WHIFS from other forums

[Rick Lowe]

Courtesy costs nothing, and most  folk would probably be flattered to be asked and that someone wanted to use their image/artwork/model.
But it's always nice/better to ask.

Sadly, trying to stop all the pilfering is like a game of Whack-a-Mole... 

[scooter]

Courtesy costs nothing, and most  folk would probably be flattered to be asked and that someone wanted to use their image/artwork/model.
But it's always nice/better to ask.

Sadly, trying to stop all the pilfering is like a game of Whack-a-Mole... 

That's why my Star Trek 3-views all have attribution of parts on their respective dA page.  And, sadly, I had one of my ships outright stolen and "slightly" modified.  And how do I know it they stole my ship?  I put the name in the ribbon along the secondary hull and they didn't see fit to remove it, or they didn't see it.

[Tophe]

I think it is a very complicated subject:
A/ a friend of us, not posting in what-if modellers anymore but on deviant art, was modifying true aircraft pictures into funny what-if for joke, without earning a single penny/cent from this, and sometimes the photographers sent him words of hate and so he stopped sadly, saying "normally: if someone put a picture on the public web, this becomes public property, not personal property anymore". If this is (for instance) a picture of North-American F-100, the photographer Mr X did not put a word to thank North American designers, so the what-if designer thinks he doesn't need to thank Mr X, and he signed just Y. Who is right? just X not Y nor North Am designers? This may be the legal answer but it is very questionable, not obvious fairness. It is the same for 3-view designers using many works not saying it, and shouting if you transform their 3-view. Or for this Star Trek ship: where are the names of the creators having invented the Star Trek things? Not easy, not simple.
B/ the principle of public web was free sharing, but when some ones deposit a legal copyright on things, it seems opposite to the web principle. Like the one putting its name on the smiley and requiring $ billions because nobody ever put a personal name on it. Maybe this is a way to play with laws, but my opinion: this is bad.
C/ when I want to transform a realist picture with a signature into a fantasy joke, adding "source:" before the signature, and if the man/woman involved shouts I have not required his/her official approbation, I feel bad, because this is not professional robbery to make money at all, just a hobby celebrating what I found, and most often the source had no link to click : "if you want to use this picture, ask permission clicking here", so I cannot invest in employing a private detective to find how to ask this permission.
D/ If you buy a book, are you allowed to modify a (scanned) drawing of this book? If this is personal property, why did the seller rob your money for you to have it? I have heard that 20 years after publication, the content becomes public, but this is artificial decided by laws of different countries differently, as there is no evidence at all. Mozart music is pretended public while Elvis Presley's music may be copyrighted for inheritors, why? This is absolutely counter-intuitive, this is the kingdom of lawyer tigers I think.

[Tophe]

And alas even more:
E/ For a 1/72 what-if model, you may write Heinkel Luftwaffe He-962, the words Heinkel being a tribute to Heinkel designers all right, Luftwaffe being a tribute to the ones inventing the roundels, but why don't you write on the picture « thanks to Frog for the kit (and authorization to show this picture), thanks to Humbrol for the paint (and...), thanks to Tamiya for the varnish (and...), thanks to Microscale for the decals (and...), thanks to IPMS for the show it was displayed in (and...), thanks to the cleaning crew X-Y-Z that made comfortable this area (and...), » and so on. Ignoring this by will, would you say this is stealing intellectual property? Like for a book, you have paid for having these tools but some lawyers/states may pretend this is not enough for them to be yours, "creators" having a property lasting forever.
F/ For a a scale 1 in flight picture from another plane, you may write Lockheed USAF F-16, the words Lockheed being a tribute to designers and manufacturers and painters, the words USAF being a tribute to the pilots, mechanics, refuelers and so on, but why don't you write « thanks to Canon for the camera (and authorization to show this picture), thanks to Sony for the memory card (and...), thanks to Samsung for the computer handling the picture (and...), thanks to Microsoft for the operating system (and...), thanks to X for the wi-fi helping me to post it (and...), thanks to Y for the battery making it possible (and...), thanks to Z for the electricity without which nothing could be done (and...), » and so on?
G/ Even for a famous painting like Mona Lisa in Paris Museum, the artist only is signing, without writing the name of those that made the paint matter, the brushes, the board, the frame, the preservation, the transportation, the police protection, the cleaning, the food to feed the painter, and so on (and keeping the written authorisation of them to show the result).
H/ When a journalist is checking a news, he/she considers this checking is his/her own merit, deserving wages, he/she does not share this with the consulted sources. Is this robbery? That may be the same somehow for a YouTube film creator gathering sources and thinking « what I found on the web is my discovery, all the merit of it belongs to me ».
Somehow, legal property could be everywhere and claiming your own ignoring the one of others is questionable, like over selfish or something. This is my opinion, I mean, I do not pretend this is The Truth that everyone must admit. But remember in the Profile section of this site there is a topic (now locked for years) that was hardly discussing these problems of property/rights, without simple solution at all, and that is why the Profiles section is not available for guests/public (but for members only).

[Dizzyfugu]

New developments from the YouTube front. After filing the second complaint I was contacted via Flickr about being allowed to use my pictures in a YouTube video about the MiG 7.12. Why not asking in the first place???
I replied that I have no problem as long as the original source is quoted, visibly and legibly. We'll see what becomes of this...

[Rick Lowe]

New developments from the YouTube front. After filing the second complaint I was contacted via Flickr about being allowed to use my pictures in a YouTube video about the MiG 7.12. Why not asking in the first place???
I replied that I have no problem as long as the original source is quoted, visibly and legibly. We'll see what becomes of this...

Precisely!

It will be interesting to see, as you say.

[Dizzyfugu]

 

[TheChronicOne]

I like it!

[Dizzyfugu]

Found this (pretty) F11F model at warthunder.com:

[Joe C-P]

I can't help thinking what that would look like with an Angel Interceptor nose...

Plus a T-tail.

[Dizzyfugu]

Found another of my builds on an apparently not-so-trustworthy news website:

https://infotrustng.com/israeli-war-jets-strike-gaza/

I wonder how a fictional Danish(!!!) Kfir comes to strike targets in gaza? 

[zenrat]

Found another of my builds on an apparently not-so-trustworthy news website:

https://infotrustng.com/israeli-war-jets-strike-gaza/

I wonder how a fictional Danish(!!!) Kfir comes to strike targets in gaza? 

Don't worry, Tayo Adelaja is coming to the rescue...

[DogfighterZen]

That is ridiculous... it's easy to see the markings on the plane... 
Dizzy, i found another youtube video which has a thumbnail pic that looks very much like the pics you take of your models. The plane shown in the thumbnail is an Heinkel He 162. The video is a History channel doc of the weapons the Nazis could have had if the war went on into 1946.
Search for for: LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...) and you'll see the thumbnail.
The link for the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uJgUXnD8B8

[dwomby]

Sea Raptor

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal16/15901-16000/gal15997-F-22-Clero/00.shtm

David

[chrisonord]

I think that has been on here by one of our members  if I  remember correctly.  Nice looking  bird though  David.