Legal question about copyright

[Pops]

That kinda illustrates one of the 'interesting' differences between patents & copyrights. If you'd written something (song, story, description of the object you made, even taken a picture of the object), those creations would be *automatically* copyrighted. It would be up to you to *defend* your copyright (prove you wrote, photographed, etc), but they'd be *yours* under copyright law.

But since your friend took the picture, it was his copyrighted picture.

But, since you hadn't gone through the active torture of obtaining a patent, your physical creation had no protection. Unless your 'friend' went through the patent process before taking the design to that mfgr, they didn't *have* to pay him anything, either (assuming they could figure out how to make it from the pic).

The law is like quantum mechanics; makes sense to quantum physicists, but not in the context of normal physics.

I had no patent. I did have drawing, schematics, pictures, of the electronics and my prototype. One of the engineers that was with the owner admitted to me in front of the owner that they had paid my so called friend for all the information.
It wasn't all bad, I got some engineering work from other companies when the word got out of what happen.

 

[J Galt]

For a fairly recent reference on this, look into the Ferrari GTO and the replica kits that have been produced. Ferrari was able to shut the replicas down at first, even going so far as to having the design declared "Art". However, upon further legal action in the last couple years, Ferrari lost the "trademark" body shape as they were not actively producing/selling that car and that was the key point. Now kit car replicas can resume but not call it a "Ferrari" or "GTO". However, Ferrari was still granted sole control over small scale GTO's (like those 1:18 metal cars) because they still make those.

Also you'll notice that there's a ton of those Cobra roadster kit cars for sale, same thing, the kit care companies lost the name trademark fight and so they aren't called Cobra's anymore.

Further, in my own experience, I'm having an IP lawyer work on some stuff but even though we have a name, website, and logo, we cannot trademark any of those until we start selling and using the trademarks.

Where a Cessna replica falls in there I don't know but for the OP:
Good luck with your plane!

Justin

 

[Speedboat100]

I had no patent. I did have drawing, schematics, pictures, of the electronics and my prototype. One of the engineers that was with the owner admitted to me in front of the owner that they had paid my so called friend for all the information.
It wasn't all bad, I got some engineering work from other companies when the word got out of what happen.

Funny thing...I was test running my turbine on an island 50 km away...and I left it running for a while by itself...just then a man arrived on the scene taking photos of it. He emptied his camera on my request as I arrived.

I am keeping the system under wraps in a cellar...behind several locks.

 

[User27]

Many British companies have ended up under the BAE Systems banner, there remains a degree of support - and also a desire to avoid potential corporate liability from heritage products. See this page, BAE Systems Hertiage
As mentioned by Chilton, Miles were bought by HP. Fred H-P was never keen on the government enforced consolidation (nationalisation). The company went broke at the end of the 1960s when it couldn't compete with HSA & BAC.
Have you contacted this organisation? Miles Aircraft Collection

 

[Pops]

Funny thing...I was test running my turbine on an island 50 km away...and I left it running for a while by itself...just then a man arrived on the scene taking photos of it. He emptied his camera on my request as I arrived.

I am keeping the system under wraps in a cellar...behind several locks.

Very smart thing to do. Amazing what money will do to some people.

 

[Speedboat100]

Very smart thing to do. Amazing what money will do to some people.

Yes tell me about it. Once I was asked to come to sketch a tech centre 30 years ago in an architects office...the customer bought the idea right away..boss bought a new Mercedes cross country 4 wheeler the next day and I was immediately fired after 2 weeks of work. That is not worst...competition ideas where you never got a pay but the your idea following project ( mega millions ) gets built and you get no credit for it.

 

[Pops]

Right, Hire a engineer, pick their brain as quick as possible and then fire and hire another for the same thing. In my case, the thief also made a lot of money. If I told you what it was, you would know about it or have bought one or several.

 

[Chris In Marshfield]

As a member of the Howard Foundation, I have access to the factory drawings for the DGA series of airplanes for purposes of keeping it alive or manufacturing parts if needed. When I asked the president of the Foundation if I could build a replica from plans, he replied “absolutely not”. Guess that answers that.

They own the rights, so that covers that use case.

 

[cheapracer]

Legally speaking am I allowed to do it?

Generally speaking, a company has a design patent for up to 25 years. They can apply for an extension of that patent if they continue manufacturing it past the date, without interruption, and prove things like jobs and local economy factors are at risk. Highly unlikely in your case.

If they cease manufacturing that item within the 25 years, then it's public. Sale/Transfer of a patent does not affect it's expiry date.

However, one caveat that some have been successful with is parts replacement. Even though the patent has expired, they can stop others using it if they can demonstrate a continuous, uninterrupted parts supply, in your case such as wings or the rudder ect. Some car companies do just this to stop aftermarket replacement panels.

Copywrite on plans however, is 70 years. You can build the plane, but you can't own, copy or distribute the plans without permission within that time limit.

 

[rv7charlie]

Have you checked USA law? Not a lawyer, and haven't stayed in any hotels/motels recently, etc, but I'm fairly confident that 'continuous production' thing doesn't exist here. If it did, there'd be far fewer patent trolls getting rich here. It's an all too common practice for them to see a 'new' product show up, do a patent search, find a still-current patent on something similar that's never been produced, buy it, and sue the mfgr.

Chris,

If you called Facet and asked them to give you permission to reproduce their cube pump, what do you think they'd say? Hasn't stopped ebay from being flooded with clones; the patent is long-expired. Consider Wag-Aero; Piper can (and did) keep them from calling it a 'Cub' (copyright/trademark), but beyond that, W-A would tell Piper to pound sand.

The HF can keep you from *producing* the plane (as in, for sale as a certified Howard), because they (I assume) own the FAA type certificate. But creating something shaped exactly the same, from the same kind of components which you create, as an experimental....

edit: Any idea whether Jim Younkin got permission to produce this one?
https://arkansasairandmilitary.com/2013/01/howard-dga-6-mister-mulligan/
It's been around for quite a while; I have no idea who actually owned the rights to it when he built it, or whether he asked anyone for permission. According to that article, there were no drawings in existence when he built it. IIRC, there were several detailed magazine articles about it when he built it; they'd probably have additional info.

Charlie

 

[TFF]

No clue on Younkin’s plane, but I believe the Howard club owns the type certificates for the certified planes. Pretty tight nit club with lots of money. Have to, running big radials. Oshkosh is full of replicas. Especially air racers. Most never survived racing much less WW2. Delmar Benjamin’s book and a thread on the Biplane Forum goes through what it takes to get the info to build a Gee Bee. For accuracy it took years and crossing the country multiple times just to take a picture of some part of a wreck. Scavenger hunt. I know Lockheed gets a couple of pennies for model kits of their planes.

 

[ScaleBirdsScott]

I could see that if, for example, the a right-holding organization or foundation lent someone drawings for the purposes of making spare parts, and then that someone made a replica after being specifically unauthorized from using the drawings, there would be a potential case there. I suppose you'd have to prove that none of the original drawings that were supplied were present or referenced, none of the tooling or fixtures were carried over, and that all replica development was done with some kind of 'air gap' using only reverse engineering, publicly published information, independently produced information or supplies from other sources, and just "acquired knowledge" from previous experience that was used to develop new plans. And even so there might be some dangers depending on who's got what interests and resources to pursue a case.

 

[Dana]

There's a lot of confusion about what are, generally speaking, three types of intellectual property.

A copyright protects the written or spoken word, music, and artistic work (including architecture and drawings). Copyrights are generally good for the life of the creator plus 70 years. You can't copyright an airplane, but you can copyright the drawings of the plane.

A trademark protects a business's design that represents their product. An example would be the McDonald's golden arches, or Piper's use of the word "Cub", or Jeep's use of multiple vertical bars on the grille.

A patent protects an invention. There are two types of patents: utility patents, for useful inventions, and design patents, which cover the ornamental design of a product. Utility patents are good for 20 years, design for 15. You can only patent something useful and novel... even the Wright Brothers didn't patent "the airplane"; they patented "certain new and useful improvements to flying machines" (essentially, roll control via wing warping or ailerons). Cessna, for example, couldn't patent their 172, though they might patent some new feature of the aircraft like the flap actuating mechanism, or they might get a design patent on the rudder shape.

So, a 1930s airplane won't be copyrighted (though the drawings may be), and it won't be patented (any patents for specific features that may have existed will by now be expired). You may not be able to use the original trademarked name (as in Piper's making Wag Aero stop using the name "Cuby", but they can't stop you from building a copy. If you obtain copies of copyrighted drawings, the agreement under which you obtained the copies may stipulate that you don't use them to build a new plane, and such a stipulation isn't uncommon.

 

[pwood66889]

Well said, Dana.
A fellow 'couper, Dave Winters, wrote a book about the differences you described. He also revealed the shenanigans that have gone on to extend both patents and copy rights. See: "The Pirate's Guide to Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights."

 

[Speedboat100]

Well said, Dana.
A fellow 'couper, Dave Winters, wrote a book about the differences you described. He also revealed the shenanigans that have gone on to extend both patents and copy rights. See: "The Pirate's Guide to Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights."

Well in military and cell phone tech the patents are easy obtain as the companies are big and spying and copying others innovations is a way of life.

Aeroplanes and windmills are a bit different...first of all for an inventor without a big company almost impossible to develope to the peak...as they are huge ( at least wind mills at Re number of 1 000 000 - 3 000 000 ). Even a minute change in the wingfoil needs a new wing redone ( like I am doing now for mine ) and testing in a private land where there is always/often optimal wind is almost impossible so that no one can see it. Then the biggest plunder is that when someone else patents it...you can no longer yourself make'em....wind mills that you yourself developed for God knows how long ?

 

[mcrae0104]

It's hilarious that 1) people would ask for legal advice on the Internet, and 2) that people would offer it, and expect others to take it seriously.

 

[Speedboat100]

It's hilarious that 1) people would ask for legal advice on the Internet, and 2) that people would offer it, and expect others to take it seriously.

I have always liked the Elon Musk comment about patents ( which he does not always obtain ) is that it is a building instruction for an other competing company. That is the only sure way to keep the idea and possibility to make them alive....and hope for a business angel that will not rob you clean as you get it ready. The burden of paying the patents is long and hard one if you cannot start the business let's say in 1-2 years after innovation.

I don't think mr Elon Musk is a lawyer, but he knows something about how to manage things.

 

[cheapracer]

As I understand the Copyright Laws; you are allowed to build one of anything for "personal use".

This is the biggest single untruth about IPR going, you see it posted all over social media, and it is absolutely not true.

The owner of a patent is the sole rightful owner of that design, and by building one for yourself, you are denying their right to profit from their design.

There is a difference between lore and law.

 

[Dana]

This is the biggest single untruth about IPR going, you see it posted all over social media, and it is absolutely not true.

The owner of a patent is the sole rightful owner of that design, and by building one for yourself, you are denying their right to profit from their design.

There is a difference between lore and law.

Right, there is no "personal use" exception for patents. Whether the patent owner would be inclined to sue is another matter.

In copyright law, OTOH, there is a "fair use" exception where one may copy or quote part (but not all) of a protected work for review, satire, etc.

P.S. Mod note: several off topic posts and replies deleted. Please keep the discussion on topic.

 

[cheapracer]

Whether the patent owner would be inclined to sue is another matter.

Exactly, that's why you see Ferrari and Lamborghini replicas running around (some models, not all are ignored), the cost of chasing up one person just isn't worth it, but Porsche and Mercedes think it's worth it, and they do.