Fliskits on ROL auction?
- Thread starter Larry
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
KenParker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 2
I don't know who has them on there, but there have been a *lot* of Fliskits on there in the past couple of weeks. And, of course, a number of them have sold for more than the retail price on Fliskits own internet page.
Which just goes to prove one thing: W.C. Fields was right - "There's a sucker born every minute, shweetheart."
Which just goes to prove one thing: W.C. Fields was right - "There's a sucker born every minute, shweetheart."
eugenefl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,413
- Reaction score
- 73
Someone should throw a Tumbleweed on there considering it is currently on hold.
I think there is a great deal of respect for FlisKits products. Shoot, imagine auctioning off the 1st production Deuce NOW!
Jim, perhaps you may reconsider this in the future. Maybe you can wait 'til the 1st anniversary of the kit to auction the 1st production off.
I think there is a great deal of respect for FlisKits products. Shoot, imagine auctioning off the 1st production Deuce NOW!
Jim, perhaps you may reconsider this in the future. Maybe you can wait 'til the 1st anniversary of the kit to auction the 1st production off.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 15,468
- Reaction score
- 232
I've thought of that... LOL but I beleive that FlisKits has gotten the reputation now that commands active bidding at any time on our 1st production kits.
I am not sure who is auctioning those off either (i usually check ROL and eBay for auctions of FlisKits items), but there is a problem there and I've contacted the seller and ROL. The images used are copyrighted and owned by FlisKits, Incorporate and no permission was requested nor granted for their use.
If the owner of these auctions reads TRF, I urge you to discontinue the use of these images until such time as you request and are granted permission to use them.
I hate sounding like a harda$$, but i absolutly *must* protect the intelectual property of our company.
jim
I am not sure who is auctioning those off either (i usually check ROL and eBay for auctions of FlisKits items), but there is a problem there and I've contacted the seller and ROL. The images used are copyrighted and owned by FlisKits, Incorporate and no permission was requested nor granted for their use.
If the owner of these auctions reads TRF, I urge you to discontinue the use of these images until such time as you request and are granted permission to use them.
I hate sounding like a harda$$, but i absolutly *must* protect the intelectual property of our company.
jim
aksarben10
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2003
- Messages
- 208
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by eugenefl
Someone should throw a Tumbleweed on there considering it is currently on hold.
I think there is a great deal of respect for FlisKits products. Shoot, imagine auctioning off the 1st production Deuce NOW!
Jim, perhaps you may reconsider this in the future. Maybe you can wait 'til the 1st anniversary of the kit to auction the 1st production off.
I have the number 31 Deuce, but I do not plan on selling it.
Scott
sandman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- 20
Jim,
You have every right to be a harda$$.
Afterall it is your copyright and designs.
Speaking of which, do any of you guys that are making clone kits realize that you are violation copyrights?
I have seen clone kits where the copyrights have been "blatently" violated" even using copies of Estes and Centuri's original plans! This is a legal NO-NO!
I think we can honestly say Jim Flis is a pretty good fried of ours here, not just a vendor. How do you guys think Jim would feel if someone started selling clones of his kits? Heck, how would we feel if someone started cloning Jim's kits?
Now, you might say, "But, sandman, you are making clones!"
Yes I am...but with a few differences.
1.) These are not the original sizes...they are downscales and a previous model I made was an upscale.
2.) I don't use original plans, If I did I am careful to use my Paint program and erase all the Estes/Centuri logos.
3.) And the most important point like Jim said...I have written permission from Estes/Cox and a letter to that effect will be included in each kit box!
JimZ gets away with it because he has permission to. His plan site is there to "promote" the hobby. Not to take anything away from anyone.
You guys have gotten away with it for now, but Estes/Cox can afford bigger lawyers than you can.
Yer walking on thin ice. So be careful.
OK, I'm done now...I didn't mean to yell...I get this way every year at this time waiting for the turkey to come out of the oven.
sandman
You have every right to be a harda$$.
Afterall it is your copyright and designs.
Speaking of which, do any of you guys that are making clone kits realize that you are violation copyrights?
I have seen clone kits where the copyrights have been "blatently" violated" even using copies of Estes and Centuri's original plans! This is a legal NO-NO!
I think we can honestly say Jim Flis is a pretty good fried of ours here, not just a vendor. How do you guys think Jim would feel if someone started selling clones of his kits? Heck, how would we feel if someone started cloning Jim's kits?
Now, you might say, "But, sandman, you are making clones!"
Yes I am...but with a few differences.
1.) These are not the original sizes...they are downscales and a previous model I made was an upscale.
2.) I don't use original plans, If I did I am careful to use my Paint program and erase all the Estes/Centuri logos.
3.) And the most important point like Jim said...I have written permission from Estes/Cox and a letter to that effect will be included in each kit box!
JimZ gets away with it because he has permission to. His plan site is there to "promote" the hobby. Not to take anything away from anyone.
You guys have gotten away with it for now, but Estes/Cox can afford bigger lawyers than you can.
Yer walking on thin ice. So be careful.
OK, I'm done now...I didn't mean to yell...I get this way every year at this time waiting for the turkey to come out of the oven.
sandman
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 15,468
- Reaction score
- 232
update:
As I suspected, it was just a misunderstanding on the part of the seller. All has been taken care of and no hard feelings.
As I suspected, it was just a misunderstanding on the part of the seller. All has been taken care of and no hard feelings.
eugenefl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,413
- Reaction score
- 73
I'm unfamiliar with trademark/copyright laws, but I am going to assume the seller copied/pasted artwork directly from the FlisKits.com site and used them to advertise the sale of their own kits. If this statement is correct, then how different would it be to snap a picture of the cover art of a particular kit and post it? Or to take it one step further, would scanning the cover art of a kit and posting it online constitute inappropriate usage? I am asking for my own personal education and perhaps to also inform others for future reference.
Jim, there's nothing wrong with "defending your land." Gotta keep them lawyers in check.
Jim, there's nothing wrong with "defending your land."
Gotta keep them lawyers in check.
sandman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- 20
Correct me if I'm wrong. If anybody out there knows for sure.
You can make copies of something for your own use...I think.
But not to advertise it to sell a similar product for profit.
We had an issue localy in the Detroit area where a "salvage yard" was selling parts exclusively for VW's.
They coudn't use VW, Bug, Beetle, Vdub, Volkswagen anything similar in their ads. They coudn't even use the siloette of a VW beetle in their ads.
It made it very hard for them.
Eventually they settled on "Recycled Parts Place" as a name and relied on word of mouth.
sandman
You can make copies of something for your own use...I think.
But not to advertise it to sell a similar product for profit.
We had an issue localy in the Detroit area where a "salvage yard" was selling parts exclusively for VW's.
They coudn't use VW, Bug, Beetle, Vdub, Volkswagen anything similar in their ads. They coudn't even use the siloette of a VW beetle in their ads.
It made it very hard for them.
Eventually they settled on "Recycled Parts Place" as a name and relied on word of mouth.
sandman
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 15,468
- Reaction score
- 232
Taking a photograph of something that you own and posting it would not violate any copyright (for example, I can photograph an open book to show the condition of the book, say in the case of me trying to sell it)
To photocopy or scan a page from the book and posting it would constitute copyright infringement because you "copied" it without permission. Same would be true if you sat down and *typed* in the entire page.
In many/most cases the owners will ignore any such use that doesn't involve profit making and so long as credit is given (eg: "the following text/page/image is from page such and such of {title of book} published by so and so, etc. yatta, yatta"), *and* you had a valid reason for posting it. (eg: "i'd like to post this book for y'all to read for free, here is page 1" doesn't cut it, but "to answer your question, i reference this page from such and such a book, etc" does work)
So, if you wanted to photo a rocket kit, no problem. photocopying or scanning the cover art and posting it would be.
It is also important to note that many think that it is not copyright infringement unless the person is doing it for profit. *NOT* true. If I copy a CD (for example) and sell it, there is clear copyright infringement. If I copy a CD and *give* it away, there is STILL clear copyright infringement. In the eyes of copyright law there is no difference. If I copy the CD for my *own* personal use so that I can store the master away for safe keeping, there is no problem. It sounds like a lot of symantics, but...
hope this helps answer that question. Trademark, trade dress and patents are other fun subjects
jim
To photocopy or scan a page from the book and posting it would constitute copyright infringement because you "copied" it without permission. Same would be true if you sat down and *typed* in the entire page.
In many/most cases the owners will ignore any such use that doesn't involve profit making and so long as credit is given (eg: "the following text/page/image is from page such and such of {title of book} published by so and so, etc. yatta, yatta"), *and* you had a valid reason for posting it. (eg: "i'd like to post this book for y'all to read for free, here is page 1" doesn't cut it, but "to answer your question, i reference this page from such and such a book, etc" does work)
So, if you wanted to photo a rocket kit, no problem. photocopying or scanning the cover art and posting it would be.
It is also important to note that many think that it is not copyright infringement unless the person is doing it for profit. *NOT* true. If I copy a CD (for example) and sell it, there is clear copyright infringement. If I copy a CD and *give* it away, there is STILL clear copyright infringement. In the eyes of copyright law there is no difference. If I copy the CD for my *own* personal use so that I can store the master away for safe keeping, there is no problem. It sounds like a lot of symantics, but...
hope this helps answer that question. Trademark, trade dress and patents are other fun subjects
jim
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 15,468
- Reaction score
- 232
well, yea, for the masochists amoung us... LOL
