old magazine articles

[scoop]

Hello all
I have noticed that most commercial engine kits have been built by people who have then covered the build in a magazine.This could have been quite recent or a long while ago depending on the kit(obviously).However when I see that such a kit was built and then serialised in magazine "xyz" over approx 20 issues in 1960 something or 1980 odd I realise that these articles will be very difficult to find as back issues are not allways available for all magazines.I am sure that between all the members of this forum there will be people who have specific copies of old magazines and such and am wondering about the possibilities of sharing this information,I don't mean scanning entire magazines and putting them on the site but a simple exchange via e-mail of relevant pages might be done.
what are the copyright issues here?Is it illegal?Are people willing to share this information?I don't know the answer,anybody have an opinion?

best regards Steve C.

 

[PTsideshow]

If the original copyright is still valid it is illegal with out permission form the copyright owner or their assignees. As the Elmer stuff or the English ME magazines that were on line for a bit.

 

[Maryak]

Members,

Please - I urge each and every one of us to be aware of copyright issues.

If you have any doubts as to the copyright of any material, please DO NOT POST it in our forum.

There have been a few occasions where posts have been deleted because they contained copyright material and we can all make mistakes in our efforts to help a fellow member.

SO "LETS BE CAREFUL OUT THERE."

Best Regards
Bob

 

[scoop]

Bob
This is why I have asked this question.So many of these articles and magazines are now unavailable due to them going out of business or out of print.If it was just a case of buying this stuff it would be an easy job to contact the relevant source and just ask for it,but this is sometimes not possible.At no time would I ever request copyrighted material to be posted on any forum simply because of the legal problems but is it illegal to lend somebody a copy of a plan or magazine article,that is my question.I have seen many requests for copies of plans on many forums and they usually end up with somebody having an old copy of the required item kicking about and this is then passed on to whoever asked for it.At no time is the relevant item posted on the site or shown to anybody just sent person to person.A large amount of these published documents were available in English libraries and it was easy to ask to read them and photocopies were allowed to be taken,however the list of items kept by libraries nowadays has diminished to the level of being pretty poor.Second hand copies of magazines and books are available in large numbers on e-bay and such sites for purchase and this practice is perfectly legal so why not the private exchange of information between members?Does anybody know?The last thing I want to do is get in trouble!!

best honest regards Steve C.

 

[Kermit]

The whole idea of copyright protection was to stop other people from MAKING MONEY on a commercial venture with your copyrighted material.

Sharing privately owned copies of copyrighted material is NOT violating copy right law in ANY way.

Posting articles from copyrighted material IS a violation without permission.

Share away friends, but don't post it and don't try to make money from it.

Kermit

 

[shred]

The whole idea of copyright protection was to stop other people from MAKING MONEY on a commercial venture with your copyrighted material.

Sharing privately owned copies of copyrighted material is NOT violating copy right law in ANY way.
Kermit

Actually, it does in many places. In reality, you are extremely unlikely to be hassled for it, but it is there. If you follow the book model where you send away your only, originally purchased, book or magazine, and don't keep copies then you're better off, but few want to do that.

Until Disney got in on the act and forced endless extensions for fear of Mickeytm expiring, copyright periods were a fairly reasonable length of time.

My personal opinion is the copyright holders should be much freer with releasing back catalog items. Witness Elmer's Engines-- the copyright owner decided to allow people to make copies if they wanted on the web. See how many Elmer engines are built compared to others. The people that try to keep a lid on 30 year-old beginner articles are doing nobody a favor.

 

[rake60]

Copyright laws can be confusing at best.
For example, works with a copyright dated before Jan 1, 1978
were valid for 28 years. If renewed at the end of the period an
additional 47 years was added to the copyright protection.

Individual works registered after 1978 do not require renewal.
The protection remains in effect for the life of the author plus 70 years.

If it was a "work for hire" such as a published article, the term of
copyright protection is 95 years from the year of it's first publication
or 120 years from the year of it's creation, which ever expires first.

Now if anyone can make scene of that as applied to any specific article
you are doing a whole lot better than me!

Linking to a site that where plans are already posted is fine.
UNLESS the site has the copyright symbol (©) on it.
Linking to a copyright protected site without the permission of it's owner
is another violation of the law.

Rick

 

[Stan]

Confusing copyright laws! Every public library (run by a branch of government) has a self serve photocopy machine without anyone monitoring what gets copied. If the article is on microfiche, they will dig it up and print it for you.

 

[cfellows]

The whole idea of copyright protection was to stop other people from MAKING MONEY on a commercial venture with your copyrighted material.

Sharing privately owned copies of copyrighted material is NOT violating copy right law in ANY way.

Posting articles from copyrighted material IS a violation without permission.

Share away friends, but don't post it and don't try to make money from it.

Kermit

A small distinction, and this is my opinion only, but I believe the copyright is to protect the owner from being deprived of income as a result of copied material. Therefore, making a copy to share with a friend is, in my opinion, a copyright infraction because the copyright owner is being deprived of potential income from that one copy. I believe the only legal way to share copyrighted material without the owner's permission is to share the original publication.

Chuck

 

[rake60]

Trust me artrans the lightning would strike!

HMEM has grown to the point that we are under the watch.
A copyright infringement would be the end of HMEM.

Rick

 

[scoop]

Depriving people of payment for their work has never been my intention.As I said before if I could obtain the info from the source I would gladly do it.What get's my goat is the situation where people are held to ransom over published media.
For example,the oft mentioned "elmers engines" book of which I had never heard of until a short while ago,has been seen for sale at between $100 to $300 on ebay.I then ask myself "what benefit is this to the copyright holder?".Elmer will see nothing of this profit,neither will the late Elmers family.If the book was still in print or available new it would sell for probably $25 or so,all of which is new income for the work.People could still make money from the fact that older first edition books fetch more in the market but somebody who just wanted the book to read could generate honest money for the writer.
Therefore (and please excuse my twisted logic) if copyright holders are so worried about others making a few copies of their often ancient ramblings then at least they should be making sure that a source of their work is available for purchase.If they do not offer it for purchase then they can have no complaint if somebody obtains a copy by other means,can they?
Does this make sense or am I being unreasonable?

best regards Steve C.

 

[Kermit]

Giving a copy to a friend IS a personal use. Sharing with an entire neighborhood or with Mrs. Groovers' class of 5th graders, would NOT be a personal use.

A prosecutor might argue in court that giving a copy to a friend is infringement but he would be shot down soon enough. Human beings have "the right" to present gifts to other people close to them. Birthdays; Christmas; etc. etc.. There being no intention of making money or of depriving a person of hard earned wages.


That's a whole dollars worth,
Kermit

 

[Kermit]

I, in no way, wished for my reply to be taken as an endorsement of breaking copyright laws, What I said was true but applies to individuals, not to an entity like this website.

Please do not post copyrighted material on this website

 

[scoop]

Don't panic lads no chance of dodgy postings what I mean to say is (it may have got confused in my description) if for example I asked in a post if anybody had say a copy of an old magazine that had a particular article in it that I wanted,and that they were willing to e-mail me a copy of the article directly,would this be a problem?No postings just a simple transfer of info person to person.Would this cause problems for the forum?Are members willing to share their information?

best regards Steve C.

 

[ksouers]

Don't panic lads no chance of dodgy postings what I mean to say is (it may have got confused in my description) if for example I asked in a post if anybody had say a copy of an old magazine that had a particular article in it that I wanted,and that they were willing to e-mail me a copy of the article directly,would this be a problem?No postings just a simple transfer of info person to person.Would this cause problems for the forum?Are members willing to share their information?

best regards Steve C.

Steve,
As I'm sure you are aware, by previous posts, that HMEM can not condone such transfer of copyrighted material.

Kevin

 

[Noitoen]

I wonder what is the difference between lending a magazine to a friend to read an article or build an engine or sending him a copy of the article or plan. Anyway, I always make a copy so that the original doesn't get messed up with oil.

 

[shred]

I wonder what is the difference between lending a magazine to a friend to read an article or build an engine or sending him a copy of the article or plan. Anyway, I always make a copy so that the original doesn't get messed up with oil.

Legally (my day-job involves some work with Intellectual Property Law), making a copy for your own personal use in the shop or wherever is ok, (in the absence of other license restrictions, speaking of US copyright law). What's not legal is sending/giving/trading that copy to somebody else while keeping the original or anther copy. Then they make a copy and send it to somebody else and they make a copy, and so on until pretty soon everybody has a copy and only one was purchased.

Realistically there's a great deal of trading and swapping of plans and articles behind the scenes since it's not worth the trouble to chase it all down, and often the authors and so on are ok with it, but can't condone it for various reasons---

Say you buy a defunct ME magazine and want to reprint the articles on the web-- Even if you buy all the rights the original publisher had, you don't have everything by a long shot. Often the publisher only got limited rights to the articles and photographs in the first place-- sometimes for one print run, sometimes with reprint clauses, sometimes with what types of media they can and can't reprint in. Almost universally those agreements unless made very recently say nothing about digital copies, so you generally don't have those rights... so you have to go find the author and get some additional rights. Except maybe they're dead.. and the wills said nothing about who has the IP rights from the estate. Now who has them? Somebody does.

Ok, so you track down the author's heirs and get permission. Now who took the photos? Same person? Same rights? Are there people in the photographs? Do we need their permission?

Ok, all that's done.. but wait... the ads in that magazine (the originals are long gone, so all we have is scans of magazine pages) also have IP rights associated with them, and usually the publisher can't go around reprinting them without permission. So, now you either have to edit out all the ads or get permission there.. Imagine trying to track down rights associated with tiny long-defunct companies.

and I'm sure there's a bunch more I missed... but that's what you have to do for just a few pages..

I have a friend in the oil and gas business, specifically that of tracking down mineral rights to pieces of property the company is interested in. Since those can be sold separate to the property in TX, and split, she spends all day at the courthouse going through pages of old deeds and records and the like to find the current owners to lease from them. I suspect that's an easier job than tracking magazine copyrights.. By the time you pay somebody (or several) like that to track down authorship and copyright rights, you've probably put the cost of your web-mag well over and above that of just paying authors to write new articles.

Unfortunately there's no good solution I can see for the old stuff, short of reforming copyright law.

 

[artrans]

talk about a can of worms put the lid back on weld shut and forget about it. :big: :big:

 

[PTsideshow]

As been stated about the reprint or even putting the magazines on CD's even if you have the rights to first use and any number of uses after. Most of the magazines on CD that I have, have had all the ads removed as not to cause problems with the current owners of the phone numbers,PO boxes and street addresses. As hobby business, go away faster than love @ closing time.

As I have brought up the subject to editors of the main hobby magazine. The reaction was if you have a week they could explain the pitfalls.
Or you can ask the guy that bought the Model tech magazine, name, and back issues and some rights. As George still owns the rights and name to Camel Back Press which published the CD plan sets which were PDF's of the magazine photo's and drawings. And is still making them and selling on flea bay.

I don't know the delicate details about the copyright issues with Modeltech/Camel Back Press but I bet it would keep an army of lawyers busy for years sorting out that mess.

Shred did a pretty good job of laying out the basics and some of the pitfalls.

As Disney Corp has ads in the legal newspaper telling lawyers that they pay a bounty for anybody that is painting or vinyl cutting their characters. And they and other companies do it on a regular basis.
;D
glen