Actually, I have two questions. First, I started working on the old Monogram 1/48 scale Spit Mk. 2. It looks decently detailed to me, but is it a good rendition of the Spitfire? Second I wanted to paint it in the markings of the aircraft on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Years ago in one of the earliest issues of Fine Scale Modeler there was a special on this particular airplane. It had color drawings of the camo pattern in it as well as some actual photos. Unfortunately my dad got rid of the magazine a long time ago, but I would like to use it as a reference. Does anyone have this issue and would be willing to make some color copies? I’ll pay for the copies. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Hi Fred here. I do have that and every issue of FSM. I would be glad to get you some copies of the drawings.If you will e mail me at frogfred@cs.com with your email address I will try to scan them and e mail them to you. That is providing you don,t have a Macintosh system. I cant send to Macintosh for some reason. If that doesn’t work I can copy them at work and mail them to you. Just cover the postage. Good luck and happy modeling
Fred Amos
Whoa, hold on there, Fred. Yes, the issue in question is out of print, but still, you should not copy, scan, or transmit copyrighted material without permission of the publisher (that’s us).
Rebel99, if you need copies of that article, you’ll need to ask the publisher (still us). We can provide a copy of out-of-print articles when requrested.
Paul, it’s not like it’s done for money or something like that. I too know about copyright laws and so do a lot of people but we’re not trying to cut the grass under your foot, but just helping each-other here. We’re not re-publishing stuff, barely sending a part of a mag from an individual to another individual. More to the point, I can’t see how any publisher could stop that happening.
That issue is an oldie. I didn’t know that FSM’s publisher could provide back issues that old. Who exactly would I have to contact?
Hi Rebel
As an answer to your first question "is it a good rendition of the Spitfire? " I would say no. I recomend a Tamiya Spitfire Mk Ia kit. As for the Spitfire Mk Ia in the chicago museum, I was there and took many photos of it. Presently, it is in the markings of the OTU that it was serving on at the time that it was donated to the Science Museum. What markings are you intending to do your model in?
Cheers
Bob S.
I figured that the Revell couldn’t compare with Tamiya or Hasegawa, but I had it out in the garage just sitting there, so I decided to give it a shot. The paint scheme I wanted to put on it was the later sea gray/ dark green top over sky underside. I believe the letter “N” was painted behind the cockpit, but I don’t remember. I think those are the markings that it is in currently, but the one pic I have of it is dark, fuzzy, and from a bad angle so I can’t tell much. The FSM article was great, and I want to use it as my main reference for the markings. I think I remember reading in that article that that particular aircraft was an actual Battle of Britan vet, and served with the RAF through the war and was retired th the Science Museum. I think that is an impressive history, and why I chose it as the one to build. Very interesting I think.
dj,
i would agree w/ you here, but for one minor point:
it is impolite to poach on FSM’s copyright ON THEIR SITE !
i think the expression is ‘bad form’ over your way. [:)]
regardless of how Paul feels about this instance personally, he has a responsibility to speak up and avoid ‘setting a precedent’ by seeming to agree by keeping quiet.
ed.
(busy trying to round up every issue i don’t have on ebay!) [:D]
I just got on the Museum of Science and Industry’s web page and found one pretty good pic, but I still need more. Plus the aircraft on display is a Mk. 1 not a 2 as I thought (doh!). What is the difference between the Mk.1 and 2?
Excellent point, Wildwilliam… But maybe a ‘generic’ warning would have been more appropriate, no? Would be a shame to get Fred scared of coming back here…
Hi Rebel
If you would e-mail me direct, I would send you a couple photos.
The only difference between a MK I and a Mk II is that the Mk II has a small blister on the starboard cowl near the front. This was to cover the gear extension from the Coffman starter. The Mk II always used the Rotol propeller and blunt style Rotol spinner.
The colours of the Spit in Chicago are Dark Green / Ocean Grey over Medium Sea Grey. The spinner and fuselage band are Sky. If you look in Fine Scale Modeler Feb. 2001 I included a photo or two of this aircraft in my Spitfire article.
Cheers
Bob S.
Hi FRED AMOS here . First let me say that I am to old to be scared by this kind of thing.
Second, T oPaul I say thank you for the warning or advise or what ever you call it. I copied the item Chris wanted and mailed it to him. The only thing I asked for is for him to to cover the $.60 postage. I have belonged to IPMS for a little over 25 years and if you will recall their motto is " By Modelers, For Modelers". I am just one modeler helping another and if you want to put a stop to that go ahead and try. I don’t think you can do it.
OK So now I will get off of my soap box and settle down. Happy modeling to one and all.
Remember this, " Happiness can be cured". Fred
Well, thanks for clarifying the difference in marks for me. As for the copying issue… I just need a reference I don’t have, and someone else did. I don’t want anyone to get in trouble or do anything “illegal”. There is a way to swap references without stepping on anyone’s toes.
In addition to what bob said, I found this site to be rather informative…
We understand that folks just want to help each other out but that doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s a violation of the copyright laws and our claims to the published materials.
Because this topic comes up from time to time here in the forums, I did little research. According to the US Copywright office, “A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.”
So until that time has expired the copyright protection in the statement “This publication may not be reproduced in part or in whole without the written permission from the publisher” still holds.
There are fair use provisions but they apply to repoducing brief quotes for critiques or review, using a published account in news reporting, or in an educational setting but none of those exceptions apply here.
Making a copy for your own personal use is one thing, but making either a photocopy or scanning and passing along copies is no different than buying a new music CD and then burning copies for all of your friends. It seems easy enough to do and your intentions may be good, but it is still a violation of copyright laws.
i guess i’m a party pooper too but mr ellis is right
i on my job as a photo tech have to shoot people down with there photos of weddings and things because of copyright laws[:(]
and sometimes i love it[}:)][:D]
If you were to sue, I believe all you can sue for are damages. How was Kalambach Publishing damaged by someone making a photo copy of an out of print article and giving it away?
On the other hand, how much has Kalambach damaged itself by making a stink about this issue? As a potential buyer of your magazines, I feel less favorably towards your company at the moment and might think twice about buying a copy off the newstand tomorrow.
That is my honest feelings and my reaction when corporations make a tempest in a teapot about issues where they are not really being harmed. You did not lose a sale of a magazine because of this because the issue in question was from an out of print edition.
I will acknowledge that Kalambach does own the rights to the article, and that those rights were violated in this instance, but again, how was Kalambach damaged by that action?
If somebody were proposing copying an in print publication to avoid buying a copy, I would feel differently and I would probably be among the first to tell them to buy their own copy.
Piracy is a real problem in the world of software and other electronic media, where publishers can receive real harm from people making illegal copies of their software. Especially by Asian piracy rings who copy a work and sell it at cut rate prices on the internet. In the cases of piracy rings, one copy of a DVD can be resold thousands of times, which can amount to millions in lost revenue.
Those people should be shut down and prosecuted to the extent of the law. I also agree that casual piracy between friends of electronic media should be discouraged. Microsoft’s #2 and #3 operating system competitors are older versions of their own OSs and piracy, in that order. Piracy really does cost them sales. (Which brings about a discussion of Microsoft’s monopoly of the industry, but that’s a different discussion.)
There is no flourishing market in pirated copies of printed material. Why? It’s too expensive to make the copies and printed material is usually priced at the right point where people don’t bother to even think about making pirated copies. The only time printed material is copied is usually when it is no longer available through the mainstream channels, as in this case.
Yes, Kalambach’s rights were violated in this case. What are the real damages? About $1? You did more damage to your reputation by jumping all over it. Especially the way it was done.
Bill
You go boy!!!
wrong answer the copyright violation is a federal offense (now please don’t jump down my throat that the feds are coming please)
but technically you can be heavilly fined by the gov (hey they like money)
then after the fines comes the damages and maybe just a dollar in damages PLUS COURT COSTS
i am not saying that anyone will or will not do anything but…
what i stated is just info and ONLY info
and possible jail time. There is a lot of counterfeiting and piratcy going on out there and companies must protect themselves