Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Main Mission > The Hangar

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28-02-2007, 08:53 PM   #1
uncle bill
Astrophysics Technician
 
uncle bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SWINDON UK
Posts: 273
Default Who's ripping who? - a civilised discussion.

[Admin edit] Split from "MORE From PE..."

Carry on! ....

=============

If it is a hawk then it will be a copy of the Warp kit.
I would not be surprised if they releases the other two laser tanks. And they would be "recasts" of the Small models. The tank in the gift set being a recast of my (UNCL) garage kit! Even though They put my name on the box I can tell you they never once made any effort to contact me or make any payment.. In fact I was totally ignored when I tried to stop them using my Name. gripe over
uncle bill is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2007, 09:50 PM   #2
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Hi Bill,

Welcome to the forum and the ripped off club.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2007, 10:39 PM   #3
brinkeguthrie
Computer Technician
 
brinkeguthrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 204
Default

what do these last two posts mean, I musta missed something.
brinkeguthrie is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2007, 11:15 PM   #4
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

In Bill's case it's producing a kit that is effectively recast even though rubber never actually touches it.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2007, 11:57 PM   #5
Warin
Astrophysics Technician
 
Warin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Posts: 334
Default

There has to be something that can be done in your case, uncle bill. If they put your name on the box (goes to check his PE Gift Set Box) there is a tacit acknowlegement that they used your work, and there should be a wat to secure remuneration of some sort. Sounds like an open and shut case, unless they have some sort of signed agreement that they can use your work.

I can see it being difficult to recover damages from small scale garage kit manufacturers, but PE is (in the Space 1999 memorabilia business anyways) a pretty big company.

Have you looked into it?
Warin is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2007, 01:37 AM   #6
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Since Bill's kit may not be officially licenced, it's almost impossible to enforce. Sometimes, all people need to do is ask and perhaps send the originator a freebie of the finished product and honour is served. It's the apparent cavalier attitude of sticking two fingers up at the kit creator that causes the offence.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 01:45 AM   #7
brinkeguthrie
Computer Technician
 
brinkeguthrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 204
Default

I like PE's products...but their business practices seem to leave a bit to be desired. I guess from what I see here, they have used someone else's work?

Couple that with missing deadlines by months if not years, and leaving the website dormant for weeks at a time...

who's running that show, anyway?
brinkeguthrie is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 09:36 AM   #8
TonyB
Forum Supporter
 
TonyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire UK.
Posts: 5,272
Default

Hey Bill you finally managed to join then, welcome to the forum.
TonyB is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 11:53 AM   #9
w8cmp
Science Officer
 
w8cmp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Romford, London, England
Posts: 5,523
Default

Welcome Bill...good to see you here...
w8cmp is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 08:22 PM   #10
the DOCTOR
Computer Technician
 
the DOCTOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 222
Default

Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, allow me to explain... yes, Bill's models have been used as REFERENCE for PE products, but once a kit is put together and used for publicity and shown at toyfair, the model gets sent to the far East and is used to produce a two-up master, that is to say a model that is twice the size of the eventual product broken down into mouldable componants, which are then pantographed down into a aluminium or steel injection moulding tool, and NOT just stuck in a magic moulding machine that produces instant copies, otherwise don't you think that the turnaround would be much quicker?

A good example is the SHADO Mobile- the prototype for this was produced entirely in house in the Far East, they gathered all their own reference and produced a loverly 14" model, that was used to make the 7" diecast, and I know this for a fact, 'cos I've got a casting of the two up in front of me.

Honestly Bill, your models have only been used because they are so accurate, I'm sure no slight was intended.
the DOCTOR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2007, 08:52 PM   #11
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Quote:
Honestly Bill, your models have only been used because they are so accurate, I'm sure no slight was intended.
Er... is that supposed to make him feel better?

I don't think anyone objects to a company making it's own masters, like the Mobile.

Quote:
once a kit is put together and used for publicity and shown at toyfair, the model gets sent to the far East and is used to produce a two-up master
It's not the method used that's the issue. It's the fact. Bill's model was copied. End of story. His work was the basis for the PE product without any consideration shown. He did the research. He worked out the proportions. He worked out the contours. PE copied it. Sorry, but by your own admission, it's difficult to see it any other way. Dissecting it into parts that suits PE's methods of mass production doesn't make it their's. By the same logic, I could fill in all the seam lines on a PE model, recast it and sell them with a clear conscience. Hey PE should be flattered I chose their's because their models are the most accurate.

Ian, we're cool but trust me that you aren't going to win this one. It's morally corrupt even if the law won't recognise it.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 09:10 PM   #12
the DOCTOR
Computer Technician
 
the DOCTOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 222
Default

Actually Brian Johnson and his team did all that, all Bill did was copy their work, with no licencse.

Yes, Bill's model was used as Reference, but really, it was no more than a 3d set of plans, no worse than using pictures for reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DX-SFX
It's not the method used that's the issue. It's the fact. Bill's model was copied.
Yes. and who designed it? Doesn't that make Bill's Eagle a copy also?

Quote:
His work was the basis for the PE product without any consideration shown. He did the research. He worked out the proportions. He worked out the contours. PE copied it.
No, it was used as REFERENCE, if PE had the use of an original 44" and pantographed it down, the result would have been very similar, if not the same.

Quote:
Sorry, but by your own admission, it's difficult to see it any other way. Dissecting it into parts that suits PE's methods of mass production doesn't make it their's. By the same logic, I could fill in all the seam lines on a PE model, recast it and sell them with a clear conscience. Hey PE should be flattered I chose their's because their models are the most accurate.
No. Not at all. As I outlined prviously, the master for this product was made by artisans in Hong Kong, TWICE THE SIZE of the finished product, based on reference that included Bill's model; by all means copy PE's eagle, but both PE and Granada licensing will be unhappy. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LICENSE HOLDERS.
the DOCTOR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 09:24 PM   #13
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

And with respect, that's excuse number two that you frequently hear from recasters (number one is that you should be flattered).

Just because something isn't licenced doesn't mean it's yours to do with as you please. It just means you can reproduce it without fear of legal comeback from the unlicenced kit maker.

PE's licence gives it permission to create a toy in the image of something that is Granada's copyright. That doesn't give you any right to use someone else's model as a master. Upsizing it and then downsizing it again makes no difference.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 09:35 PM   #14
the DOCTOR
Computer Technician
 
the DOCTOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 222
Default

With respect, 'they should be flattered' is excuse No. one from garage kit makers when they get a cease and desist order!

This is all very dodgy ground, as a buyer and maker of garage kits and licensed replicas, I do see both sides- ie. that a garage kit, despite being made with the best intentions, involves profiting from the work of others- we wouldn't be buying them if they hadn't been on TV, and, as such, is illegal; whereas, exactly copying the work of someone else, even with the application of a license, is morally wrong; but, as outlined above, Bill's beautiful models have been completely back engineered to produce the prototypes, and, as such, aren't slavish copies: if two things are exact scale models of the same thing, made from the same reference, but one is made with reference to the other, does that invalidate the second object?
the DOCTOR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 10:22 PM   #15
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
That doesn't give you any right to use someone else's model as a master.
This assertion begs the question. It assumes that which is ultimately under contention: that the 'someone else' has any 'right' to the model at all (even though he is the one who copied and made it). I would assert he has no such right. Without the permission (license, etc) of the owner, any copy one makes is a violation of the owner's rights to his property. And no one has the 'right' to violate another person's rights. As such, one cannot claim the 'someone else' has rights to that which he had no right to have created in the first place.

The only person who properly has the right to the model made by the 'someone else' is the owner of the property of which the model is a copy. And that owner (and that owner alone) may dispose of the model as he sees fit - which means he may rightfully do anything from destroying it, to selling it, to copying it, to allowing the model maker to continue to possess it, etc.. As the owner of the work which was copied, only he may rightfully dispose of the original or any copies of it. Anyone else is violating his rights.

Thus it is certainly hypocritical to copy, without permission, the work of another and then turn around and complain when someone does the exact same thing with that copy. But it is worse than hypocrisy when the rightful owner (or his legal agent) is the one being condemned for disposing of that which is rightfully his in the first place. Such condemnation is actually an attack upon the principle of property rights itself.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2007, 10:28 PM   #16
the DOCTOR
Computer Technician
 
the DOCTOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS
Quote:
That doesn't give you any right to use someone else's model as a master.
This assertion begs the question. It assumes that which is ultimately under contention: that the 'someone else' has any 'right' to the model at all (even though he is the one who copied and made it). I would assert he has no such right. Without the permission (license, etc) of the owner, any copy one makes is a violation of the owner's rights to his property. And no one has the 'right' to violate another person's rights. As such, one cannot claim the 'someone else' has rights to that which he had no right to have created in the first place.

The only person who properly has the right to the model made by the 'someone else' is the owner of the property of which the model is a copy. And that owner (and that owner alone) may dispose of the model as he sees fit - which means he may rightfully do anything from destroying it, to selling it, to copying it, to allowing the model maker to continue to possess it, etc.. As the owner of the work which was copied, only he may rightfully dispose of the original or any copies of it. Anyone else is violating his rights.

Thus it is certainly hypocritical to copy, without permission, the work of another and then turn around and complain when someone does the exact same thing with that copy. But it is worse than hypocrisy when the rightful owner (or his legal agent) is the one being condemned for disposing of that which is rightfully his in the first place. Such condemnation is actually an attack upon the principle of property rights itself.
Good Grief! I couldn't put it better myself! Are you a copyright lawyer, by any chance?
the DOCTOR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 10:33 PM   #17
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

If the PE 23" model wasn't an exact clone of the RU 23" model complete with the same incorrect detail and contours, not to mention 1" oversize, I'd have more faith in the models contributing reference rather than just being cloned. Most of PE's output is based on existing models as anyone can see, most with the creators blessing i.e. Tony James, and some without. Bill obviously feels that his kit has contributed more than just reference and the evidence does suggest so. Why that particular laser tank? The Eagle nose type one would be the more popular. Answer: Because of the UNCL kit.

This is not something that I particularly want to get into a fight over. Although recasting has been a problem for me in the past, I couldn't actually care that much as Bill can fight his own fights. I just think you're on a loser trying to say that the kits aren't the major core of the product when it's blatantly clear that they are. The stuff they do themselves whether it's masters you've made or working from photos is not an issue. I just sympathise with people like Bill particularly, as mentioned before, when the simple courtesy of asking and maybe a freebie sent is enough acknowledgement that the person who created the master that gets remastered contributed in no small measure to the end result.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 10:41 PM   #18
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS
Quote:
That doesn't give you any right to use someone else's model as a master.
This assertion begs the question. It assumes that which is ultimately under contention: that the 'someone else' has any 'right' to the model at all (even though he is the one who copied and made it). I would assert he has no such right. Without the permission (license, etc) of the owner, any copy one makes is a violation of the owner's rights to his property. And no one has the 'right' to violate another person's rights. As such, one cannot claim the 'someone else' has rights to that which he had no right to have created in the first place.

The only person who properly has the right to the model made by the 'someone else' is the owner of the property of which the model is a copy. And that owner (and that owner alone) may dispose of the model as he sees fit - which means he may rightfully do anything from destroying it, to selling it, to copying it, to allowing the model maker to continue to possess it, etc.. As the owner of the work which was copied, only he may rightfully dispose of the original or any copies of it. Anyone else is violating his rights.

Thus it is certainly hypocritical to copy, without permission, the work of another and then turn around and complain when someone does the exact same thing with that copy. But it is worse than hypocrisy when the rightful owner (or his legal agent) is the one being condemned for disposing of that which is rightfully his in the first place. Such condemnation is actually an attack upon the principle of property rights itself.
The opposite of that is that it's open season for recasters recasting unlicenced garage kits. No one would produce anything because there'd be no point if someone else is just going to recast it. The whole point of the garage kit industry is that it operates in a grey area. Without some sort of "honour amongst thieves", you might as well kiss goodbye to the hobby. Should PE copy the Nuke being discussed in one of the other threads because they're the licence holders? Most of the hobby takes infringing the studio's copyright as a given. Most studio's tolerate a low level of fan activity. If PE turned around tomorrow and said we want to produce a nuke so please C&D, that would be entirely understandable and they'd be within their rights but if they then went and effectively recast the project here, I'd call that dishonourable.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 10:49 PM   #19
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

... And in case anyone thinks I have it in for PE, I don't. Although I won't go into details, I'm sure the Doctor will confirm that I alerted them and am investigating a copyright issue that arose this week that could potentially impact on them to a significant degree.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 10:58 PM   #20
the DOCTOR
Computer Technician
 
the DOCTOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 222
Default

And I certainly don't have anything against DX-SFX, I just like a good argumen.., er, debate!
the DOCTOR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com