WWI Digest 2261 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: copyright ? by "David C. Fletcher" 2) registration of copyright? not so! by solvista 3) Re: definitive kits by "DAVID BURKE" 4) Re: registration of copyright? not so! by "DAVID BURKE" 5) Re: registration of copyright? not so! by Albatrosdv@aol.com 6) the LegalBeagle Net by solvista 7) copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . by solvista 8) Re: the LegalBeagle Net by "Fernando E. Lamas, M.D." 9) Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . by "Ray Boorman" 10) Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . by "laskodi" 11) Meikraft Models by Marc Flake 12) Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . by "Steven Schofield" 13) Re: copyright ? by Mark Miller 14) Re: Definitive kits? by "Michael S. Alvarado" 15) Re: copyright ? by BOBFABRIS@delphi.com 16) Re: Champlin Fighter Museum by "Matthew Bittner" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:58:48 -0700 From: "David C. Fletcher" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: copyright ? Message-ID: <38F8ADD8.5F52A5DB@mars.ark.com> Otisgood@aol.com wrote: "...to protect the copyright it is necessary to obtain a copyright registration which is valid for 28 years and can be renewed for another 28 years..." It is more complicated than that. I hate to disappoint the Americans on the list, but Uncle Sam's laws only apply in the U.S.A. There are international copyright accords to make things more complex and they are, in fact, one of the sources of dispute between Washington and Peking. Generally, countries recognize each others' laws. My drawings and paintings are original and under Canadian copyright law I don't have to register the copyright as long as I hold possession of the original work. That is deemed to be the equivalent of registering. No doubt every country represented on this list can add further variations. When in doubt, get permission. It is often granted free if it is not for a profit-making venture or, in the case of plans, is to be 'draped' in colours for a profile. I have problems with two different museums which have chosen to use my work without permission. One has used my drawings in a brochure and the more serious incident involves using artwork I had produced in a print for sale. I will be at the curators' doors in the next few weeks. Written work is the same way, but you can extract (with footnotes or credits). I had an organization ask if they could make an extract from my book for their newsletter and then they reprinted the entire chapter that interested them! That's a violation. Dave Fletcher Artist, Author, Excremental Turbulence Creator ('$h*t disturber' to you lot...) -- Visit us at our Home Page: ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:04:43 +0100 From: solvista To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: registration of copyright? not so! Message-ID: >Trying to recall from my law school days, any original work is "copyrighted" >the moment it is created; Absolutely correct. > however, to protect the copyright it is necessary >to obtain a copyright registration Incorrect (except in the USA - and even then, lack of registration merely means lack of certain automatic remedies, rights and damages, but does NOT deny the right of action) US law does not take precedence over international law, however any legal action for infringement must take place in the country where said infringement has occurred. But, if the "original work" was not published in the USA (but has been copied there) or it was but the original drawing was made by and is owned by an artist outside the USA then the artist's rights to remedy are fully available to him regardless of whether the work is registered in the USA since The Berne Copyright Convention (EU) is recognised under US law for example. Meaning = a work is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted, and full remedies for infringement available, say if created in the UK, but has no need whatsoever to be "registered" in the USA or a USA publication as there is no such system or requirement under English law (or Scottish law which is distinct). Thus, if the work copied in the USA is of a NON US origin then it is plain and simple - if it has been infringed then it can acted on and no "registration" is either needed or involved. Thus (as I mentioned before) whilst many will cite "fair use" under certain conditions, it is an interesting point since fair use, say in the UK, is not quite the same as fair use in, say, the USA. Thus, an action may need to be brought in the territory where the infringement took place but as to which country's fair use law would be applicable if a publication were American but the original art was made, say, in Italy, even I would not want to pursue that point without "counsel's advice". 'course, 'n it goes without saying (doesn't it . . . ?) that should you then publish the work on a website which is global, and should you get a load of people all over the place to link to it, and should you invite others on this list to go and download it. . .? Lawdy mama! We're talkin' global income stream here! Like I said, it is cheaper to buy a pair of dividers . . . . . Peter Jones Artist ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:18:02 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: definitive kits Message-ID: <007901bfa707$6867b560$3e88aec7@dora9sprynet.com> Paul's tuppence on the Hannover is well-spent: I have both kits and the Koster just has more neat stuff in it - all of the nearly-invisible stuff is represented by vac-form. If you want to build an SSW D.V, the Koster kit is the way to go! DB -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Thompson To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 1:54 AM Subject: definitive kits >Andrew, > > My tuppence worth on 2-seaters, if you can find one and can handle vacs, >is to consider the Kostner Hannover . This makes up into a very impressive >representation, comes with most of what's needed, and for a vac is a IMHO >easy build. I built mine in parallel with the Eduard version, and the vac >was a damn site easier than the early Eduard plastic. I guess it all >depends on how gullible your wife is, 'cos it's not cheap. The relevant >Datafile gives quite a good feel for the aircraft, plus a lot of interior >details and the handy info that if you can't handle the idea of >hand-painting the larger fuselage lozenge and overspray there were examples >in overal light blue. But then you probably need a source of spoked >wheels...ho hum. > > Apopogies foe a (slightly) ot request. I recently picked up an unnamed >resin 1/72 kit of the Breguet XIX, which as far as I know was a mid >twenties biplane. There are instructions in French and plans but no decals, >although a colour and marking scheme is included on the plans. Does anyone >know anything about the kit and/or the aircraft? It only cost 200 Belgian >francs, which is worth about a cup of coffee in most countries, and appears >quite good, but I've no idea of accuracy. TIA. > > BTW, anyone notice the 2 shots of a Roland D2 amongst the e-bay triple album? > > > >Cheers Paul Thompson > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:20:44 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: registration of copyright? not so! Message-ID: <007a01bfa707$6941e8c0$3e88aec7@dora9sprynet.com> Jumpin' Catfish! Did I accidentally log onto the LegalBeagle Net by accident? DB -----Original Message----- From: solvista To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 1:05 PM Subject: registration of copyright? not so! > >>Trying to recall from my law school days, any original work is "copyrighted" >>the moment it is created; > > Absolutely correct. > >> however, to protect the copyright it is necessary >>to obtain a copyright registration > > Incorrect (except in the USA - and even then, lack of > registration merely means lack of certain automatic > remedies, rights and damages, but does NOT deny the right of action) > > US law does not take precedence over international law, >however any legal action for infringement must take place in the >country where said infringement has occurred. But, if the "original >work" was not published in the USA (but has been copied there) or it >was but the original drawing was made by and is owned by an artist >outside the USA then the artist's rights to remedy are fully >available to him regardless of whether the work is registered in the >USA since The Berne Copyright Convention (EU) is recognised under US >law for example. > > Meaning = a work is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted, and full >remedies for infringement available, say if created in the UK, but >has no need whatsoever to be "registered" in the USA or a USA >publication as there is no such system or requirement under English >law (or Scottish law which is distinct). > > Thus, if the work copied in the USA is of a NON US origin >then it is plain and simple - if it has been infringed then it can >acted on and no "registration" is either needed or involved. > > Thus (as I mentioned before) whilst many will cite "fair use" >under certain conditions, it is an interesting point since fair use, >say in the UK, is not quite the same as fair use in, say, the USA. > > Thus, an action may need to be brought in the territory where >the infringement took place but as to which country's fair use law >would be applicable if a publication were American but the original >art was made, say, in Italy, even I would not want to pursue that >point without "counsel's advice". > >'course, 'n it goes without saying (doesn't it . . . ?) that should >you then publish the work on a website which is global, and should >you get a load of people all over the place to link to it, and should >you invite others on this list to go and download it. . .? > >Lawdy mama! > >We're talkin' global income stream here! > >Like I said, it is cheaper to buy a pair of dividers . . . . . > > >Peter Jones >Artist > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:47:10 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: registration of copyright? not so! Message-ID: <1e.3f02c28.262a132e@aol.com> In a message dated 4/15/00 11:30:33 AM PDT, dora9@sprynet.com writes: << Jumpin' Catfish! Did I accidentally log onto the LegalBeagle Net by accident? >> One thing that self-employed artists quickly learn is which size of shillelagh will get the attention of the maroons the best. Copyright law is our equivalent of a 16-inch naval cannon - all of a sudden it shrieks in from over the horizon and turns the maroon's world upside down. Not to start a political flame war, but would someone please tell me why it is that folks who most likley politically support the party of private property rights can't understand the most basic defense of private property rights? Just because we don't wear suits and sit in offices to make our money doesn't mean we don't create something of value that you don't have any more right to take from us than we have the right to walk up and take your SUV from you?? It's really just that simple. And bringing up the damn Chinese is really likely to set me off. I recently lost US$15,000 in licensing fees from some little Shanghai "pirate" who was the son of some corrupt Stalinist apparatchik and therefore untouchable, who ran off 150,000 cassettes of the most successful movie I wrote, the one I am actually willing to plead guilty to publicly... oh well, I digress here, and hope no one will take up this part of the thread, but I will leave the basic tale as a reason why artists are easily set off by those who don't understand copyright, whether from innocence or any other reason. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:30:51 +0100 From: solvista To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: the LegalBeagle Net Message-ID: --============_-1256295415==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Jumpin' Catfish! > > Did I accidentally log onto the LegalBeagle Net by accident? Nope, this is the "I wasn't sure so I asked a lawyer" list. That way you don't go asking detailed copyright advice from people who probably are either not qualified to comment or not experienced enough to do so. Those who are experienced enough to comment are always amazed that the word "copy" is a word hard to comprehend. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, a copy is a copy - that's it in total. If then anyone needs further clarification (fair use etc) ask someone who is likely to know - a lawyer. As a matter of interest (to me) are the words "original" and "dividers" as hard to comprehend? Artist Peter Jones --============_-1256295415==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" the LegalBeagle Net
Jumpin' Catfish!
    Did I accidentally log onto the LegalBeagle Net by accident?

        Nope, this is the "I wasn't sure so I asked a lawyer" list.

        That way you don't go asking detailed copyright advice from people who probably are either not qualified to comment or not experienced enough to do so.

        Those who are experienced enough to comment are always amazed that the word "copy" is a word hard to comprehend.

        However, for the avoidance of all doubt, a copy is a copy - that's it in total.

        If then anyone needs further clarification (fair use etc) ask someone who is likely to know - a lawyer.

        As a matter of interest (to me) are the words "original" and "dividers" as hard to comprehend?



Artist
Peter Jones

--============_-1256295415==_ma============-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:45:12 +0100 From: solvista To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . Message-ID: --============_-1256294574==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >and >hope no one will take up this part of the thread, Nah, lets do exactly that. As people who put your own considerable talents and energy and money and time into making models, if any of you even remotely get a jolly from the idea of "copying" artist's works then shame on you and let's get it clear - that is against the law except where fair use may intervene or a work is out of copyright or where a release fee has been negotiated and paid. And if I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd sue you 'till you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible. Under French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" and where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail for it. If I had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers would get their hands cut off in public. I hope none of you will construe this as an emotional outburst when, actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the opportunity to get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than fixed. :) Anytime, baby! Peter Jones Artist (who never EVER compromises on this subject) --============_-1256294574==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . .

and
hope no one will take up this part of the thread,

        Nah, lets do exactly that.

        As people who put your own considerable talents and energy and money and time into making models, if any of you even remotely get a jolly from the idea of "copying" artist's works then shame on you and let's get it clear - that is against the law except where fair use may intervene or a work is out of copyright or where a release fee has been negotiated and paid.

        And if I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd sue you 'till you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible.

        Under French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" and where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail for it.

        If I had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers would get their hands cut off in public.

        I hope none of you will construe this as an emotional outburst when, actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the opportunity to get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than fixed.

        :)

        Anytime, baby!

        Peter Jones
        Artist
        (who never EVER compromises on this subject)

       

       
       
--============_-1256294574==_ma============-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:02:20 -0700 From: "Fernando E. Lamas, M.D." To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: the LegalBeagle Net Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000415130220.0086ec70@olympus.net> >>Jumpin' Catfish! >> >> Did I accidentally log onto the LegalBeagle Net by accident? > > Nope, this is the "I wasn't sure so I asked a lawyer" list. > Now if I copied one of Grub Street books in my own handwriting, read my writing into my dictaphone, had my transcriptionist type it in MS Word using the French Script font and put her typing on the web, would THAT be a violation of....... For all the old-timers on the List, "Remember Jasta-gate." 'Nuff said. Fernando Lamas ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:20:47 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . Message-ID: <002001bfa718$16014960$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Co-incidental to this thread I was rereading a windsock International from last year Vol 15 #3. In it they have a scratch built article on AW FK3 "Little Ack" by Joel Christy. Nice article etc, but the interesting part to this thread is that right in the article the author used and even has photos of a photo-copy of the plans from Mini data file #13. Now as we all know Ray Rimmel has a rather specific warning about reproducing scale drawings or colour profiles. Moral of this, none I just thought it was amusing. Just so we get things straight I am not condoning copying anything, however I know like most on this list that we have all made photo-copies of plans etc that we have in our possession, reason being we don't want to wreck the original plan or drawing in the model building process. Taken to the extreme though is this copyright violation. Likewise if I am an artist and I create say a lithograph with a well known brand of soup can in it, aren't I infringing on copyright? for the Soup Manufacturer ;). Therefore If I use something to make something else and the original is not recognizable anymore have I infringed upon the copyright. (Although in this one it might behoove me to ask permission first I would suspect). Ray - btw I am not for copyright infringement its just it would seem to be a very muddy subject....... Don't even get me going on software copying ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: solvista To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 12:49 PM Subject: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . > --============_-1256294574==_ma============ > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > > And if I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd > sue you 'till you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible. > > Under French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" > and where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail for it. > > If I had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers > would get their hands cut off in public. > > I hope none of you will construe this as an emotional > outburst when, actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the > opportunity to get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than > fixed. > > :) > > Anytime, baby! > > Peter Jones > Artist > (who never EVER compromises on this subject) > > > > > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============ > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > > copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . > . >

>
and
>
hope no one will take up this part of > the thread,
>

>
        Nah, > lets do exactly that.
>

>
        As > people who put your own considerable talents and energy and money and > time into making models, if any of you even remotely get a jolly from > the idea of "copying" artist's works then shame on you and > let's get it clear - that is against the law except where fair use > may intervene or a work is out of copyright or where a release fee > has been negotiated and paid.
>

>
        And if > I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd sue you 'till > you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible.
>

>
        Under > French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" and > where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail > for it.
>

>
        If I > had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers would get their > hands cut off in public.
>

>
        I hope > none of you will construe this as an emotional outburst when, > actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the opportunity to > get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than fixed.
>

>
        > :)
>

>
        > Anytime, baby!
>

>
        Peter > Jones
>
        > Artist
>
        (who > never EVER compromises on this subject)
>

>
       
>

>
       
>
       
> > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:44:35 -0700 From: "laskodi" To: Subject: Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . Message-ID: <003701bfa71b$6a154e40$373819d0@laskodi> C'mon guys, lets all be responsible adults here. Let's leave this copyright BS alone with no more posts please. Obviously a select few think they can sue for anything and they want their "opinions" known as fact. Leave them alone and let's return to a modeling forum and not a legal forum. If you have questions regarding copyright seek a qualified attorneys advice, not a bunch of artists. Thanks ----Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Boorman" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 1:24 PM Subject: Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . > Co-incidental to this thread I was rereading a windsock International from > last year Vol 15 #3. In it they have a scratch built article on AW FK3 > "Little Ack" by Joel Christy. Nice article etc, but the interesting part to > this thread is that right in the article the author used and even has photos > of a photo-copy of the plans from Mini data file #13. Now as we all know Ray > Rimmel has a rather specific warning about reproducing scale drawings or > colour profiles. Moral of this, none I just thought it was amusing. > > Just so we get things straight I am not condoning copying anything, however > I know like most on this list that we have all made photo-copies of plans > etc that we have in our possession, reason being we don't want to wreck the > original plan or drawing in the model building process. > > Taken to the extreme though is this copyright violation. > > Likewise if I am an artist and I create say a lithograph with a well known > brand of soup can in it, aren't I infringing on copyright? for the Soup > Manufacturer ;). Therefore If I use something to make something else and > the original is not recognizable anymore have I infringed upon the > copyright. (Although in this one it might behoove me to ask permission first > I would suspect). > > Ray - btw I am not for copyright infringement its just it would seem to be a > very muddy subject....... Don't even get me going on software copying ;) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: solvista > To: Multiple recipients of list > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 12:49 PM > Subject: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . > > > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============ > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > > > > > And if I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd > > sue you 'till you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible. > > > > Under French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" > > and where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail for it. > > > > If I had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers > > would get their hands cut off in public. > > > > I hope none of you will construe this as an emotional > > outburst when, actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the > > opportunity to get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than > > fixed. > > > > :) > > > > Anytime, baby! > > > > Peter Jones > > Artist > > (who never EVER compromises on this subject) > > > > > > > > > > > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============ > > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . > > . > >

> >
and
> >
hope no one will take up this part of > > the thread,
> >

> >
        Nah, > > lets do exactly that.
> >

> >
        As > > people who put your own considerable talents and energy and money and > > time into making models, if any of you even remotely get a jolly from > > the idea of "copying" artist's works then shame on you and > > let's get it clear - that is against the law except where fair use > > may intervene or a work is out of copyright or where a release fee > > has been negotiated and paid.
> >

> >
        And if > > I for one were to catch you doing it to my stuff I'd sue you 'till > > you were out of cash as far as was remotely feasible.
> >

> >
        Under > > French law one even gets extra damages for the "insult" and > > where "alterations" have been made you can even go to jail > > for it.
> >

> >
        If I > > had my way, it'd be under Arabic law and infringers would get their > > hands cut off in public.
> >

> >
        I hope > > none of you will construe this as an emotional outburst when, > > actually, I am just hoping one of you will give me the opportunity to > > get some of your assets, preferably liquid rather than fixed.
> >

> >
        > > :)
> >

> >
        > > Anytime, baby!
> >

> >
        Peter > > Jones
> >
        > > Artist
> >
        (who > > never EVER compromises on this subject)
> >

> >
       
> >

> >
       
> >
       
> > > > > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============-- > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:50:58 -0500 From: Marc Flake To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Meikraft Models Message-ID: <38F8D632.56DF@airmail.net> When I went to one of my regular plastic pushers today, I noticed four stacks of Meikraft kits on sale for 25% off. They have four SPADs, five Fokker B-3s, four Fokker D-1s, three Capronis, two or three Dornier D-1s and three Loyds (the triplane). They also had the Link Trainer. Since the SPAD as been described as the "definitive" IJM kit of its type, I bought one ($14.25). Some of the other kits looked pretty rough. The SPAD has some wood veneer (.004 thick), as does the Fokker D-1. Didn't peak into the others. I know the Caproni has beaucoups extras, but it's way out of my league. I asked the fellow at the counter if he would accept mail order business. He seemed a little reluctant ("Well, you know, we'd have to charge for postage"). But I talked him into it. His name is Joe, he works Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays 10-5 and Sundays 1-5. Phone number is 817-292-1322. Address is Old Time Hobbies, 5030 Trail Lake Drive, Fort Worth, Texas, 76133. Also, there was some discussion last year about the Meikraft owner being seriously ill, or even dead. Joe said he the fellow came into the store last week. The guy is fine, except for being a little bitter about the criticisms about his kits. Thought some of you would find this interesting. I have no connection with the shop except that one day last year they let me have a one-time-only 50% off my entire purchase. Marc Flake ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:57:01 +0100 From: "Steven Schofield" To: Subject: Re: copyright? Nah, lets do exactly that . . . . Message-ID: <000d01bfa71d$29d24700$9e8993c3@oemcomputer> > '

>
        > :)
>

>
        > Anytime, baby!
>

>
        Peter > Jones
>
        > Artist
>
        (who > never EVER compromises on this subject)
>

>
       
>

>
       
>
       
> > > --============_-1256294574==_ma============-- And people who waste bandwidth and my money with this sort of nonsense should be sued witless too. Message ends. Scho http://www.ww1.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 2000 14:15:51 -0700 From: Mark Miller To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: copyright ? Message-ID: <20000415211551.1954.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> Hi all I'm sure we will all tire of this thread pretty quickly but I thought I should clarify a couple of things First I have never plagerised anyone's work - I have used other people 's drawings as technical reference or as a starting point to make my own - but never to duplicate their work or even more reprehensible pass it off as my own. Maybe the confusion here is in the definition of technical illustration. I'm talking about orthaganal plan views (front, top, side) these things are dimensionaly either right or wrong and there is very little room for artistic expression - the way I was taught, at it basest level a ,technical illustration should show no evidence of the artist's hand - that is one persons work should look identical to anothers. I've worked on jobs where 4 different illustrators took a piece and it all had to fit together seamlessly in the end. But there is high end technical illustration - beautifully rendered artwork in which you can see the hand of the artist - where there is a personal stamp. This is generaly a result of the artist's handling of light, texture, color and media not the dimensional data. Another thing - I don't see the relevance of using dividers - if I make a copy of the Mona Lisa it does not matter if I use tracing paper, dividers or just look at it - its still plagerism. And Peter - you sound like a man whose been burned. I'm an artist also and I know what it feels like to have your work palgerised - it definetly stings to see someone else's name under your work. And God knows I don't want to deny an artist his rights. and for my next question - how many angles can dance on the head of a pin? Mark ____________________________________________________________________ For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:29:19 -0400 From: "Michael S. Alvarado" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Definitive kits? Message-ID: <38F8ED36.DBB77911@bellatlantic.net> Matt, Andrew; In any scale 5-color French schemes are so bad so far I have done two SPAD XIIIs and a Hanriot HD1 is French five color. Its all just a maddeming matter of masking. In whatever scale its all for fun. Alvie Matthew Bittner wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:34:59 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Ronayne wrote: > > > Relax Dale, I'm heeding your advice and resisting the temptation of the dark > > side. Thanks for everyone's help - most enlightening :^) > > Chicken. I just finished spraying five-color on a 1/72nd Morane > Saulnier Type AI. > > Matt Bittner > http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/misc/ww1fr.htm > http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:55:35 -0400 (EDT) From: BOBFABRIS@delphi.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: copyright ? Message-ID: <01JO9Z4KH3TU8WYSUC@delphi.com> Mark:- Does the finished drawing look like the original??? Did you make any substantial change??? Nolo Press has a new book out "Getting Permission" which relates to internet type questions. It's pricey at 35., but I found one at the librasryry . Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:56:40 -0500 From: "Matthew Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Champlin Fighter Museum Message-ID: <200004160059.RAA21412@magpie.a001.sprintmail.com> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:48:23 -0400 (EDT), Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > Many of the airplanes in the museum are the only one of their kind > left (like the Fw-109D-11) You could have kept this on topic and said "Aviatik Berg". :-) Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/misc/ww1fr.htm ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2261 ********************** --------------F2E7CF2472C6FFAFA675DCB9--