Lockheed P-38 developments

Enough. Subject closed, whilst we consider its content.

I’m entirely with JD on this, when I first saw the post my thoughts were what the hell is the OP trying to get at and how can he just post photocopies from books.
Taking images from elsewhere on the net should at the very least give credit, if not have permission from the source, K.Gaffs argument is a very shakey one in regard to the net in general.
However to post images without permission and credit directly from books is stealling other peoples hard work and research.

Moggy

Kindly reinstate my post or remove the others relating to copyright. My post broke no rules.

Graham 😡

The End.

Please move copyright discussions to GD where you can argue the topic as much as you wish. But it has been aired here sufficiently for the purpose of this thread.

Moggy
Moderator

Wasn’t there a ski equipped P-38 used on trials in Greenland? I’m sure I’ve seen photos of an actual aircraft rather than a proposal.

Dear Keith,
It was not my assumption that a legal case needed to either be brought or won. The law works, IMHO, perfectly well for the protection of copyright and IP, and in the specific case here, I wouldn’t either assume Jane’s were disinterested, nor that there is any difficulty (as you’ve suggested) in showing the copyright work is Rikyu Watanabe’s. Ironically, Moggy’s highlighted typo or English error in the text would, I suspect be enough evidence itself. Thankfully the number of cases is not the way the efficacy of most law is measured.

‘Cease and desist’ type action is normally enough to protect the IP issues I’m aware of and for both major academic and trade publishers and the various aviation material I’ve been involved with. Also Key Publishing have demonstrated their reasonable desire to avoid such legal challenges when ill-advised posts have been made in the past, with threads (and poster’s identities) disappearing. However this particular item is a minor, probably unintentional infraction, and I don’t have a dog in the fight, nor anything to prove in the matter.

For those interested in other approaches, this is an interesting story: http://www.salon.com/life/internet_culture/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/11/05/cooks_source_internet_revenge

Otherwise, I’ll just agree to disagree with Keith, and don’t propose to prolong the discussion.

Regards,

Copyright

Hello Peter,

I certainly wasn’t intending to be less than civil. I was trying to make the point that the laws regarding copyright are, for the most part; ineffectual. Unless you can back up your claim with hard, cold cash and be prepared to spend heaps of it you can forget it. Web sites are full of copyright material and if JDK’s analysis was correct there would be a plethora of law suits. The fact that there isn’t tends to prove my point.

As I noted, it isn’t legal and it isn’t ethical and I don’t endorse the practice of breaching copyright, but it is a fact of life and I await, with interest, the first prosecution for an offence.

Guys,
Can we keep this civil. Copyright rules are there for a reason regardless of how far the internet has come. Please respect the owners of copywritten material before posting or using it to post on this forum! It is a violation of the code of conduct as well as insulting other members vilates rule 5 too. Posts removed and thread cleaned.
Peter,
Moderator

I don’t regard laws as ‘bogey men’ and I’m afraid I don’t either find your view particularly accurate, in terms of use or application, nor do I agree with it. I’m sorry you found it expensive.

As to the concept of fair use, it is clear enough when it’s necessary to test it.

The protection of Intellectual Property (IP) has always been a tricky area, but is far from worse than it has ever been nor is it in terminal decline.

Copyright

Hello JDK

I was interested to see you raised the old bogey man of copyright. I’m sure you would agree that the rise of the net and developments in technology have all but destroyed copyright. These days the only way to ensure that material is not reproduced is not to publish at all and that rather defeats the exercise.

Copyright is self help law; unlike, say, design or trademark registration where there is clear legislation and legal processes in place. With copyright the onus is on the person claiming copyright to prove it. Just putting copyright on something proves absolutely nothing. I’ve seen aircraft picture websites claiming copyright over Charles E Brown photographs. Absolute rubbish.

Not only is a breach of copyright difficult to prove it can be horrendously expensive to prosecute. I have first hand experience of just how expensive it can be. I doubt any aviation artist with PHOTOSHOP in hand would have the resources to launch court action. Even if they could the prize is hardly worth the expense.

Also a breach of copyright is not assuaged by an acknowledgement of the work when it is nicked and posted on the net. Unless you have written permission to do so it is a breach. As for what is fair with regard to review or study the law is so vague as to be unintelligible.

Hard cold fact: unless you are ripping off Disney or some similar organisation your chances of being sued for breach of copyright are nil. Aviation artists and authors can huff and puff all they want; unless they have buckets of money backing them up; they’ll never blow the house down: they won’t even try.

It doesn’t make it right or ethical: it’s just the way it is and it will only get worse.

There were a bunch of trial floatplane conversions in WW2:
There WAS a British twin-engine floatplane conversion… but of a light bomber:
Bolingbroke Mk III :Floatplane conversion of sixteenth Bolingbroke Mk I, with two Edo floats.
Too much spray got into the engines, so it was “de-floated”, and the project cancelled.

But they converted only one (717).
The Bolingbroke EDO 53 floats look big (11700 pounds of water displacement) – but nothing compared to the Douglas XC-47C EDO 78 floats: 29400 pounds of water displacement!

I take it to read that the engines are installed in the fuselage with shaft drive to the props in the wings.

Yep, I agree.
I thought it was pretty clear…:rolleyes:

I take it to read that the engines are installed in the fuselage with shaft drive to the props in the wings.

No, you are right. I think 4 and 5 should be the designs with engines “loaded in each fuselage”, with 6 having 2 engines in a single fuselage.

Hmmm. A set of copyright drawings lifted without acknowledgement from P-38 Lightning by Jeffrey L Ethell; illustrations (inc this one – and typo) by Rikyu Watanabe, published by Jane’s.

hesham – your friend needs to realise that beyond ‘fair use’, this kind of thing is theft, and illegal.

Were these being presented as part of a discussion as illustration and also credited to the originator of the work, that would be fair enough. But as it is, it’s not.

Yours,

Is it me, or does that piece of text at the bottom make no sense? (typo apart)

Moggy

Hi all,

from a friend,the Lockheed proposals for Army fighter
competition of 1937.

There were a bunch of trial floatplane conversions in WW2:

There WAS a British twin-engine floatplane conversion… but of a light bomber:
Bolingbroke Mk III :Floatplane conversion of sixteenth Bolingbroke Mk I, with two Edo floats.
Too much spray got into the engines, so it was “de-floated”, and the project cancelled.

Here is a photo of a model of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbathy/1628637679/

This guy here offered (in 2006) to send the 3-view drawing of the Mk III to anyone interested:
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/sutra25966.php#25966

Hi
Thanks for posting the drawings, i was told in a pub of a mockup of a british twin a/c as a floatplane at a WW2 NAS, I thought the story was just beer:D
But maybe it was a P-38 then.
cheers
Jerry

Interesting stuff. And then there is the Welsh submarine version …