions that the law allows.) Some countries also have provisions relating to the right to be known as the author, I beleive the UK does this.

 

These legal rights only exist for a specific purpose, to encourage the production of further works. Because, being realistic, although it is nice to see ones name in the Model Engineer, that cheque in the mail is a real incentive to produce more works.

 

Incidently the copyright exists only in the existing arrangement of words, and in our case, the particular drawings and photographs. If there is something in an older article that our Editor wishes to use, but can’t get permission for, he can rewrite the article and redraw and rephotograph as needed. Copyright does not cover the actual design of the item…that would be the realm of patents, although perhaps in some jurisdictions the actual design can be protected. But usually that would require registration.

 

So you see if I get greedy about allowing ME to reuse one of the handful of articles I have written, it is very simple to work around the problem by getting someone to write an equivalent article. This may not help if we want a facsimile of an old issue, but does put a ceiling on what an old article can be considered to be worth.

 

Actually if the problem is republishing old issues on paper, the original author agreed to that at the time, so ME should be able to reprint further back issues should  they wish. But republishing in a different medium could be a problem.

 

regards

John

 

 

 

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says it all.

[Flying FiferParticipant @flyingfifer]

Just had a read of bits the ACT mentioned in KWIL`s post. Chapter 11 (2) though it doesn`t mention model engineering it does mention the word “literary” which I “suppose” means written ie magazine or newspaper or novel. It also says “artistic” ( Para 17 clause 3) “copying also includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work”

If thats the case anyone who makes a model or anything else from a plan or drawing is guilty of infringement of copyright !!  Which makes everybody on this forum who happens to be making something to a published design guilty !!

So the sooner all the magazines who encourage us to make things close down the better. Then we can all crawl back into our caves and contemplate our navels. Then I suppose some bright b****r will invent a thing called the wheel and we can all start all over again.

Sod it I`m away to make some swarf !!  

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by KWIL on 27/08/2010 10:19:50:

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says it all.

 

 .

 

But it was after this was produced that Nation Geographic had that test case that proved once and for all that if a magazine is copied electronically IN IT’S ENTIRETY then it is not breaking any law.

 

John S.

[Flying FiferParticipant @flyingfifer]

Isn`t National Geographic an American publisher ??  If so where was the test case held , UK or USA.

Alan

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Please bear in mind that the problem is international in its scope, and that although copyright laws are coordinated to some degree by the Berne convention, they are not all identical.

 

Note that copyright covers the artistic or creative aspects eg for writing, the arrangement of the words, the details of the plot and characters. Design patent  or registration also only covers the ornamental aspects, not functional aspects, and indeed makes provision for others to be able to make interchangeable spares. Ordinary patents do cover functional aspects, but of course are supposed to require a pretty high level of innovation. Neither design nor ordinary patents lay the trap that copyright does, in having an excessively long period of coverage with an indeterminate starting date. With also indeterminate ownership once the writer is deceased. (How many wills specificly cover “The article I wrote for Model Engineer 40 years ago” as an asset of the estate to be properly passed on to someone.)

 

I suspect that publishing a design in a magazine would be taken as having given a license to use the plans. Certainly when you write an article and send it in to say ME, you don’t include a document that tells them they are licensed to use this provided they pay you. It is taken that by sending the article in, you are willing for them to publish it at the standard rates and conditions, an implied license if you like.

 

regards

John

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

The case was held in the US and is a ruling under US Federal Copyright Law ONLY

[Author]

Posts