WHIFS from other forums

[Old Wombat]

That does look good

It certainly does!

[nighthunter]

That tears it, I'm getting another 1/72 Mirage III and putting it in 318th FIS

[ChernayaAkula]

That looks really good.

With AIM-4 Falcons? Perhaps with combined fuel/rocket pods?
Falcons on combined fuel/rocket pods? For that F-89-ish flavour... 

[TheChronicOne]

I like the Harrier and Mirage both. At first, before I read the description I was like, "F-106!?"

[Dizzyfugu]

Found another CG/flight simulator version of one of my builds (as per usual, without credits...) - you can fly my Dutch FJ-4B, it even has the same tactical codes as my build!







https://live.warthunder.com/post/747663/en/



Here's the "real" one:


1:72 North American FJ-4B 'Fury'; aircraft '202', 860th Squadron, Netherlands Marine-Luchtvaartdienst/MLD; on board of HNLMS Karel Doorman R81, New Guinea/Indonesia region, 1960 (Whif) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr


1:72 North American FJ-4B 'Fury'; aircraft '202', 860th Squadron, Netherlands Marine-Luchtvaartdienst/MLD; on board of HNLMS Karel Doorman R81, New Guinea/Indonesia region, 1960 (Whif) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr

[Weaver]

YouTube was quick to respond, and the guy (self-porclaimed "seeker of truth" through idea theft...) also got stirred up:

Hello, I am the creator of the video about the ''Supersonic Heavy Super-Interceptor MiG-701''. Please tell me why you filed a copyright infringement claim? If I did use your material in my video, then please accept my apologies. Could you withdraw your complaint? Please withdraw your request to remove the video. You can monetize this video and track its statistics. I'll give my permission to do it with pleasure. Hope for your soon response. Best regards 

The original video has been taken down, but another one has popped up in the last month. It uses both your model shots and some artwork that looks derived from, but different to, your work. It's in Russian, so I don't know what it says about the images it uses.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUeCdULpULw

It links to this site, which seems to be the source of the artwork: https://terrnews-com.turbopages.org/s/terrnews.com/exclusives/261975-sverhzvukovoj-tjazhelyj-superperehvatchik-mig-701.html?utm_source=aab&platform=desktop

[Dizzyfugu]

Just filed another copyright complaint. BTW, I have never heard anything again from the former post of that video. But I suppose it's like a fight against a hydra... 

[NARSES2]

Just filed another copyright complaint. BTW, I have never heard anything again from the former post of that video. But I suppose it's like a fight against a hydra... 

A very good comparison Dizzy. Sad but true

[Weaver]

Just filed another copyright complaint. BTW, I have never heard anything again from the former post of that video. But I suppose it's like a fight against a hydra... 

A very good comparison Dizzy. Sad but true

Yep - the reason I went looking was to see if the first video maker had re-uploaded it to their own channel or to a different channel in the hope of not being found again. Both quite common practices.

I actually found another video with a search for 'MiG-701' but they only used the artwork I mentioned for a thumbnail, not in the actual video and since there is apparently a real Russian project called I-701 I let that one pass.

It seems to be a common, and infuriating, trend in these sort of videos to use some exotic sci-fi concept art in the thumbnail, that turns out to appear nowhere in the video and have no relevence to the shoddy collection of stock footage with a voiceover therein...

[Dizzyfugu]

I had this case with a Luft '46 video, in which my canard He 162 (or better, a picture of it from FlickR) was/is used as a thumbnail, but it does not appear in the video itself. Did not take action in this case, even though it's still theft of intellectual property, and apparently not for artictic but rather commercial use, what makes it worse.

[Tophe]

The word "intellectual property" is the legal word involved, all right, but I find it pretentious, when this is just a game playing with toys of which we create fantasy versions for fun.
If you had the idea to make a canard He-162 after me in 2005 (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,6469.0.html ), I will not say you are a damned bandit, I feel honoured if I inspired you to make it better, or I will just smile that you had the same idea independently.
I understand this is different about using the photo of someone else to get money for oneself, however, but I blame mainly Windows for it: when one download a picture, the source address should appear automatically, this is badly programmed and users are not to blame for that, I think. It is hard to use printscreen then cut with a software to make it properly, I make it now but I understand most people just do Download (than post it later from their computer not remembering where it comes from as source).

[Rick Lowe]

Yeah, but that's just lazy - at best - research. (which I freely admit to being guilty of... though I don't post my stuff for all to see.)

I agree the system should make some sort of automatic watermark, but they probably decided it wasn't worth the extra development time, especially as we'd all have to use their product anyway.
(sorry if that's a little close to being political...  )

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say, but not for commercial gain, and not without at least a 'shout out'.

[Tophe]

I think I understand your point of view.
However, no need of complicated watermark to keep the adress of each downloaded picture, Windows could do automatically and easilly what I do with Corel Photopaint, exemple below:

[Rick Lowe]

True, and as you say very easy to do automatically.

[Dizzyfugu]

The word "intellectual property" is the legal word involved, all right, but I find it pretentious, when this is just a game playing with toys of which we create fantasy versions for fun.
If you had the idea to make a canard He-162 after me in 2005 (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,6469.0.html ), I will not say you are a damned bandit, I feel honoured if I inspired you to make it better, or I will just smile that you had the same idea independently.
I understand this is different about using the photo of someone else to get money for oneself, however, but I blame mainly Windows for it: when one download a picture, the source address should appear automatically, this is badly programmed and users are not to blame for that, I think. It is hard to use printscreen then cut with a software to make it properly, I make it now but I understand most people just do Download (than post it later from their computer not remembering where it comes from as source).

Well, I think the "problem" is not taking up someone's ideas and create something along this concept. It is about copying material/media and using it without request/permission for commercial use or in a doubtful context. I have come across several cases when I built something, just to find that someone else already had that idea (without my knowledge at that time). There have also been cases in which I took direct inspiration from someone else's build or idea (e.g. a profile drawing), and I try to give credit, if possible. But I do not find this case critical.

I even have the case that someone (also a member here) copies my pictures and and backgrounds and uploads them to deviantart - but with my full consent, since there's a link to the original post and no claim that this was the user's own work. That's clean and fair, yet a little strange: https://www.deviantart.com/sport16ing

Adding watermarks to the pics would be a solution, and I could do it myself before I upload them to FlickR - but I simply do not want to foozle them in the first place. However, I frequently stumble across "my artwork", and when I have a bad feeling, I try to intervene. Just because something is public in the WWW, it does not mean that it is free of rights. And, thankfully, platforms like YouTube offer a way to file a complaint, so I use them.