$$$$$$$ kits

[marknewton]

Mark, a very dangerous statement.  Just because something is published and therefore accessible to the public does not mean that it is free from copyright and able to be duplicated. 

True public domain works that can be freely copied come when copyright expires.  Currently copyright laws in the US protect a work for the life of the artist plus 75 years. 

Two questions. Are these FSM models actually copyrighted? And how exactly does one steal an "idea"?

Also, the thought occurs to me that an image in a magazine ad is about as much in the public domain as one can get, copyright or not. How do you suggest preventing someone from seeing that image, and deciding to build a version of what he saw? I was going to call it a copy, but on reflection I think these models aren't copies, at least in the accepted sense of copies of trademarked or copyright goods.

If they're not in the market to buy an FSM kit, then any further discussion is redundant. They were never going to contribute to FSM's sales.

Good job this is not a legal defence against copyright infringement...

Again, is it in fact copyright infringement to build a model of a model? Can you unequivocally state that this is the case?

Mark.

[simon1966]

Gents, some fine arguments, but none of them would hold water if FSM decided to take legal action against those copying the kits.

You'd be on a hiding to nothing trying to make that case, I reckon. How on earth could you prove that one model was a copy of another?

>Artists paint from real life all the time.  They still own the copyright to the work of art.  It is irrelevant if a FSM kit is based on a prototype structure.

Is it? Why?

However, I do strongly support an artists right to defend their copyright and whether you like it or not, copying an artists work is a breech of that right.

In that case, FSM have breached the copyright of the architect or civil engineer who originally designed the building they based their model on, eh?

Mark.

Mark, if the model in question was an exact copy, or for that matter a close copy and was presented on a web forum with the text "Here is my copy of FSM's xxx model" it would be very simple.  The reality is that this type of legal challenge would be unlikely.

 

FSM creating a kit from a prototype scene or structure is no different than an artist painting a picture of the Sydney Opera House.  The artist still owns the copyright of image.  As does a photographer who takes a photo of the harbor bridge.

 

Not sure of the law pertaining to the rights of the architect in your last comment.  FSM might have a case to answer there.  However, since most of the prototype structures are very old they may have reached the limitations of protection?  It may also be that rights have been granted for this use by the architect.  This would really come down to if the model was an exact copy of a recognizable structure or loosely based on the structure.

[simon1966]

Mark, a very dangerous statement.  Just because something is published and therefore accessible to the public does not mean that it is free from copyright and able to be duplicated. 

True public domain works that can be freely copied come when copyright expires.  Currently copyright laws in the US protect a work for the life of the artist plus 75 years. 

Two questions. Are these FSM models actually copyrighted? And how exactly does one steal an "idea"?

Also, the thought occurs to me that an image in a magazine ad is about as much in the public domain as one can get, copyright or not. How do you suggest preventing someone from seeing that image, and deciding to build a version of what he saw? I was going to call it a copy, but on reflection I think these models aren't copies, at least in the accepted sense of copies of trademarked or copyright goods.

If they're not in the market to buy an FSM kit, then any further discussion is redundant. They were never going to contribute to FSM's sales.

Good job this is not a legal defence against copyright infringement...

Again, is it in fact copyright infringement to build a model of a model? Can you unequivocally state that this is the case?

Mark.

Mark, yes FSM structures are copyrighted.

I don't believe it was me that used the term "stealing an idea".  But I do see a difference between knocking off the model exactly and simply taking the idea of the model and creating something of ones own creation.  There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that discusses derivative works where the idea is developed.  Sticking the smoke stack on the other end of an otherwise identical building most likely does not cut it.  Re-arranging similar looking structures into a different scene probably would.  How the legal line is drawn here I have no idea.  You may remember that Dan Brown was sued for the basic premise of the DaVinci code. I beleive he won the case.

I never suggested for one minute that you could prevent this copying.  In fact these laws are exceptionally hard to enforce when you have no way of knowing that the duplication took place. There is really no way of stopping this and it is highly doubtful that any harm is actually done or that any legal action would be taken.

George Seilos could just as easily have said "I am flattered that people like my designs well enough to copy them", but he did not.  He expressed concern and disappointment that this practice took place.

I do believe that it is an infringement to build a copy of a model.  I don't personally differentiate  between the FSM artwork and any other artists work in the sense that it is the created work of that artist.  I am not personally aware of a legal challenge that has a ruling that specifically references model RR structures so can not unequivocally state that. 

[jasperofzeal]

BTW my FSM copy of MacKenzie Milling won "Best in Show" at a 1984 NMRA/NER Convention in Maine.  Judges there didn't seem to mind that it was a version of an FSM kit!

What category was this? Least original work!  I wonder if they even knew if it was a copy and not your original work.  Maybe I should copy one of your unique (not copied FSM or other manufacturer) pieces and enter it in the next NMRA contest.  If I win copying your idea let me know if you're flattered.

 

Mark,

I'm not trying to covert anyone to my view point, that's not my intent or purpose.  I just want to state and hopefully make you all realize that this type of copying can be damaging.  So my hypothesis of FSM or the like going out of business is somewhat exaggerated, but even as non-sequitor as you say it is, it's no different than copying rented or borrowed DVD's or CD's; even if it's for your own personal use.

[simon1966]

Hey Chaps, lets lay off the personal stuff.  This is a not well understood legal and ethical issue and can be discussed civilly.

In my view the very best approach would be a polite letter to FSM or any other manufacturer requesting permission to duplicate the model for personal use.  They know that these models are not made anymore. They know that most folks can't afford the re-sale collector prices.  At the very least this shows courtesy and acknowledges their ownership of the design.  If they respond negatively, then at least you know in uncertain terms how they feel. 

[Railphotog]

BTW my FSM copy of MacKenzie Milling won "Best in Show" at a 1984 NMRA/NER Convention in Maine.  Judges there didn't seem to mind that it was a version of an FSM kit!

What category was this? Least original work!  I wonder if they even knew if it was a copy and not your original work.  Maybe I should copy one of your unique (not copied FSM or other manufacturer) pieces and enter it in the next NMRA contest.  If I win copying your idea let me know if you're flattered.

 

Mark,

I'm not trying to covert anyone to my view point, that's not my intent or purpose.  I just want to state and hopefully make you all realize that this type of copying can be damaging.  So my hypothesis of FSM or the like going out of business is somewhat exaggerated, but even as non-sequitor as you say it is, it's no different than copying rented or borrowed DVD's or CD's; even if it's for your own personal use.

My model would have been entered in the NMRA contes as a diorama, and yes it's origin was listed in the contest form "copy of FSM kit, original rear section". 

And hey, if anyone wants to copy anything that I've made, please be my guest!  I'll even help!

Maybe you can show us some of YOUR original work?   If there is any that is!

And copying a kit being compared to making exact duplicates of DVD's or CD's sure is way out there!  Such copies are undistinguishable from originals.  My models differ in many ways from FSM originals, seeing that I had to scratch everything, estimate dimensions, full in areas that were not shown in photos, etc.  

Now if I took FSM kit plans, templates and instructions and made myself a duplicate that might be another matter.   Some people obviously do this, as there have been old FSM kit boxes with plans offered on eBay. 

A fellow I know has several FSM kits, the really big box types with all kinds of stone wall castings.  He's made molds of the walls and copies out of plaster, and uses them to make other non FSM models with them.  Bet that will tie your shorts up in a knot!!

 

 

 

[PASMITH]

YIKES: Just saw some building kits on eeeebay, some company called FSM, they started @ $200 and up to $400 and they were still bidding, one bid had 20 bids.  $400.00 for a kit build???? Now I know why I scratch.  can this be possible???

Scratching is always better.

Peter Smith, Memphis

Not everyone has the skill/knowledge/ability to scratchbuild. So for them a kit may be the only answer. But many of use haven't built a kit that wasn't made out of plastic or even kitbashed a plastic kit to produce something else. But paying the amount of money FSM kits cost is also prohibitive.

Irv

Irv, I agree with your comments. It is unfortunate that there are not more inexpensive craftsman kits available. My only thought here was that those who have the time and the skills needed to build an expensive craftsman kit, most likely have the time and skills needed to scratch build a structure that more closely meets their specific needs. Because I model early 1900's steam logging in California, I have found it difficult to find structure kits that fit my needs and accordingly had to learn over a long period of time how to scratch build 90% of my structures. For this reason, I will continue do so even if I could afford the prices of those wonderful kits which are now on the market. They do however provide me with a lot of inspiration.

Peter Smith, Memphis

[simon1966]

And copying a kit being compared to making exact duplicates of DVD's or CD's sure is way out there!  Such copies are undistinguishable from originals.  My models differ in many ways from FSM originals, seeing that I had to scratch everything, estimate dimensions, full in areas that were not shown in photos, etc.  

Exactly Bob, this is where the whole copyright issue of derivative works seeks to address.  At what point is the copy a true copy and becomes original in its own right?  Using the music analogy rather than copying the CD, if you were to take the work and rearrange it and record it you would still be breaking copyright without suitable release.

 

Now if I took FSM kit plans, templates and instructions and made myself a duplicate that might be another matter.   Some people obviously do this, as there have been old FSM kit boxes with plans offered on eBay. 

A fellow I know has several FSM kits, the really big box types with all kinds of stone wall castings.  He's made molds of the walls and copies out of plaster, and uses them to make other non FSM models with them.  Bet that will tie your shorts up in a knot!!

Yep he is breaking the copyright law.  Not likely to be prosecuted but none-the-less breaking the law.  Heck every modeller in the world has probably cast something from an original at some time.  I have for sure and can sleep happily at night.

[jasperofzeal]

My model would have been entered in the NMRA contes as a diorama, and yes it's origin was listed in the contest form "copy of FSM kit, original rear section". 

And hey, if anyone wants to copy anything that I've made, please be my guest!  I'll even help!

Maybe you can show us some of YOUR original work?   If there is any that is!

And copying a kit being compared to making exact duplicates of DVD's or CD's sure is way out there!  Such copies are undistinguishable from originals.  My models differ in many ways from FSM originals, seeing that I had to scratch everything, estimate dimensions, full in areas that were not shown in photos, etc.  

Now if I took FSM kit plans, templates and instructions and made myself a duplicate that might be another matter.   Some people obviously do this, as there have been old FSM kit boxes with plans offered on eBay. 

A fellow I know has several FSM kits, the really big box types with all kinds of stone wall castings.  He's made molds of the walls and copies out of plaster, and uses them to make other non FSM models with them.  Bet that will tie your shorts up in a knot!!

This is getting us nowhere.  I'm not trying to convice you of this and you can't convince me of that.  As many of you have said in other threads, "let's just agree to disagree."  As far as my modeling is concerned, I can tell you that I don't have a layout with any structures or whatever.  I do have locos that I've superdetailed from RPP kits, but no structures, I'll be happy to show the engines to you if you so desire.  The way I see it, you don't have to have a superdetailed layout in order to express concern about borderline copyright violations.  No need to question my modeling skills, that's not what this whole thing is about.

BTW, you can distinguish a copied DVD or CD from the original because the quality of what's being copied is degraded a bit.  You have to really pay attention in order to see the difference but it's there.

[IRONROOSTER]

Out of curiosity - does anyone know if FSM got permission/license when they copied John Allen's models for a kit they made several years ago?

Also, have any of the kit manufacturers gone to the architects of the buildings they copied for permission/license?

I know that UP got everyone upset when they insisted that model manufaturers have a license for UP models.  I guess building owners/architects could do the same thing. 

Enjoy

Paul

[simon1966]

Here is the answer to the Architect issue.  It is fairly unlikely that any FSM model is based on a structure from post 1990.

 

Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines "architectural work" as "the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

 

This begs the question.  If a model structure was defined as architecture under the law would the 1990 date apply? 

[NEMMRRC]

While this discussion ensued FSM announced its latest kit is for sale.
www.finescaleminiatures.com

[marknewton]

Mark, if the model in question was an exact copy, or for that matter a close copy and was presented on a web forum with the text "Here is my copy of FSM's xxx model" it would be very simple.  The reality is that this type of legal challenge would be unlikely.

I reckon you'd be hard pressed to make a valid case, regardless. If the "copy" doesn't use the same materials, doesn't use the same method of construction, doesn't use the same decals, doesn't use the same detail castings, and doesn't use the same paint scheme, then I reckon you could reasonably argue that it isn't a copy.

FSM creating a kit from a prototype scene or structure is no different than an artist painting a picture of the Sydney Opera House.  The artist still owns the copyright of image.  As does a photographer who takes a photo of the harbor bridge.

Interesting example. The company that runs the bridge are currently trying to prevent commercial photographers using unlicensed images of the bridge... So that's another argument waiting to be decided.

Cheers,

Mark.

[simon1966]

Mark, you are correct.  The more ones copy deviates from the original, the harder it would be to make the case.  The complicated "derivative work" laws cover this.  In the end it would be settled by a judge.  Given the cost of litigation and the relative lack of benefit from winning a judgement it is highly unlikely that cases like the models we have discussed would be litigated.  More likely FSM asking people not to and making it known they don't approve is as far as it would go.

 

Fascinating the Harbor Bridge case.  I bet this has the photography world in Australia up in arms.  Being such an iconic well known structure I can understand why the owners would want to try and protect it.  Can you imagine if every publication who published a skyline of Sydney had to get copyright release and possibly pay royalties for doing so.  If the bridge owners win the case then it will turn photographic copyright on its head in Oz.

[fwright]

Fascinating the Harbor Bridge case.  I bet this has the photography world in Australia up in arms.  Being such an iconic well known structure I can understand why the owners would want to try and protect it.  Can you imagine if every publication who published a skyline of Sydney had to get copyright release and possibly pay royalties for doing so.  If the bridge owners win the case then it will turn photographic copyright on its head in Oz.

The Golden Gate Bridge Authority has tried/continues to try to permit only licensed commercial photographers to sell images of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.  Really turns the idea of "public domain" on its head.  The public governing board for a bridge paid for by tax payers and still supported by tolls on the using public claims copyright, identity, and other commercial rights for the bridge it is charged with maintaining for the benefit of the region.  Only in California....(one would hope).

Fred W

[citylimits]

Your kits have always been a rewarding pleasure to build, Randy. I've bought them since DD # 1 - these and the following two or three kits were strip plastic in a style that I would say was truly Art Deco. I've built most of my DD kits - weathered and detailed them and they sit on my layout bench waiting to be included in the next stage of layout construction which is scenery and structure installation. What has often attracted me to your brick/plaster kits is that they can be used in modeling the seedy side of town were there is perhaps a seaport and the venues where sailors, watermen, stevedores and late night city slickers like to enjoy themselves.

It is my belief that kits should be built - unless you are a kit collector/speculator in which case that is a different kettle of fish altogether. If you are a modeler, then you built kits or scratchbuild, that is the nature of what we like to do.

Cheers.

Bruce

[marknewton]

Fascinating the Harbor Bridge case.  I bet this has the photography world in Australia up in arms.  Being such an iconic well known structure I can understand why the owners would want to try and protect it.  Can you imagine if every publication who published a skyline of Sydney had to get copyright release and possibly pay royalties for doing so.  If the bridge owners win the case then it will turn photographic copyright on its head in Oz.

Simon, I should have been more specific - isn't the bridge owners who are trying it on, it's a privately owned company who are licensed to conduct walking/climbing tours of the bridge. The bridge itself remains in public ownership, at least for the moment! But with our current government being what it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the thing advertised for sale in next weeks "Trading Post"...

What is surprising to me is the lack of any serious media coverage, or public comment. The only reason I know about is that a mate of mine is a court officer who works for the magistrate who is hearing the case. If the photography world is up in arms, I haven't heard of it.

(For all of our rhetoric about being a nation of larrikins who question authority, there is a strong streak of meek subservience to officialdom and their petty rules in Australia. Many things happen here that would spark riots in other countries, but we just placidly accept whatever crap we're fed, and go back to discussing the cricket, or football, or whatever other nonsensical distraction is on offer... the sports carnival in Beijing being the most recent example.)

Cynically yours,

Mark.

[marknewton]

... Really turns the idea of "public domain" on its head.  The public governing board for a bridge paid for by tax payers and still supported by tolls on the using public claims copyright, identity, and other commercial rights for the bridge it is charged with maintaining for the benefit of the region.  Only in California....(one would hope).

Sadly, Fred, no. The same sort of nonsense happens here all the time.

Cheers,

Mark.