Copyright

[WojtasS]

Kits have their own drawings that are, hopefully, faithful to the originals. As they have been redrawn (not copied) even if exactly the same as the original, how can there be a copyright violation of a 300 year old drawing? No doubt there are variations around the world. Heck, if it is a problem, make a mirror image then redrawn it.
View attachment 583293

Kit's drawings and parts are new creation, protected by copyrigh. But I remember some issues with chineese companies using plans from NMM bought for private use to make kits. For me it's litte unfair to protect piece of history by a paywall. Epecialy when they have some very uniqe ships drawings only as a pixels as they don't send paper plans to europe. Danish museum have no problem with uploading high quality scans

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

But I remember some issues with chineese companies using plans from NMM bought for private use to make kits.

I guess that the Chinese companies you mention simply had to pay just to obtain copies of the desired plans at all. They chose the cheapest option, and rightly so, because provided they did not reproduce these copies publicly and in a literal manner, there could be no question of a breach of any licence terms. If the legal position of the institution providing the copies was different, this could be even considered a quite brazen abuse and an attempt at extortion.

.​

 

[Roger Pellett]

Allan, Re; Kit Drawings. I believe that the copyright applies to the work that was done to redraw the original. I could buy the same original drawings, use it to make my own drawing and copyright the result.

Roger

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Some time ago, before the advent and widespread use of copying devices such as photocopiers and scanners, it was common practice to prepare and include so-called redrawings in subsequent publications by other authors. While this may have been due to technical reasons in most cases, an additional legal advantage of redrawings was that they ‘broke’ the legal ties with the original work. In other words, there was no need to pay any fees, seek any permissions, or even search for the owner of the so-called economic copyrights to the underlying work. In turn, these derivative works were (are) subjected to the same copyright as the previous ones, but in an autonomous, separate manner.

.​

 

[Roger Pellett]

Many of the drawings in Howard Chapelle and David McGregor’s books are tracings from original draughts.

Roger

 

[Bob Cleek]

It would seem that the RMG's scarcity of operating funds could easily be rectified by removing a few more royals from the payroll. Reports are the King saved millions of pounds by no longer paying Andrew his million-pound private allowance and covering the costs of Andrew's personal security detachment. That would buy a lot of ship models!

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Here is how I look at it as far as NMM plans use applies:

The original plans are beyond copyright and were/are government produced. No idea about UK rules but in US if the taxpayers paid to produce it, the information belongs to the taxpayers.

The information/data on the plans are public domain. The scanned prints sold by the RMG are the property of the RMG. Direct use of their prints or direct copies of their prints are under copyright protection.

I do not know UK law and anyway as Dickens wrote "The Law is a ass." If a kit mfg extracts data from a RMG print that they have paid for, it is being fair use. The RMG does not own the data so they are not entitled to any share of the profit from its use.

 

[Roger Pellett]

Are they charging a royalty to use their material that may or may not be copyrighted or are they charging a fee to reproduce it in a form that you can use?

Roger

 

[Bob Cleek]

(Misplaced post moved.)

 

[Dart]

It does look like every cloud has a silver lining. The Chinese Amazon-clone, TEMU, is clearing it out its United States "Local Warehouses" (distribution centers) at what in many instances are unbelievable discounts. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they are jettisoning their pre-tariff inventory load prior to March inventory tax time or maybe even abandoning their in-country U.S. local warehouse business model.
..................................................................

I don't know if you need anything in the TEMU catalog, but I'm pretty sure if you have a few bucks in your loose change jar, there's definitely something that you can use from this source. I don't know how long this clearance sale will last. It may be like those places in the City when I was growing up that were "Going Out of Business" sales continuously for years! The prices are right and the merchandise is interesting.

All prices include tax and shipping as applicable:

Are you an advertising agent TEMU?

 

[-Waldemar-]

Are they charging a royalty to use their material that may or may not be copyrighted or are they charging a fee to reproduce it in a form that you can use?

The institution is entitled to charge royalties for literal public reproductions of copies of the original, not because it stores the original, but because it has made a copy (scan, photograph, re-tracing) of the original object (in this case, a draught), or at least because it owns the economic copyright to that copy.

However, if an individual (a visitor) were to make such a copy (scan, photograph, re-tracing) of the original on their own, then that individual would be the (first) owner of the economic copyright to the copy he or she made.

Incidentally, economic copyrights are subject to normal commercial transactions, unlike so-called moral rights, which can only be held by the very author of the work. The author of the work is the first owner of the economic copyrights and may sell/donate/transfer them to other entities.

The institution is not entitled to charge royalties for anything other than public reproductions of copies to which it owns the economic copyright, since those designs (draughts) from several centuries ago are not protected by patents.

.​

 

[Bob Cleek]

Are you an advertising agent TEMU?

Not in the slightest. It was an off-topic message to some friends that got posted in the wrong place, so I moved it. Sorry about that!