a samll rortary table by g.h. thomas

[awake]

My apologies for starting us down this road with the question - I wasn't trying to critique nor to stir up any controversy, but was genuinely curious. From what I have gleaned above, it sounds like you may not have violated any rights - based on the issue (no pun intended) with UK magazine copyrights that Cogsy describes.

Actually, I suspect that this discussion has clearly revealed that when it comes to copyright, as with so many other things, the exact answer is, "it depends." If something is published in two different venues - a magazine and a book - where exactly does the copyright reside? And is there a difference between the typography and the IP?

I have a friend who went to law school a few years ago, and I remember asking him if something (don't remember what) was legal. He quickly answered, "No one knows - it hasn't been litigated yet. Would you like to be the first?" It may be that the answers to the questions we have raised above fall into this same category!

 

[Charles Lamont]

I'm also, very much not a lawyer, but from what I've read everywhere from Wikipedia to copyrightaid.co.uk basically says the same thing. From copyrightaid.co.uk : "in the UK, copyright in the actual typographical layout of the published editions only last for 25 years from the end of the year in which it was published. In other words reproducing the magazines by scanning them would not pose any problem" . Now I have interpreted this, quite possibly incorrectly, that this means the article in question is OK as regards copyright, but I definitely don't know for sure.

I am pretty sure it does not. Typographical arrangement is not related to the content. It does not even mean how the content is set out on a particular page, the fonts used, etc. It refers to the 'look and feel' or 'house style'of the whole publication, but not to the actual content. The look of The Sun is as different from the look of The Guardian as their respective take on the world is, and that look is copyrightable. The words, drawings and photos, are still quite separately copyright as a literary work for 70 years after the death of the owner of the copyright in that content. Tell me I'm wrong (I won't mind).
https://www.digitisingmorgan.org/uploads/BN2-typographical arrangement_DigiMorgan.pdf

dethrow55, please stop apologising.

 

[Cogsy]

I am pretty sure it does not. Typographical arrangement is not related to the content. It does not even mean how the content is set out on a particular page, the fonts used, etc. It refers to the 'look and feel' or 'house style'of the whole publication, but not to the actual content. The look of The Sun is as different from the look of The Guardian as their respective take on the world is, and that look is copyrightable. The words, drawings and photos, are still quite separately copyright as a literary work for 70 years after the death of the owner of the copyright in that content. Tell me I'm wrong (I won't mind).
https://www.digitisingmorgan.org/uploads/BN2-typographical arrangement_DigiMorgan.pdf

dethrow55, please stop apologising.

I can't tell you you're wrong, in fact I'm even more confused now after looking at that link. It repeatedly mentions enduring copyright on the original works (I assume in regards to republishing) but seems to be all about whether copying and distributing complete articles from newspaper or magazine breaches the typographical copyright or not. The way I read it, that seems to be the point of contention and suggests that if the topographical copyright is not being breached then it's alright to do so. I wish they'd just adopted the USA standard with a blanket magazine protection of 95 years!

To further confuse matters, they give an example of a book published in 2010 with typographical copyright expiring in 2035, then a subsequent reprint in 2015. Now if that 2015 reprint is substantially the same layout as the 2010 (so just a repressing) then the typographical copyright for the 2015 version does not extend from the original and still expires in 2035, but if it's been reworked with a new layout (even though it's exactly the same text), the 2015 version will have a typographical copyright until 2040. Now what are we to make of this? What is it that we can do with the 2010 version after 2035 that we cannot do with the 2015 edition until after 2040? Now as a book the literary content is protected for 70 years after the death of author so I have no idea. All I can rely on is some very clear advice from many other sources that copying UK magazines over 25 years old is legal, but they could certainly be wrong, or mistaken, or possibly it hasn't been litigated yet so it's untested.

 

[Charles Lamont]

As I understand it, cover for literary content is the same 70 years after death, wherever it is published, and this has nothing whatever to do with the cover for the typographical arrangement. I think this is where your confusion lies. It would seem that there are two quite independent types of copyright covering a magazine. Can you point me to the very clear advice?

 

[Cogsy]

As I understand it, cover for literary content is the same 70 years after death, wherever it is published, and this has nothing whatever to do with the cover for the typographical arrangement. I think this is where your confusion lies. It would seem that there are two quite independent types of copyright covering a magazine. Can you point me to the very clear advice?

Have a look at the response to the question at THIS LINK, which seems (to me) to say copying is no problem but republishing is.

 

[Charles Lamont]

Oh I see, you are talking about fair use copying. I don't think your link helps much there; try this:
https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained
There is no time limit on fair use, you can do that immediately after publication, but I think it is most unlikely that it would allow republishing an article by posting it here, which is where we started.

 

[dethrow55]

HMEM is a forum for the learning and handing down of model engineering from tooling to design and build of model enginees, to copy and sell for profit is wrong. G,H. Thomas was an educator and a master.And so is Kirk Burwell (hemingway kits) just my thoughts james

 

[goldstar31]

Actually GHT was respected by Myford as 'The Guru'. Most of us of the old brigade have bought his books- which are reasonably inexpensive and we continue to read something that we missed earlier.

Burswell- perhaps to complicate matters, set off to re-write or bring into the 21st Century, Professor D.H.Chaddock's Quorn tool and cutter grinder and has gone on to produce a complete- but expensive kit for what is known as the Mark3.

Now I have a Mk1 but bought the new paperwork with a view to up rating my old mangle. Then, would you believe obtained a more or less complete set of Chaddock's castings. Of course, I bought the issues on the construction of the mark1 in Model Engineer and the 'new' ones for the Mark3. i wrote this because both sets of castings etc have far more complicated rotary tables- which also tilt.
James, Best wishes

Norman

 

[dethrow55]

hello Norman thanks for the imformation. in one of your earlier messages you mentioned unimat. well about then years ago i bought a unimat and that started my interest in model engine building and machining. now i have a taig lathe and taig mill ,also still have the unimat db sl... years back my hobby was rebuilding triumph motorcycles getting to old for the heavy work ..the unimat im restoring and painting . will soon post some pictures of my machines. Ive made some tools for all my machines, done a lotta research and studying .havent built an engine yet, started on a nelson 2cc diesel ,but had to stop till it warms up some to finish build. i have learned a lot from this forum and there is a world of talent here. well anyway getting long winded . regards james

 

[Cogsy]

Oh I see, you are talking about fair use copying. I don't think your link helps much there; try this:
https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained
There is no time limit on fair use, you can do that immediately after publication, but I think it is most unlikely that it would allow republishing an article by posting it here, which is where we started.

I don't think my link was in regards to 'fair use' being that they were asking about distributing/selling digitised copies. Really though, this would be a discussion for actual lawyers to have for inordinate sums of money. The intricacies of the legal language and interpretations based on precedents is not something I have experience in. As laymen, all we can do is try to abide by our best understanding of the law and act in good faith until we get told otherwise I guess.

 

[goldstar31]

I think that there is no problem with someone buying a set of plans legally and making one item from them but this a matter where an unauthorised person/persons has given the world the opportunity to make use of someone's intellectual property free.

GHT in this matter- and I am repeating myself- made provisions for a single person to make castings etc - on the other side of the world.

It is worth the small outlay to read into GHT's intentions- and humm- safeguard our poster from possible trouble.

 

[dethrow55]

is it possible to remove the post to stop further spread ?

 

[xpylonracer]

I don't think GHT would be too concerned, he would be pleased to see model engineers still using his 50+ year old plans to build workshop equipment. Many versions of his designs are copied by various people without giving credit to the GHT original design, I guess this will never change.

xpylonracer

 

[delalio]

Ok, while you gents are discussing copyright, is there any chance OP could provide slightly clearer scans/photos etc. Some of them are quite hard to read.
I was planning on buying one of these at the model show in London last weekend, but decided against it for funding reasons.
Feel free to PM them to me.
And re copyright, I'll only be using them to build myself the rotary table, not for resale / commercial use.

Thanks OP,

D

 

[goldstar31]

Ok, while you gents are discussing copyright, is there any chance OP could provide slightly clearer scans/photos etc. Some of them are quite hard to read.
I was planning on buying one of these at the model show in London last weekend, but decided against it for funding reasons.
Feel free to PM them to me.
And re copyright, I'll only be using them to build myself the rotary table, not for resale / commercial use.

Thanks OP,

D

12 quid or so to get into the show and 27 for the book?
I'm an old age pensioner/widower living in Newcastle upon Tyne and 4 years ago ,I bought my 2nd copy at 'Ally Pally' and the fare was £20 for the taxi to NCL Station and over £100 for the Disable Pensioners Rail Fare- plus entrance and indifferent food.

For Xpylonracer, I tried with Jim Early to put Martin Cleeve's stuff on the 'int for free and ran into litigation threats with Magicalia, the then new owners of Model Engineers etc.

I thought that model engineers deserved it then - and regretted it ever since.

Then I told people how to get the info. I'm now getting pedantic as was GHT then


Norman

 

[Wizard69]

It appears this material is from a UK magazine published in 1976. UK copyright law is very different to US law and it appears a magazine is only protected for 25 years from the end of the year of publication. So it appears copyright for this material expired in 2002. Weirdly, if this material had come from a single author source (like a book) instead, copyright would be 70 years from the end of the year of the original authors' death. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer when even simple things like this can get so screwy.

That nonsense about 70 years after the authors death is one of the more stupid things that cam from Europe as it was never that long in the USA. I can understand protecting the original author for a specific number of years and while he is alive but 70 years after his death makes no sense at all.

 

[Cogsy]

That nonsense about 70 years after the authors death is one of the more stupid things that cam from Europe as it was never that long in the USA. I can understand protecting the original author for a specific number of years and while he is alive but 70 years after his death makes no sense at all.

The US copyright act of 1976 is when the "70 years after death" was introduced, along with the "95 years after publication" (for works for hire). I didn't think European law was influencing US legislation much that recently was it?

 

[littlelocos]

Sounds like we've flushed out the fact that the project is currently owned by a third party. Therefore it's time for the admin or poster to take down the items to help prevent the spread.
I for one am glad to see that HMEM is a group that cares about this topic.
Thank you,
Todd.

 

[dethrow55]

hello i agree ive ask for it to be taken down ? to stop the spread.

 

[goldstar31]

James
I have to apologise for a tardy reply to 'all of this' as for several days i have been happily involved in things which have been somewhat clouded with bottles of Famous Grouse and a surfeit of genuine bonhomie!
So yesterday morning, the news broke that the UK and the EEC or whatever they call it are yet again at loggerheads over copyright. It's Brexit time and rather more important than making a little rotary table.
The odd question that needs an answer is- will it actually fit one a Taig because it certainly will not for a Unimat SL? GHT designed the thing to fit a Myford 7 Series which is probably rather larger than 'what you have'
One design that will fit the little 'Uni' is covered- as far as I know- by yet again a copyright. The guy would have been the ripe old age of about 90- like me but 'he's ded and gawn' long ago.
So back to the fumes but it is all for one charity or another.

Good Luck


Norman