Downloading free scalescenes buildings and selling 4 profit

[Cornish_Rail]

i was scanning ebay and cam across this and thought there mite be a possible copyright issue going on so as i know the owner go's on here i thought i would point it for his attention please correct me if im wrong though

 

dave

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RAILWAY-OO-GAUGE-SMALL-WAREHOUSE-6_W0QQitemZ220575239494QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Trains_Railway_Models?hash=item335b4f0d46

[30801]

I don't think there's a problem here. A quick look at his feedback and other items doesn't reveal any other Scalescenes items so he's not printing them off and selling them. View it the same way as selling on any other second hand already-built kit.

[30801]

Actually, no. Forget what I just said. Four pages into his item list there's a ton of duplicate Scalescenes models, so yes there's likely some infringement.

[smudgeloco]

Is he selling a built up kit? If so, I can't see any problem! I'm doing it with plastic kits, and so are millions of others!

[bertiedog]

It all depends if you bought the kit, afterward purchase you can do what you like, sell the kit or the completed kit, but you cannot copy the kit for free and sell it, that is theft, even if the initial kit was bought.

 

The free downloads are somewhat different, there may be conditions that you enter into on downloading, and again sale would be banned. Legally I would say that you could sell the single downloaded copy, again print more copies and you may be breaking the agreement conditions, and it might be the basis of a civil action against you by the supplier.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

I have just downloaded one of the free kits and conditions of use are clearly set out, with copyright claims etc., this covers any commercial copying, it is theft, despite being free.

 

It would be legal to download , assemble and sell, but each one would have to be a fresh download, not printing them off at home, which if multiple copies were made, would be treated as theft, or as an action in civil court for loss by the author.

 

Never copy others property, in one way or another it is theft.

 

Stephen.

[Guest CLARENCE]

Hi all,

I would say that this is definitely immoral, whether it is actually (and I believe it is) illegal. This guy is, in effect, using someone else's hard work to make himself a profit.

Something similar happened to me some years ago, when I was in the dollshouse "industry". I was making and selling 1/12 scale horsedrawn vehicles, and I also sold plans for these. I came across someone selling models made from my plans at a show I attended. I was told by someone who knew that this did actually infringe copyright and was illegal though difficult and expensive to enforce.

David

[Jinty3f]

The same adverts attribute the brand as 'Life Like' but definitely Scalescenes products.

 

JD

[Ravenser]

Definitely wrong, morally and almost certainly legally. Essentially he's trying to get folk to buy them off him, not buy them off Scalescenes, thus taking the bread out of Scalescenes' mouth.

 

As clear a demonstration of why copyright and intellectual property is necessary and justified as you are likely to get. Every penny he gets from the punters has been diverted from Scalescenes, who did all the work

[craigwelsh]

Definitely wrong, morally and almost certainly legally. Essentially he's trying to get folk to buy them off him, not buy them off Scalescenes, thus taking the bread out of Scalescenes' mouth.

Not exactly that clearcut as he is building them and selling them complete. He should have to license the artwork off Scalescenes to do that though.

[BlackRat]

As I understand it, once you have bought a Scalescenes download, you can download as many more as you wish and print them off.

 

He is building them and selling them as a finished product.

 

So where does that leave all of us who build kits of whatever make and sell them on?

 

I bet there's not many (if any at all) modellers who go back to JLTRT, Superquick, etc etc etc etc etc and offer the company some money for building and then selling on their product.

[Guest Blackdog]

Certainly an interesting situation

 

I would like to see what Scalescenes think of it

[Andy Y]

 

I would like to see what Scalescenes think of it

 

I've PM'd John to get his views.

 

 

 

[StaffsOatcake]

The building he has for sale is one of the free downloads from Scalescene as a trial.

[spamcan61]

Difficult to see how selling on of assembled buildings is copyright theft, as pointed out there's plenty of assembled kits of all sorts for sale, surely 'commercial copying' would apply to selling on of printed sheets not completed buildings.

[bertiedog]

You can build one from the download, it is then your property to sell, but if you start printing them off for sale, as either unassembled or assembled, read the conditions you agree to on the free download, it is breaking the conditions, and could lead to being taken to civil court

 

I do wish some of the members would consider what they would do in the same situation, your words, your printing, your art work, etc, ripped off by somebody else.....you would approve of this?.... I don't think so in practice.

[bertiedog]

As I understand it, once you have bought a Scalescenes download, you can download as many more as you wish and print them off.

 

He is building them and selling them as a finished product.

 

So where does that leave all of us who build kits of whatever make and sell them on?

 

I bet there's not many (if any at all) modellers who go back to JLTRT, Superquick, etc etc etc etc etc and offer the company some money for building and then selling on their product.

 

There's absolutely no problem with what you, and everybody has a right to do, sell their own property, the kit is yours to do what you like with it, the problem is multiple copies being sold, possibly from one download, which breaks the conditions of the supplier for the download.

[spamcan61]

The terms and conditions make no mention of assembled kits one way or the other; in fact it specifically states the scope as 'files or printouts', I can't see how an assembled kit can be considered a file or a printout.

[bertiedog]

The terms and conditions make no mention of assembled kits one way or the other; in fact it specifically states the scope as 'files or printouts', I can't see how an assembled kit can be considered a file or a printout.

 

The assembled kit comes from the files, and that's the problem, if the file is used to make multiple copies for sale it is wrong.(Does not matter whether free version or chargeable.)

 

The one point I can find is there appears to be no restriction to downloading a file EACH time a copy is built and sold.

 

What would be restricted would be one file being used for many, although the result is the same, in law it different.

[spamcan61]

Yes but isn't the assembled kit a 'derivative work' or whatever?, i.e. the seller has added their own skill in building the kit, rather than just producing a copy of a printout. The item for sale is not physically the same as the item that has been downloaded, I can't see how Scalescenes can claim the IPR for a finished kit.

[Coombe Barton]

There's the legal, and the moral.

 

Legally there is a debate.

 

Morally I consider it very questionable practice.

[spamcan61]

I'd agree with you if this was Scalescenes printouts being sold, but it isn't, it's completed models that have taken the seller time and skill to assemble, so personally I don't see the problem.

[Kenton]

As usual I'm being confused here by what appears to be happening and all the nonsense that seems to surround copyright ... and I'm glad I am not the only one.

 

The product is sold to the individual - the product being the artwork file - which could be a kit or just the plain texture file.

As far as I can tell from the site and the ones I have downloaded, I can print as many sheets as I want to, without any further purchase and can make as many kits as designed or of my own design.

 

Now if I sell the artwork file I can see that is breaking copyright. If I give it away, it seems unclear but I instinctively feel that must be wrong. It is not that they are expensive to buy.

 

But if I build a kit, the assembled article is now my property and I can sell that. The printout from the file I bought is now just a component part of the object. If I wanted to I could build many and sell many I don't see how that breaks copyright as the original file was sold with the purpose to use it to build objects. I do not see anything wrong with selling the built kits.

[Guest stuartp]

Authorised purchasers may print Scalescenes pages without limitations for personal, non-commercial use.

 

Those are the terms of sale for the paid-for buildings, the link is at the bottom of the page (my bold). Selling multiple completed buildings could certainly be interpreted as commercial use and therefore a breach of those terms if not actually breach of copyright. I'd also agree that the word 'purchaser' in there muddies the waters a bit as far as the free kit is concerned.

 

Normally I'd agree that you can buy a kit, build it and flog it (or not build it and flog it) without any fear of Revell's or Airfix's laywers kicking your door in, but this case involves apparent commercial use of software explicitly supplied for non-commercial use, which is a bit different.

[bertiedog]

I suppose I sound as if I would 100% support copyrights and patents etc, and in law I do, but personally I would support reasonable flexibility within fair uses for such material.

 

Just as there are rights for the user to honour, there are responsibilities on the owner, he must not sit on rights, refuse to distribute, and in my opinion should he not archive the work, as with the BBC for instance, the rights should lapse.

 

These issues plague other hobbies I have, books, art, cartoons, and Films, where copies abound. I collect, and already own, W.H Robinson drawings, but the rights holders are represented by exceedingly thorough legal experts, and they have stopped the reproduction to a point where interest has stalled.

 

Gaining a Copyright (or rights) cuts both ways, the material must be available.

 

The other problem I consider wrong is the BBC who do not archive all output, they are covered by the authors rights, but to maintain rights surely copies must be kept, but they did not do this in the past.

 

On models I worked for a company who made card and paper buildings, and regularly got queries about buying multiple copies to provide extra parts. As photo copying came in in colour we even got people who asked if it was all right to buy one and take extra copies, and we always cleared it.

 

But we had others who attempted to copy and sell, so we had to go for them, plain and simple theft.

 

All these issues depend on a reasonable attitude from both parties, asking for permission to copy for private uses is nearly always given. The designer wants happy customers, and knows the usual average honest modellers will not sell the art work. Loosing a few sales is recompensed by good customer relations and recommendations that they will pass on, gaining more customers.

 

Stephen