APOLOGISE

Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

drileyeng

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I apologise to every one for asking for a copy of plans for 10H. I did not think I was breaking any laws considering I have the castings and HAD the plans in my possesion. Once again sorry
 
drileyeng,

As I see it there is no need to apologize.

While it was appropriate that you were asked to verify that you owned the castings and actually were entitled a copy of the prints it isn't illegal to copy prints. Copyright violation is determined by the USE of the copy, not the act of copying.

Wikipedia quote:

"Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."

I don't see how it's in violation of anyones copyright to get a copy of something that you already have rights to use. It seems to me that this would be a fair use of the material.

I'm not a copyright attorney, so don't take this as legal council.

Ken
 
Ken, the rights of the copyright owner are quite broad. Most things like books and prints are copyrighted to
to protect against any kind of copying whatsoever, by any individual or entity.

Copyright law provides protections like this, and is common for many printed articles:

All rights reserved. No part of this (document) may be reproduced in any form by print, photography,
microfilm, or any other means without written permission...

It's pretty darn specific.
 
Deanofid said:
Ken, the rights of the copyright owner are quite broad. Most things like books and prints are copyrighted to
to protect against any kind of copying whatsoever, by any individual or entity.

Copyright law provides protections like this, and is common for many printed articles:

All rights reserved. No part of this (document) may be reproduced in any form by print, photography,
microfilm, or any other means without written permission...

It's pretty darn specific.

Yes, it appears to be specific, But it doesn't override the fair use doctrine. It's fair use to copy a print provided you have rights to use the ideas contained therein. I don't think that a court would uphold a claim that a holders rights were violated when one is using information that one is entitled to use.

I use a similar clause on the prints in my corporate life, but it's to protect the information contained in the print and to prevent it's unauthorized dissemination to third parties. I know my vendors make copies of prints so they can have a copy in there file that's not covered with cutting fluid stains. My note states: "The information contained on this drawing is the sole property of......". It's the information that is important and that's what needs protecting.

I feel my argument still holds water. Drileyeng already had rights to the information on the prints so no infringement was made by making copies, regardless of the source.

Ken


 
Ken

Don't rely on your copyright to protect proprietary information. That requires a patent. A copyright only protects the representation of an Idea, not the idea itself. As an example a photographer may copyright a photograph of a bird and expect to own the rights to that photo and to prevent copies being used without his approval, but he doesn't own the bird and he can't prevent others from taking pictures of birds.

This may not directly relate to the question but I just thought I would bring it up in case you are truly concerned about protecting proprietary information. The only way to really do that is to keep it secret.

Jerry
 
Jerry,

That's a very good point. when true protection is needed a patent is in order (or trade secret).

The clause is used on prints for machined parts going to outside vendors. It's basically a warning; Share this without our permission and we'll sic our lawyers on you. :eek:. It's a claim on the ideas, I really don't know how it would hold up but it's should give a leg up if it should ever come to that.

Ken

 
So then if we all purchased sets of castings and could show ownership of them, we could call upon you Ken to supply us with copies of the prints (providing that you owned them) even though they are not included with the initial cost of the casting sets? Hmmm, that sure sounds like piracy/theft to me. I think that is why the music industry lobbies so very hard against the duplication and unauthorized distribution of their products. I see the point you are trying to make but it does not hold water. I'm sure that the Stuart Co. would feel the same way. If what you say were the case then if Drileyeng were to contact Stuart, they would supply him with a replacement set of drawings at no charge if he could provide proof of prior ownership. I seriously doubt it. If that were the case, Stuart and the other companies would merely make their drawings Public Domain. The making of duplicate copyright material by the owner for backup or file purposes is one thing, but for distribution to other parties regardless of for profit or not, is illegal.

BC1
Jim
 
Guys,

As you all know, we have a very strong policy here about copyright.

If there is any doubt about what you may or may not do - PLEASE don't do it here.

Best Regards
Bob
 
Hi,

Marinesteam said:
Yes, it appears to be specific, But it doesn't override the fair use doctrine. It's fair use to copy a print provided you have rights to use the ideas contained therein. I don't think that a court would uphold a claim that a holders rights were violated when one is using information that one is entitled to use.

The concept of "fair use" is only recognised in the USA and Israel (some other countries have a similarly titled concept in their copyright legislation, but it is very different to the USA version).

In the USA copyright seems to mean "copy protected, unless the copy happens to belongs to me and I only copy it a bit for some undefined personal reason"

To most of the world copyright means "copyright"

Ian
 
bearcar1 said:
The making of duplicate copyright material by the owner for backup or file purposes is one thing, but for distribution to other parties regardless of for profit or not, is illegal.

BC1
Jim

After much research, I'll grant that "by the letter of the law" transferring copyrighted material to a third party is against the law. But as far as I can find, there is no exception for copying PRINTED material for your OWN use either. There is one for audio (music) but it doesn't seem to apply to PRINTED material. If you can find a reference that states otherwise, show it. The only exemption given that allows for the copying printed materials to replace damaged copies is given to libraries.


Hopefully we can put this to bed, now I need to apologize!


Ken


 
Hi,

As I pointed out in my earlier post, only the USA has the concept of being able to copy something for your own use. In the rest of the world copying any work - printed word, music (or other sound), pictures, photographs - is not permitted. Only the USA and Israel let people break the internationally accepted copyright rules and get away with it.

Ian.
 
IanN said:
Hi,

As I pointed out in my earlier post, only the USA has the concept of being able to copy something for your own use. In the rest of the world copying any work - printed word, music (or other sound), pictures, photographs - is not permitted. Only the USA and Israel let people break the internationally accepted copyright rules and get away with it.

Ian.

Ian,

Please show me exactly what language permits copies for personal use in US law. There is no specific (or implied) language in the US copyright code that makes an exception for personal use. There is an exemption for personal use copies of MUSIC made to cassette tape but it doesn't apply to computer backup. Many terms of service also make an exemption, but that's not code.

If you make a copy for your own personal use it is LIKELY to be considered to be "fair use". Which makes my point. in the case of drileyeng.

He was looking to replace a damaged copy of an item he already owned. Therefore (if he could prove that he already owned a copy) there would have been no effect of use on the potential market for the copyrighted work. This is one of the standards used in consideration of fair use. If you use this to justify making a copy for personal use you can use it to justify making a copy to give to someone who already owned the material. It may be a bit more of a stretch, but not much. This is ENTIRELY different than giving a copy to someone who doesn't have rights to the material. If you really want to stick to the letter of the law, you can't legally give a copy to a third party and you can't legally make one for yourself unless the copyright holder gives permission. Let's have some common sense here, is there really any damage done if you make a copy for yourself or give one to someone who already had one? There is damage if you give a copy to someone who hasn't already paid the copyright holder. It IS different.

Show specific language stating that making copies for your personal use is allowed under US copyright law, I'd like to see it because I can't find it.

Ken
 
Ken,
The drawings in question are protected by UK copyright law and the guy asking is from OZ so US copyright law has nothing to do with the issue.

I have read a bunch of US copyright law and the fair use rule is complicated and for most cases would need judicial rule to settle. I have never seen anything about copying for personal use but I have used the copy machine in several major US engineering coledge librarys in full view of the staff, so I do not think I was breaking the law. Although my taste in engineering is pre 1920 which is public domain.

Bob already stated how to handle the issue on this forum.

Maryak said:
Guys,

As you all know, we have a very strong policy here about copyright.

If there is any doubt about what you may or may not do - PLEASE don't do it here.

Best Regards
Bob
 
Dan Rowe said:
Ken,
The drawings in question are protected by UK copyright law and the guy asking is from OZ so US copyright law has nothing to do with the issue.

I have read a bunch of US copyright law and the fair use rule is complicated and for most cases would need judicial rule to settle. I have never seen anything about copying for personal use but I have used the copy machine in several major US engineering coledge librarys in full view of the staff, so I do not think I was breaking the law. Although my taste in engineering is pre 1920 which is public domain.

Bob already stated how to handle the issue on this forum.

I fully understand that it against the forums rules to ASK for copyrighted material and that is a self imposed forum rule and don't get me wrong, I am good with that. I'm not trying to change the rules, but I think this is a good conversation to have.

What I take exception with is; someone calling an activity illegal and not being able to show that it actually IS illegal. While on the otherhand, partaking in an activity which is probably just as illegal (copying for personal use) and justifying the actions with the statement: "I do not think I was breaking the law".

If you think that copying for personal use is legal in the US (or other countries for that matter) show the text of the code saying that it is. I understand that Canada specifically has that exemption. Here in the US it appears that copying for personal use is not allowed by law. It appears to be one of those things that's accepted as common practice and has a blind eye turned toward it. Even if it was shown to be illegal it's not going to make anyone stop doing it here, I'm sure.

Dan's right. It would take a judge to make a ruling to settle this matter, which isn't going to happen (nor is it needed). As I mentioned I thinks it's odd that someone can make a clear statement in one area while taking an opposite stance in another when it's a matter of interpretation of the same clause.

I did see that the print section for the crank was posted on the forum in a way that doesn't violate copyright. If, over time, the remaining parts of the plan were eventually posted on the site in individual snippets, does that violate the copyright holders rights? I would think that it does. What's to prevent that from happening? Just a thought.

Ken

 
Marinesteam said:
I understand that Canada specifically has that exemption.
Ken

The Canadian exemption as far as I know only applies to sound recordings, and we pay a levy on blank audio recording media.

http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/documents/1224864774_de_Beer.pdf
"Canada’s private copying levy came into force on 19 March 1998 as Part VIII of the
Copyright Act.103 It expressly allows individuals to copy sound recordings for private
use onto blank audio recording media. It also imposes liability upon manufacturers
and importers of blank media, requiring them to pay a levy when such is proposed by
certain music creators and certified by the Copyright Board. In short, the regime
substitutes exclusive copyrights with a unique right to collect remuneration from third
parties not directly involved in the use of copyright-protected works."
In the case of printed material I think that you need the copyright owners permission, but I don't think that they will object (at least I hope they won't) to you doing copies for your self to work in the workshop. As to supplying to a third party I think that that would still be called theft.
Regards,
Gerald.
 
Thanks for the thoughtfull reply. PS, I like your avatar.


Here is why I think this is interesting and then I'll shut up. Really this time.

So far the leaning is that it's OK to make a copy for yourself and not for someone else. Here is why that argument is flawed in this particular instance.

First, we all agree that it is a violation to supply a third party with copyrighted material if they have not compensated the copyright holder and/or do not have permission to hold the material. The reason behind this is because the copyright holder has no control over his/her rights and has not been compensated for his/her work.

Second, making a copy for yourself has a negative effect on the copyright holder. Specifically, if you make a copy and then damage your original you are not going to buy a replacement from the copyright holder. The copyright holder looses the right to control the work and potentially there is a loss of compensation.

Third, In the case of a third party requesting a replacement for a damaged original that he has already compensated the copyright holder for, there is no material difference between this and the second example as far as the copyright holder is concerned. The copyright holder has still lost the opportunity to be compensated the for the replacement copy. This is why there is a specific exemption allowing only libraries the right to copy material in order to replace damaged originals and only if the original is no longer in publication.

Case two and three are equally against the law but many seem to think it's OK to violate the copyright in order to make copies for personal use. There are specific exemptions in the case of music but there appears to be no exception for printed material in US (and possibly most other countries) law. "Everyone does it" is not a defense, but then again the copyright holders aren't complaining. But that doesn't make it legal.

That's why I find the uproar over this to be odd. Many responses have said that they believe that it's not wrong to make copies for personal use but won't even consider the other case to be similar. In the forum copyright guidelines it says "Copyright infringement is illegal this board does not and will not promote or condone any illegal activity." But no one has been able to supply any PROOF that making copies for personal use is legal though many are willing to defend that it is it as such.

Let's go have some fun

Ken



 
Hey guys I did not want to stir up such a debate, I only intended to say sorry for asking for a copy of plans that I destroyed.
This plan copying topic seems to hard to me I think I will put it in the to hard basket and take better care of my plans next time.
Guy's the time that I have wasted of yours could have been better used working on some engines.

Have a good weekend every one and forget about this toppic.

Darren
 
Ken,
I located two sources IN PRINT that give permission to make shop copies of drawings in the publication.

Both "Live Steam and Outdoor Railroading" and the now defunct "Modeltec" give permision to make shop copies in the copyright statment. It is also stated that distribution to third partys is NOT allowed.

I also checked "The Home Shop Machinist" and "Machinist's Workshop" which are both published by the Village Press same as "Live Steam & O.R." and they do not mention shop copies so in that case it is not allowed.

So if you want to be STRICTLY legal even on your own property read the copyright notice before using the scanner.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top