The Real Mauve

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Jumpinjan:
That is two of the 1916 Alb.D.III patterns. There are six that I have identified, there may be more.
I am at a loss how Robert Pearson gets my drawings, I don't remember ever selling him one drawing. Also I informed him at Dayton in September 2003 that he in in violation of copyright laws. What jerks my chain he has never bothered to ask. Plain and simple he is a thief by any description. Benefiting financially from someone elses work compounds the theft! He is selling CDs with my work in it. He has the temerity to claim copyright. The above drawings for example. Yes, he does give as the source. He has not said thank you or whatever. I guess this is all part of NAFTA, better known as, Screw America! I'll be coming out out with my own CD, the first will be Albatros Camouflage Schemes.
Bitter skies,
Dan-San

Tend to agree with Neil, what has he stolen?

If you are saying he has copied YOUR drawings wholesale, then there maybe a copyright violation.

However you do not own the copyright on the outline of the Albatros DIII, nor do you own the copyright on the colour schemes that were applied to them - your research may have revealed them, but doesn't mean you own them - what you own are the rights to the artistic works that you created - i.e. your drawings. If someone else produces their own drawings/profiles based on them, does all the drawings & painting themselves, then that's OK - he at least cites your work as his reference. No difference from you basing your work on the original photographs and intelligence reports - did you breach the phoitographer's copyright, or the British Crown Copyright? Of course not!

As for how he got hold of them, weren't they published in an article in OTF?

With regards to Dan suing Bob, as Bob is in Canada, it may be a difficult case!

Slightly intuiged as to how Keith Ferris PROVES the Fortress outline is his (deliberate errors perhaps - not unknown, both the late Mike Keep and other artists have been known to do that) - I'd have thought the copyright in it belonged to Boeing, and we know how keen on licensing they are! Maybe Keith should look out!

Keith's famous patterns for the USN are a different matter as he originated them, so he has a claim copyright (notwithstanding any contractual matters regarding who owns copyright for work done under contract of employment)

Cheers

Dave

[Russell Smith]

Originally Posted by DaveF

Slightly intuiged as to how Keith Ferris PROVES the Fortress outline is his (deliberate errors perhaps - not unknown, both the late Mike Keep and other artists have been known to do that) - I'd have thought the copyright in it belonged to Boeing, and we know how keen on licensing they are! Maybe Keith should look out!

Keith doesn't claim to "own" the profile of a B-17 or the markings used by any. What Keith "owns" are the compositions of any paintings that he created. "Outlines" and markings and color schemes are public domain, specific compositions created by specific individuals are not.

Russ

[Russell Smith]

I would like to add, though, that I do feel that Dan-San should be compensated for his exhaustive research. Therefore, Dan, if and when you do release a CD of color schemes and markings I would very much like to purchase one from you.

Russ

[Chicoartist]

Originally Posted by DaveF

Slightly intuiged as to how Keith Ferris PROVES the Fortress outline is his

Keith created his view of the B-17G as seen by a "viewer" from precisely 60' from the tip of the nose, and offset "x" distance left of the aircraft centerline using a manual engineering drafting technique which process he documented in drawing form (never throw anything away!), and his well-known book. The viewer's position is also "x" distance above or below a "horizontal reference plane".

From this vantage point (distance away from the tip of the nose, and offsets from the horizontal and vertical reference planes), there is only one, repeat ONE possible accurate "perspective projection" of the B-17G-whatever-BO. To shrink the image, or enlarge it, relative to a 64 degree viewing angle (IIRC) to show an aircraft "further away" or "closer" is to not understand basic perspective, and will not get you any sympathy in the courtroom.

Keith cannot copyright that perspective view of the B-17G-whatever-BO. What he CAN copyright is his outline drawing which resulted from his descriptive geometry process.

If you use that same perspective view, or even a "mirror" image, or a "partial" cut-off view of any work, you have violated the "subtantially similar" test of copyright violation. You had better be prepared to show how YOU came up with your drawing. If you can't, you WILL be writing a check. Realistically, there are always little "analomies" in every drawing, especially a perspective projection done by hand, that makes it unique and easy to prove if there's a 'copy'. Adding a little here or taking a little away there doesn't make it "original" - the latter more so with overall compositions, especially.

3-views can be similarly unique. Proportional measurements from any two points on the structure is one way. Addition of highly unique parts and pieces that may only be known by the original artist who studied the real thing are another way. And, yes, some artists introduce small "errors" which are dead giveaways. The ones who will spot the errors are those who are most likely to draw their "own" anyway.

As we've been told by real live copyright attorneys at ASAA Forums, and I've been told by my former neighbor who specialized in Artist's rights, the law is generally on the side of the "first" artist. It would behoove you to not "test" the precedent.

Wade

[pysonya]

Hi,

All of us reading here dwell in one of the tiniest "communities" on earth. There are probably way more people who care about the markings on a Klingon battle cruiser than who care about the markings on an Albatross.

I am a newbie and an outsider, and my right to comment on this "infringement" topic is not based on any expertise in the area but just a heaviness in my heart.

My observation is simply that it is tragic that in a community as small as ours, among we tiny handful of people on this earth who actually care what color the wing struts were on the long-gone biplane of some guy who has been dead nearly a century, that this conflict exists.

I love airplanes, I love little airplanes, I love old little airplanes. I love the history of battle, especially battle in the sky, especially since I am blessed to be able to participate from the comfort of my armchair and computer screen while nobody is shooting at me. I deeply admire and respect both the boy/men who so long ago did real bloody battle with them, and the modern historians who seek to uncover the truths, including the wonderful minutia, about those long past days.

My respect for Dan-San and the awesome depth of his research runs deep, and my amatuer historian's admiration is probably not all that different from an unknown teeny-bopper worshiping a star from afar. I haven't heard the other side of the story, but that this issue causes genuine pain among people I admire is evident and makes me sad. Please may these events not cause him or others to stop sharing that depth of knowledge with us.

I don't have solutions to offer, only the hope that the valiant cause of actually discovering what color Haupt. Whatzisface's struts were will somehow override the other issues and pull us together. There aren't very many of us in the world who care about that stuff, so pray we care about each other.

Dan

[EricGoedkoop]

I'm in line right behind Russell, Dan. Do let us know when it will be available.

As for the other thing . . . . . . . information belongs to everyone, and pray that it always does. Your creative output is your own. The problem here is that our goal is not interpretation but fact. A good profile should present the facts of the of the aeroplane's shape and color. If we have those facts, and two competent artists both create profiles based on those facts, their output should be nearly identical. If my Albatros D.III 1941/16 looks different from your Albatros D.III 1941/16, if the fins don't have the same curve or the browns and greens are different shades, then one of us is wrong or hasn't done our homework or the facts are in question. If Pearson draws a good profile based on research that you have done and made available, and that research is considered by all to be accurate and reliable (no small compliment, by the way) then I would certainly hope that his final product resembles yours very, very closely. If he used your published artwork as reference I don't see any infringement. If he layed vellum over your drawing, traced it line for line and sold it as his own that's something else, but since the two images should match up exactly how will we ever know? If you can prove that another's work is based on research that for whatever reason you have NOT yet made available and that another COULD NOT POSSIBLY have discovered on their own or acquired from a different source, then clearly there's some monkey business - but again if the information is correct I don't see how only one person could have it.

This is a very, very sticky issue. The person that has gone to original sources, analyzed them and given us information that was lost has done a lot more work than the person who has simply re-presented that information, and in my opinion deserves credit when that information is used - but they don't and can't "own" the information itself. I guess this leads ultimately to a question of why there would be a need for multiple presentations of the same information, or why not . . . . and it's starting to make my brain hurt.

And just a word to the wise - this is one of the few types of flame-ups that our webmaster will not allow to burn and burn out on their own. If the accusations start flying, he'll wipe the whole thing out - and I don't think I blame him a bit.

[EricGoedkoop]

Whoops! - my soapboxing somehow got posted twice. Lord knows it was long enough the first time around.

Sorry 'bout that, folks.

[Chicoartist]

Me, too! Super-accurate 3-views show all the details we aviation artists need.

Regarding "Perspective Projection by Descriptive Geometry" - if you're interested, I know where you can get a manual for the artist devoted to this very subject!

Wade

[Chicoartist]

Originally Posted by pysonya

Hi,

There are probably way more people who care about the markings on a Klingon battle cruiser than who care about the markings on an Albatross.

Anybody see that episode of "Frasier" where he was at his son's barmitzva (sorry - sp?), and he spoke "Klingon" rather than Hebrew because his "translator" was mad at him? Absolutely the funniest moment on television, ever!

My apologies to my Jewish friends ... I'm sure I've got both the spelling and the name of the son's event wrong.

Wade

[Chicoartist]

Originally Posted by DaveF

I'd have thought the copyright in it belonged to Boeing, and we know how keen on licensing they are! Maybe Keith should look out!

Keith's famous patterns for the USN are a different matter as he originated them, so he has a claim copyright (notwithstanding any contractual matters regarding who owns copyright for work done under contract of employment)

The way Keith does things, he's probably already got something in writing stating that he can use Boeing products in his artwork.

BTW, Keith has several patents (look 'em up) on his "splinter" and "false canopy" designs, and has allowed (for money? I don't know) the US military to use them. These works weren't done "for hire", to use a legal term. As Keith told me personally, any foreign government that uses his designs, and flies their aircraft onto US soil, is subject to having their a/c impounded; in a strict legal sense, he's allowed to do that, but of course, he wouldn't.

One of Keith's missions in life is to educate artists as to their rights. He's taken courses, and knows the best New York "arts" lawyers - don't cross him!

Wade