pilots-n-planes Or Copyright? What's that?

[MikeW]

What's the general opinion of the web site http://pilots-n-planes-ww1.com

I get the impression that the author of this site is often simply scanning a whole selection of photographs out of a book into his site. I'm sure there are several of Ray Rimmel's data files ripped off there - complete with captions!

I don't know if Ray knows about this site, but I suspect he might by tomorrow.

[MilesC]

Truely massive plagiarism, copy-right rip-off, and a law-suit-in-waiting. This shouldn' t be allowed without a LOT of permissions being granted.

Ray Rimmel's work as well as Shores, Franks and Guest; Franks and Bailey; Franks, Guest and Alegi; and Franks, Bailey and Guest (at least, possibly others). I mean he seems to have taken page-by-page scans of photos and text from at least four books. Not even re-digested, re-formated or anything that could smack of additional content to make it quasi legitimate.

Under his books page he has entire chapters from books. Oh my gahd! Works by Fonck, and Werner on Boelcke. Hope the copyright has expired on them.

He states on his artwork page: "This website is entirely a private presentation and has no sponsorship) rather as my desire to share my own love of this era of aviation. Your indulgence is much appreciated." I don't hardly think so. Someone should tell the authors of the books that he has ripped off that they are being ripped off.



Miles

[Mark_Miller]

FWIW
He asked me first - if I would let him post my images.
And I talked to Bob Pearson before I allowed my work to be used because he has some images on the site that were missing his signature and he also didn't have a problem.

He also has provided links to pages were artwork featured on his site could be purchased, so I imagine those artist also don't have a problem.

as for the previously published material - maybe you should ask him. He posts here from time to time.

Mark

[Richard_Schrader]

I think it's a cool site!

Richard

Mike,

>I get the impression that the author of this site is often simply
>scanning a whole selection of photographs out of a book into
>his site.

Copyright law differs from nation to nation, so it probably depends where his site is being hosted and where the original content was generated. In the US copyright has had several "Disney Bills" where copyright has been extended due to the possibility of Mickey Mouse falling out of copyright. I think now, if the image or text was published before 1922 it is public domain. In Australian copyright law it is 50 years after first being published or 50 years after the death of the content creator or whichever comes first I believe. The AWM has some odd copyright information on it's site for images that had by all intensive purposes fallen out of Australian copyright protection.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/sea...ch97cgi/s97_cgi

http://www.awm.gov.au/services/image_sales...s/copyright.htm

After having a look at the AWM site I though Australian copyright law was 35 years not 50? Has it gone up in Australia too now?

Anyway much of the published images from WWI are public domain now. As the AIF developed many of the images they are the Crowns under Australian law, so are now public domain since 1969. The AWM's watermark on their images of "Australian War Memorial - Reproduction Not Permitted" for WWI images isnt in the spirit of public domain. Better check first but I think it is the same for US images of the period as well. Dont know about the UK's copyright law.

For the Americans claim your cultural heritage before Disney takes it away, one more extension of copyright and WWI images and text are back under the legal limitation of the convention of copyright.



cam

G'day Mike,

I had a look at this site a few weeks ago and could not believe that the web master had copied ATT etc word for word in the pilots section.

I know Russell Guest is aware of the site because I dropped him a line re the plagiarism on this site.

Mike, as you and Steve and myself are potential authors, this site worries me because of the amount of research that Steve and I (and yourself) have put into our books, and with nil profits to come from Steve's and my book, sites like these will do nothing but hurt sales. Why pay X amount for a book when all of its details are available on line.

Just my thoughts,

Andrew.

Andrew,

>sites like these will do nothing but hurt sales.

Proving that the cost of copying and distributing the content is not the barrier to entry it used to be. If you dead tree publish this kind of ease of copying will hurt your sales.

There are other ways of vanity publishing and of readers determining the value of your work to them. Dead tree publishing and it's incumbent distribution was set up because the cost of production and distribution until recently has been as costly if not more than the process to create the content in the first place. If you have a look at sites like this and the AFC site, vanity publishing is now incredibly cheap. Even greater the community publishing back in a many-to-many relationship ( ie this forum ) has never been cheaper.

Considering that our area of interest is not the mass-media blockbusting title, like a John Grisham thriller or a Stephen King horror, maybe to get a decent return on effort, distributing your novel as a six part pdf with a shareware like license. ie you can distribute this as you see fit but if you like it or got value from it please send the author $10. There are other alternate forms of payment for content creation as well. Have a look around the net.

If the dead tree book costs $25,000 to publish, other than the feeling of pride in being a published dead tree author, how much of it do you think you will make out of it? Distribute it as a pdf with a copyright notice and a send money if you like it, every dollar you receive will be going to your pocket.

I think a lot of the folks on this forum who have a content creation bent would benefit from publishing smaller titles electronically with some sort of payment or shareware like license. I would also prefer my money to go directly to them as well, as it is their content I am interested in after all.



cam

[Ross_Moorhouse]

@ Cam : The AWM has the watermark on the pics to force people that want a copy without the mark to purchase the photo.

Or another way I have found is when I stuble across one of those AWM photos in a book and there is no watermark..

Also did you get my email regarding your old RBII mod files??

[Volker_Nemsch]

Hello!

I really like this site! It gives you a lot of information as well as hundreds of pictures. Additionally you will find the brilliant "computer art" of Mark Miller there and old comic strips and the chapter "Triplanes". The parts dealing with aircraft and pilots are much more detailed than in the Aerodrome and the "author" invested much work inthis site.

And now for the COPYRIGHT!
Did he something wrong? He named his sources (Franks, etc.). But is this enough to avoid problems concerning the copyright?

I´m working on my own CD-Rom and up to now I asked my "sources" for permission to use their material. I hope that this is OK. Otherwise it would be like this:

check the legal situation: 2 or 3 years
get the written permissions and talk with a lawyer: 1 year
write the book: 1 year

We had such a discussion a few months ago when I was looking for a picture of a AEG J.I. (Unfortunately I can´t find the original thread any more.)

We´ll see ...

[Mark_Miller]

FYI
check it now:
http://pilots-n-planes-ww1.com/index.htm
a victory ?? :-/

Mark