Copyright !! Again.

[stevehuckss396]

No. I mean you might be overthinking this. You plan to design from the ground up based on a few photos. Your work your copyright.

 

[cds4byu]

"Beating a dead horse" means that the question has already been answered, so there's no need of further answers.

It doesn't mean the question is unimportant.

 

[Richard Hed]

Someone will correct me when I am wrong, but I think Eddison used Tesla's ideas and used his company wealth to prevent Tesla from using them! And didn't pay Tesla for the ideas - although he had promised to do so when he employed Tesla.... Normal practice in business I reckon.

Tesla initially veritably worshipped edison. When he arrived in New York he got employment fixing a dynamo that wasn't working right. Tesla asked Edison how much he would pay him to fix it. Answer: $50,000, so Tesla set to work to fix it. It took him 6 months I thimk but eventually fixt it. When done, Tesla asked for his $50,000--Edison laft at him. I'm not sure what happened after that but later, When the two were in court over the AC engine, Tesla had to prove in court that he had not been working for edison at the time he envisioned the AC. Tesla proved he had envisioned the AC before he had come to NY. this is part of the reason the bastad, vindictive edison went around the country electrocuting dogs--but edison's DC just didn't transmit like AC and edison WANTED that patent.

 

[redryder]

Hi Minh-Thanh,

If you are to acquire a design from drawings and or pictures and you know whose work it is, you should acknowledge the creator of said design. It is a matter of common decency. You can produce and sell from pictures and/or plans that are readily available. It is just very poor ethics to claim a design is yours when it isn't. If you make drawings from someone else's pictures of their work, it is still their design, not yours.

We are having this issue on another forum with George Britnell's re-design of the Holt 75 Caterpillar model. Is that related to your inquiry here? If so it is George's design. Making it smaller or larger does not change the design.

It would likely be acceptable for someone to build and sell the Holt model and simply say I am producing George's design of the Holt 75 and thank him for all his developmental work but don't insult him by saying the design is yours.
It would be even more honorable if you were to offer the designer a small licensing fee for each engine you sell.

 

[minh-thanh]

stevehuckss396 !
I misunderstood you, I'm apology !
cds4byu !
Thank you for clarification .

redryder !

Hi Minh-Thanh,

We are having this issue on another forum with George Britnell's re-design of the Holt 75 Caterpillar model. Is that related to your inquiry here? If so it is George's design. Making it smaller or larger does not change the design.

I am not related to that question.
This is the first forum where I speak a bit more (more than 3 sentences), although I often use google translate.

Hi Minh-Thanh,

If you are to acquire a design from drawings and or pictures and you know whose work it is, you should acknowledge the creator of said design. It is a matter of common decency. You can produce and sell from pictures and/or plans that are readily available. It is just very poor ethics to claim a design is yours when it isn't. If you make drawings from someone else's pictures of their work, it is still their design, not yours.


It would likely be acceptable for someone to build and sell the Holt model and simply say I am producing George's design of the Holt 75 and thank him for all his developmental work but don't insult him by saying the design is yours.

That is exactly my problem and thought. I will think more
Thanks

 

[Cogsy]

If you are to acquire a design from drawings and or pictures and you know whose work it is, you should acknowledge the creator of said design. It is a matter of common decency. You can produce and sell from pictures and/or plans that are readily available. It is just very poor ethics to claim a design is yours when it isn't.

This is bad advice (in my opinion). Redrawing a plan set, even with changes, is a derivative work and is covered under the copyright of the original designer. It's not just a matter of being unethical but being illegal.

We are having this issue on another forum with George Britnell's re-design of the Holt 75 Caterpillar model. Is that related to your inquiry here? If so it is George's design. Making it smaller or larger does not change the design.

It would likely be acceptable for someone to build and sell the Holt model and simply say I am producing George's design of the Holt 75 and thank him for all his developmental work but don't insult him by saying the design is yours.
It would be even more honorable if you were to offer the designer a small licensing fee for each engine you sell.

As above, it would be breaching Georges' copyright to produce a plan set from Georges' plans and sell them, or even distribute them freely. I don't know what license George grants on his plans when he sells them, but some designers grant a license to build only one engine from a purchased plan set. This not only stops commercial production of the engine but also (if the copyright is followed correctly) prevents the purchaser then on-selling or sharing the plans which robs the original designer of sales. If George has such a clause then producing engines and selling them would also be illegal.

Minh - from what I understand your original question to be, you are looking at external pictures of an engine and planning on designing an engine from that. If this is the case, copyright is not an issue. The overall 'look' of an engine isn't considered the design of the engine, so you are free to design an engine from scratch based on looks and then you are free to sell those plans under your own copyright without stepping on anyones toes. If you are basing your design on an original model made by someone else rather than a 'real' engine (say Bob Shores' Peewee V4 for example), it would be polite to include something like "Inspired by the ... engine designed by ...." but you are not copying the actual design so you don't need permission or any sort of license fee.

 

[stevehuckss396]

Speaking of the peewee. I had done a set of "improvement drawings" that made up for errors and omissions. I would give them to anyone who purchased the plans with dirks permission. There wasn't enough info to build an engine just info to change dimensions and hole locations.

Eventually I redrew the entire set. Because they were a direct descendent of Bob's original drawings I couldn't sell or distribute them in any way so I gave them to dirk to pass out with the castings. At least that way someone could get some benefit from them besides me.

Here's the point. I could have probably sold the improvement set as it was all my own work. Instead of fighting that battle I gave him the full set. I gained a good friend, helped some people build a better Peewee, and worked with Dirk to build the prototype Pacifier that is now rare and likely to be the only one. In the long run, doing the right thing worked out pretty darn good for me.

Just saying!

 

[SmithDoor]

It is call CPR
But trying to find someone to do mouth to mouth on a horse

Dave

I think you are beating a dead horse here. If you see a picture of something and go through all the work to design one in miniature NOT using another person's drawings to realize a running miniature, you are fine. You can build, and sell plans if you want. As long as you did all the work yourself not incorporating anyone else's work into it, your good. Design it, build it, sell it!