More Rockets

[kandsrockets]

Has anyone bought from these guys lately. They have a few kits that interest me but I never heard of them.

 

[Gillard]

the kits that look as if they are "more rockets" kits are all old estes kits.
looking on EMRR there are no reviews but there are recommended motors for the rockets.
it looks as if they have put together some clones - still they look to be nice looking rockets, be interesting to see if the instructions are estes copies or rewritten by them

 

[Mikus]

I'm building the More Rockets Colonial Viper kit now. It is a copy of the Estes instructions.

It seems to be a pretty nice kit, the nose cone is pre-cut. The top fin even has the grain going the wrong way just like the old Estes kit.

I'll post pics and impressions when its done.

 

[kandsrockets]

I'm building the More Rockets Colonial Viper kit now. It is a copy of the Estes instructions.

It seems to be a pretty nice kit, the nose cone is pre-cut. The top fin even has the grain going the wrong way just like the old Estes kit.

I'll post pics and impressions when its done.

How long ago did you buy the kit?

 

[tbzep]

He lists kits on eBay all the time. He has clones of a Viper and a Patrol Ship Excalibur on there now, along with an Estes Bullpup. Several guys on YORF have purchased from him.

He also has a website. https://www.morerockets.com/

 

[kandsrockets]

Thanks for the help

 

[Mikus]

How long ago did you buy the kit?

Mid-October, 2009.

 

[kandsrockets]

Mid-October, 2009.

Thanks for the info. I will be ordering from them at the end of the week.

 

[Solomoriah]

Hey, just bringing this back to shine a light on something I find... questionable:

https://cgi.ebay.com/BLACK-VULCAN-F...562?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c5904b842

Now, anyone who has seen me around knows I created the Black Vulcan design shown here back in 2007:

https://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=1569

Note particularly the "alien font" on the side of the rocket... I acquired it from uazu.net (the full link is on my build page). The font is licensed under Creative Commons; I probably should have pointed that out on my page, but at least I gave credit where credit is due.

I would never try to sell this rocket, as I just recolored and reannotated the original Centuri wraps (the copyrights to which are owned by Hobbico now). But this fellow is selling it. I note two interesting bits:

With its' light weight of only 1.2 ozs. flights up to 500 feet on a C6-3 are easily obtained.

Is he including the big chunk o' nose weight this rocket requires? 'Cause, it's NOT stable without it.

Included with this kit is the story of one mans' flight to Vulcan.

Now, if that is the original Centuri story-sheet, that would also be copyright Hobbico now.

When Carl clones a rocket, he redesigns it from scratch, includes his own instructions and credits the original company. Not so MoreRockets. I'm more than a bit incredulous at this. No credit for Centuri, no credit for Jim Peters or Tyler Montbriand's font design, and no credit for me (least important of all).

Thanks to hcmbanjo for bringing this to my attention.

 

[UMRS]

Not to mention the Mach 10 clone they sell uses artwork stolen from Inflight Rocketry LLC. Weve asked several times for him to not use this without permission to no avail.

We hope the rocketry community will take their business practices into account before they would order from a company like this.

 

[dlazarus6660]

I'm bidding on a Viper kit from More Rockets on Fee-bay.
More Rockets are located about 40 miles from my town in NH.
I've seen one at the CMASS launch this fall. The only difference is the three motor tubes are NOT BT-52's like the original. They are BT-50's.
I can live with that. I should just save myself the money and clone the darned thing.

Daniel

 

[UMRS]

Something to ponder in all this. Sure looks like someone using another companys artwork without permission. This morerockets guy is a real piece of work.

https://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=106836&postcount=32

 

[ghrocketman]

I have found the "more rockets" kits to be pretty decent kits, notwithstanding this copyright controversy.

Was the artwork in question actually copyrighted ?
Just because something is rendered in a particular fashion by someone does not automatically grant them a copyright unless something has changed I am unaware of.

 

[troj]

Was the artwork in question actually copyrighted ?
Just because something is rendered in a particular fashion by someone does not automatically grant them a copyright unless something has changed I am unaware of.

You used to have to take specific measures to gain copyright protection. That's no longer the case.

You can find further information on it here.

This matches my understanding of copyright law -- the copyright is automatic on publication.

-Kevin

 

[UMRS]

That also is my understanding of it as well. However copyright or not he should have sought permission from the creator of the artwork in this case Inflight Rocketry LLC.

He didnt do that. And when asked to stop using the artwork in question gave people the run around.

This company has now TWICE done this.

 

[Solomoriah]

Was the artwork in question actually copyrighted ?
Just because something is rendered in a particular fashion by someone does not automatically grant them a copyright unless something has changed I am unaware of.

As troj pointed out, it hasn't been necessary to actually claim copyright in order to receive its protection for some years now. However, Inflight's artwork was taken from his instruction manual; I expect that there probably was a copyright statement in those instructions. My photograph was taken from my site and altered, but not enough to erase the damaged dorsal fin which proves to me that his picture is actually my picture. I just checked, and my site does not actually have a copyright notice. I'll probably fix that tonight.

 

[ghrocketman]

My error regarding the new copyright changes; do NOT neccessarily agree with them, but if it changed, it changed.
Now for the 64 dollar question: What actually constitutes "publication" ?
Does simply posting something on a public website do this ?
I would think NOT.

Agree that even if protection is automatic now, one would behoove themselves by showing something as copyrighted.
Otherwise, how would anyone know that the picture is not "public domain" ?
If I was to use something I would try to ascertain if it is copyrighted, but I certainly would not just accept the word of any schmo that they have copyright to ANYTHING unless they have documentation to back it up.

 

[troj]

Now for the 64 dollar question: What actually constitutes "publication" ?
Does simply posting something on a public website do this ?
I would think NOT.

I don't know the legal court definition of "publication", but here's what Dictionary.com uses as a definition of "publish":

to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

That, to me, includes putting it on a website, as it's now distributed to the public.

Agree that even if protection is automatic now, one would behoove themselves by showing something as copyrighted.
Otherwise, how would anyone know that the picture is not "public domain" ?

It's best to include the notice, however anyone using a picture should, in my opinion, ask first. This is why Tripoli requires that photos for custom membership cards come directly from the photographer who took the picture -- that way, it can be verified that permission has been granted.

-Kevin

 

[o1d_dude]

Something that everyone who posts images on their website ought to do is to "watermark" all photos.

Most graphics software apps have this functionality built in.

Doesn't stop wholesale copying of instruction sheets, tho.

 

[sam_midkiff]

My error regarding the new copyright changes; do NOT neccessarily agree with them, but if it changed, it changed.
Now for the 64 dollar question: What actually constitutes "publication" ?
Does simply posting something on a public website do this ?
I would think NOT.

Agree that even if protection is automatic now, one would behoove themselves by showing something as copyrighted.
Otherwise, how would anyone know that the picture is not "public domain" ?
If I was to use something I would try to ascertain if it is copyrighted, but I certainly would not just accept the word of any schmo that they have copyright to ANYTHING unless they have documentation to back it up.

There's legal, and there's moral. What is happening with morerockets is probably neither, but even if it were legal, taking others work and not giving them credit for it doesn't strike me as moral. So why support them, either with money or arguments?

Sam

 

[UMRS]

There's legal, and there's moral. What is happening with morerockets is probably neither, but even if it were legal, taking others work and not giving them credit for it doesn't strike me as moral. So why support them, either with money or arguments?

Sam

Amen brother

 

[CF-105]

My error regarding the new copyright changes; do NOT neccessarily agree with them, but if it changed, it changed.
Now for the 64 dollar question: What actually constitutes "publication" ?
Does simply posting something on a public website do this ?
I would think NOT.

Agree that even if protection is automatic now, one would behoove themselves by showing something as copyrighted.
Otherwise, how would anyone know that the picture is not "public domain" ?
If I was to use something I would try to ascertain if it is copyrighted, but I certainly would not just accept the word of any schmo that they have copyright to ANYTHING unless they have documentation to back it up.

I hang out a bit on some online art forums. They have entire sub-forums with threads on "intellectual property", copyright and "fair use". The long & short is, *any* use of someone else's work, without their consent, violates the copyright. Including posting on a public website, or even using as an avatar on a forum.

 

[stickershock23]

...

 

[jadebox]

I actually looked at his Scorpious, then I noticed he was using others Intellectual property, I asked him about it. he said "Do you think I have to really worry about it?"

I told him to at least contact the owners of it I am sure they would work with you. obviously he does not care. stay away from him.

That's the thing ... just ask first. I run a website about a musical artist. I've been given permision to reproduce several magazine and newspaper articles as well as dozens of photographs. All I did was ask. Of all the times I asked, I only heard "no" in reply once or twice.

-- Roger

 

[dappa1012]

Hey All,

I am putting together a statement regarding the recent bashing of MoreRockets.com. This matter is being taken very seriously. At the moment, there is no scheduled date and time for its release. Please bear with me until then.

Thanks for understanding,

Sincerely,

Dan
MoreRockets.com

 

[UMRS]

If you would stop using others artwork in your products you wouldnt have any problems. If you had stopped using others artwork when you were asked from the get go you wouldnt have any problems.

You brought this all on yourself. The best thing for you to do would be to issue an apology to ALL the people whos work you stole and used for profit.

Then let it go, this is a battle you will not win. Walk away and cut your losses.

 

[o1d_dude]

Reminds me of a song...

"D-M-C-A,
It's fun to say it 'D-M-C-A'"

Or something like that.

 

[WiK]

I'm not sure how the DMCA would apply here*, that's more about circumventing copy protection systems and providing safe harbour for online service providers.

Then again, 'Copyright Act of 1976' doesn't really fit in the song.


Creative Commons ftw!

Cheers,
Phil

*I am not a lawyer.

 

[Solomoriah]

Hah. The Black Vulcan design has "alien" text on the side, which I created using a Creative Commons licensed font. The license? CC BY-NC. Non-Commercial. Not a problem for me, since I didn't sell it, but...

 

[ghrocketman]

INDIVIDUAL Morals/Ethics are just that and NOT Laws.
What one sees as a total ethical/moral violation could be totally acceptable to others.
A good example of this is what SOME in the USA would refer to as payola or bribery; that is a normal accepted practice in many other countries and is seen as what is neccessary to get business done. Do I see anything wrong with this ? Not for ME to say and should be up to those ONLY within the situation and not for some other "moral entity" to impose their brand of moral nonsense.
Tyring to impose someone else's morals/ethics onto another I find patently offensive in ALL circumstances.
LEGITIMATE Laws are a different story.
It makes me cringe whenever I see someone is being charged with "ethical violations" and not any specific law whenever it happens NO MATTER WHATEVER the person in question has done.
Seeing someone EVER lose a professional license for doing what some elitists see as an ETHICAL violation I would like to see made illegal PERMANENTLY.