My sincere apologies to Tony

To all my control line friends,

This morning I received an e mail from Tony Drago stating the following:


Mike.
"I still own the name and the rights to the name and or any such name sake of CONTROL LINE CLASSICS in any combination their to.
Please receive this email as official notice to Cease and Desist of all use of the Control Line Classics name."

Sincerely
Tony Drago,
Control Line Classics

First and foremost I want to sincerely apologize to Tony for unknowingly using the name of his company that he previously operated. I was unaware that Tony’s company carried this name or I certainly would not have used it. That is my fault for not doing enough research.

Secondly, when I checked to see if the domain name Control Line Classics was available, it was…that is the reason I bought and paid for it because that domain was not currently owned by anybody so I have paid for the domain which now
I cannot use. Again Tony, please accept my apology for using the name of your company. I assure you it was unintentional.

Lastly, in lieu of these developments, I HAVE BOUGHT the domain name of WINGS ON STRINGS (wingsonstrings.com) and hope to have it up and running in a week or two...thanks

Sincerely

Mike Griffin

>To all my control line friends,
>
>This morning I received an e mail from Tony Drago stating the
>following:
>
>
>Mike.
>"I still own the name and the rights to the name and or
>any such name sake of CONTROL LINE CLASSICS in any combination
>their to.
> Please receive this email as official notice to Cease and
>Desist of all use of the Control Line Classics name."
>

Another example of cranky old men doing more to hurt this hobby than help.

Lovely. Just lovely.

Best of luck, Mike. I hope that you are able to still give it a go. There are too few of us left to treat each other like this.

V/r

Bob

Mike,

Really sorry to hear that... this is often where an arbitrator comes in handy. Perhaps you caught Tony on a bad day?

I wish you all the best.
EricV

I really appreciate all of your concerns and input. Tony is a great guy and I absolutely refuse to get into a urinating contest over something like this and lose a friend in this hobby. It is my fault for not checking a little deeper and when I saw the domain name was available, I bought it. The good Lord knows there is not enough money to be made in making kits to get your blood pressure up about something like this. I will come up with another name and build another site. I just have too much fun not to be involved and little bumps in the road like this can be driven around.

I really appreciate all of your ideas and input and that means a lot to me.

Kindest regards

Mike

Hows about a small "contest" (no prize) for coming up with a new company name? I'm in with "Fly-By-Wire Aeronautics

>Hows about a small "contest" (no prize) for coming
>up with a new company name? I'm in with "Fly-By-Wire
>Aeronautics
How bout MGC (Mike Griffin Classics). Build on your name,
service and ethics.

Great guys demand that you "Cease and Desist" in a hobby in which you might break even?

I would hate to know those you consider to be SOBs.

Lovely. Just lovely.

V/r

Bob

>I really appreciate all of your concerns and input. Tony is
>a great guy and I absolutely refuse to get into a urinating
>contest over something like this and lose a friend in this
>hobby. It is my fault for not checking a little deeper and
>when I saw the domain name was available, I bought it. The
>good Lord knows there is not enough money to be made in making
>kits to get your blood pressure up about something like this.
>I will come up with another name and build another site. I
>just have too much fun not to be involved and little bumps in
>the road like this can be driven around.
>
>I really appreciate all of your ideas and input and that means
>a lot to me.
>
>Kindest regards
>
>Mike

I have commented before that we are few in number, so we have to love each other, even those of us who are SOBs

Jim;

I love both of my brothers. But, I don't put up with bad behavior from them. Nor do they with me.

Bob

>I have commented before that we are few in number, so we have
>to love each other, even those of us who are SOBs

Wow, Tony D. spent yrs developing the CLC name and is just protecting his reputation. Nobody wants to chance their rep with a stranger by letting them use their name. If CLC is trademarked, Tony controls the name use no matter how or where. It's his personal business and he shouldn't be bashed for it.

Mike, I'm surprised you didn't know about CLC before buying the name...it has been floating around for 20 yrs that I know of and is well known in the CL community. A lot of goodwill goes with the CLC name and would have been a good thing for you.

The sellers of the domain name may be liable for infringing on a trademark name too. The money is likley too small to make it a real legal deal so be glad you didn't spend alot of money on establishing CLC before hearing from Tony.


Bill P.

I could understand this a whole lot more if Tony was still in business and making kits or whatever. However when you haven't done something with it for close to 20 yrs. it seems a bit childish to me. Kinda like the guy that made Mike change the name of his airplane. It is petty stuff like this that drives people away from the hobby. Tony "get over it" or start doing something with the name again.

Things are fine folks.. Tony and I are good with each other and to respect his wishes I did not or will not pursue it any further. I chose WINGS ON STRINGS , wingsonstrings.com for the name of my upcoming new site and I am happy with that. That name was suggested to me by John Miller and I thought it had a good ring to it. I just have the welcome home page up right now but will be working on the sight this coming week.

Thank you all for your input and I hope we can just move on from here and I will try my best to offer something of value to you all and the hobby...

Mike

Yea while we may find it hard to swallow we must respect Tony's wish on this one. I like the idea of a contest but I submit that the prize be bragging rights.

Here is mine which is a play on the other name

Classic Control Line www.classiccotrolline.com

Quick check and it appears to be available

If me, I'd buy www.classicontroline.com, classiccontroline.com and classicontrolline.com and forward them all to the first but that is just me.

>Wow, Tony D. spent yrs developing the CLC name and is just
>protecting his reputation. Nobody wants to chance their rep
>with a stranger by letting them use their name. If CLC is
>trademarked, Tony controls the name use no matter how or
>where. It's his personal business and he shouldn't be bashed
>for it.
>
>Mike, I'm surprised you didn't know about CLC before buying
>the name...it has been floating around for 20 yrs that I know
>of and is well known in the CL community. A lot of goodwill
>goes with the CLC name and would have been a good thing for
>you.
>
>The sellers of the domain name may be liable for infringing on
>a trademark name too. The money is likley too small to make it
>a real legal deal so be glad you didn't spend alot of money on
>establishing CLC before hearing from Tony.
>
>
>Bill P.

Hi Bill

The reason I was unaware of Tony's past company is that I had been out of control line for 40 years and did not get back into the hobby until about 8 years ago. A LOT of things had happened in those 40 years. Back then I could only remember a couple of Kit companies like Sterling and Veco. Heck I am still learning a bunch about what I missed out on in that 4o year void away from control line.

Regards

Mike

>Wow, Tony D. spent yrs developing the CLC name and is just
>protecting his reputation. Nobody wants to chance their rep
>with a stranger by letting them use their name. If CLC is
>trademarked, Tony controls the name use no matter how or
>where. It's his personal business and he shouldn't be bashed
>for it.


That right there is the key. It is not that he is so concerned about you making money off of his name, but if you were to develop problems, people could think that you were associated and those problems could become his as well. I understand his concern.



>The sellers of the domain name may be liable for infringing on
>a trademark name too. The money is likley too small to make it
>a real legal deal so be glad you didn't spend alot of money on
>establishing CLC before hearing from Tony.
>
>
>Bill P.


You can buy any domanin name that is still available. Many people have made money off of this ploy by obtaining the domain name of a certain company and then selling it to them for a nice profit.

Gateway Computers started out with the domain name of GW2K (Gateway 2000) when the domain of Gateway was owned by another company. They later purchased it and now own both. And sometimes companies don't even want the name but buy it just to protect themselves. But if you bought the domain name, it is yours for the duration of time that you bought it.

What I don't understand is, I've known Tony for over 25 years and he never had his kits sold on a website way back then. So how did his CLC come up on a URL to start with?

>What I don't understand is, I've known Tony for over 25 years
>and he never had his kits sold on a website way back then. So
>how did his CLC come up on a URL to start with?

You create them. When you seek a domain name for your site, you go to a domain name provider and suggest a name. If it is owned by someone else, you must choose something else. If not, you can get it yourself. And sometimes people are devious. For a while whitehouse.com was a porn site (the real site is whitehouse.gov). You can choose anything you want--and get it, so long as no one else has purchased it ahead of you.

And you buy these by the year. (I have mine prepaid for about 5 years so I don't forget). If you do forget to renew, one day after it is fair game for all again. A while back one of the big sites (like Facebook, but it wasn't Facebook) had neglected to renew their domain name. Someone else discovered this the day after it expired and bought it. They were nice enough to give it to the previous owner, however, but could have held it for ransom. A lot of names are prebought with the thought that someday they may be of value. People will then pay tens of thousands to get the name back. (And that is why I have mine pre-paid so far in advance. I am not going to let one of you jokers holld me up for a twenty dollar bill. )

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

If you buy a domain name, it's yours! Someone else might have been using it, but if they did not register it, that's too bad.
Floyd
AMA 796
SAM 188
LSF 020

I have bought another domain name WINGS ON STRINGS (wingsonstrings.com) and should have the site up and running in a week or two.

Thanks

Mike

Mike, I applaud your ethics! Leonard hit the nail on the head; Tony paid his dues, so to speak.

Unfortunately, in our little world there have been more "bad actors" than generally acknowledged or known. Glad you're not among them!


Dennis


"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy

Have you checked with the US Trade Mark Office that the new name is not already trademarked? Domain names don't mean much legallly. Good Luck!

>Have you checked with the US Trade Mark Office that the new
>name is not already trademarked? Domain names don't mean much
>legallly. Good Luck!

Interestingly, a search of the Trademark Electronic Search System database available at the United States Patent and Trademark Office produced no registered trademark for "Control Line Classics", either "Live" or "Dead."

Imagine that.

V/r

Bob

>>Have you checked with the US Trade Mark Office that the
>new
>>name is not already trademarked? Domain names don't mean
>much
>>legallly. Good Luck!
>
>Interestingly, a search of the Trademark Electronic Search
>System database available at the United States Patent and
>Trademark Office produced no registered trademark for
>"Control Line Classics", either "Live" or
>"Dead."
>
>Imagine that.
>
>V/r
>
>Bob

I don't think that is the issue here, Bob. Many cottage industries are started under their chosen names without a trade mark. I believe this was more of a courtesy request and an equally courteous response to not confuse a name with more than one product. I believe the appropriate responses were made by both parties and I applaud that.

Leonard;

A demand to "Cease and Desist" is considered courteous?

OK.

Bob


>
>I don't think that is the issue here, Bob. Many cottage
>industries are started under their chosen names without a
>trade mark. I believe this was more of a courtesy request and
>an equally courteous response to not confuse a name with more
>than one product. I believe the appropriate responses were
>made by both parties and I applaud that.

Not that it matters one whit...but I have to agree with Bob.
A cease and desist order from a long defunct company that held no official copyright on the name...Give Me a Break! Really big business here!

Phhhhhhhttttttt!

Randy Cuberly

The Dutch have a wonderful term for such persons: mierenneuker.

Wings On Strings is a great, original title!

Although I know arguments can be made about formal copyrights, registered trademarks, etc. I'm impressed with the courtesy and respect exhibited here.

I like the way you handled it, Mike. Good luck on your enterprise.



"When looking back, usually I'm more sorry for the things I didn't do than for the things I shouldn't have done." -Malcolm Forbes

Thank you all for your thoughts and Input. I really appreciate it.

Mike

So if you bought a domain name it is not legal to use if some one else had a business in that name decades ago? Something doesn't seem right with this picture. I would demand my money back

Mike;

Domain names don't have much to do legally with trademarks per se, although there have been some cases where early in the dot.com boom, people bought up what they thought would be lucrative domain names with the hopes of huge profits from slow moving corporations once the realized the value of the internet. Some made millions, some went through painful litigation as "domain squatters" from those companies that already had registered trademarks of the same name.

In this case, it is simply that that there was not, as of three days ago, nor has there been a registered trademark for "control-line classics", or anything close to that. How Mike Griffin has decided to handle it is his business; suffice it to say that once he bought the domain name, he had the rights to it, and the rights to use the company name unless proven that it was a registered trademark of someone else. In this case, it wasn't.

That a heavy handed demand to "cease and desist" was issued with so little legal leverage and basis says reams about the originator. How Mike handled it says even more about him.

Mike deserves our support and respect. This incident should remind us of those who would intimidate rather than mentor hard working people that are trying to keep this hobby alive, and how they will be remembered.

V/r

Bob



>So if you bought a domain name it is not legal to use if some
>one else had a business in that name decades ago? Something
>doesn't seem right with this picture. I would demand my money
>back

>So if you bought a domain name it is not legal to use if some
>one else had a business in that name decades ago? Something
>doesn't seem right with this picture. I would demand my money
>back

I think I menioned the situation with Gateway Computers. Someone else had the Gateway name and website so they chose GW2K.com (Gateway 2000) for their domain name. Eventually they acquired the gateway.com domain as well. But you can buy any domain you want that is not in use. And as long as you don't use their trademarked name on your company, all is well. It is just that it adds to much confusion. A while back you just had com (for commercial) .org (organization, but which could also be commercial, .gov (for government at any level) .edu (for educational instutitions) and things were simpler. Then some "genius" got the idea that these names were being used up and we needed more. So they added more suffexes like .bus (for business) and all it did was force the big companies to swallow up these domains as well to keep others from getting them and adding to the confusion. (Let's see now, do I go to dell.com for commercial, or do I go to dell.bus for business or do I go to dell.com for computer--no, that is for commercial. What is for computer?) You get the idea.

In this case it wasn't so much the domain name as it was his use of Controline Classics for his business. And although the name was not trademarked (I didn't trademark Stuka Stunt Works either) you know, we are small "businesses" providing a service to the control line community. And if we have to jump through all the hoops to "protect" our business, or the paper work the government might require, we would be out of business. If they suddenly decide we have to collect sales tax for all 50 states and keep track of all this and make quarterly reports and remittances, a lot of small guys are just plain going to quit.

Maybe it could have been stated differently than "cease and desist" but I fully understand his concern for any future liability that would not and should not be his. I also applaud Mike's response in complying with his request. Wouldn't it be fun if we all started cottage businesses and all used the same name? And then if one person gets sued, we could all get dragged into the pot. ("My grandson got killed flying an airplane he built from one of your kits when it hit a power line in our back yard and you didn't properly provide te necessary safety precautions to prevent this from happening. We are suing you for ten million dollars.")

Fun and games. Things like that happen. "You have been served.":

As a follow up to all this, I periodically get an e-mail asking if my clstunt.com is for sale. I normally brush these off as con jobs and don't even bother to answer. But I just today got another e-mail from a person offering me $250 for "my website, clstunt.com". Now for $250 I am not interested. Add another zero and I start to get interested. Add two zeros and I am out of here. (It won't happen, don't worry.) But there are cases where people do offer to buy these. And an active forum that has been around for nearing 12 years does have some appeal to commercial interests.

Not to stir the pot here - really! - but I think some of what hasn't been said here is kind of interesting.

I've had occasion to acquire, and subsequently sell, a few vintage Control Line Classics kits. Correct if I'm wrong, please, but at least some of them bore names which were legally owned by others.

The kits I acquired all included copies of plans, which I suspect were illegal copies of plans legally owned by others.

With all due respect to Mr. Drago, it seems a bit hypocritical to bring out the ethics hammer only when it suits us.

That said, I again applaud Mike for his response.

But the incident should perhaps serve as a reminder that a number of "cottage industry" productions walk a very thin/gray line ...


Dennis


"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy

>Not to stir the pot here - really! - but I think some of what
>hasn't been said here is kind of interesting.
>
>I've had occasion to acquire, and subsequently sell, a few
>vintage Control Line Classics kits. Correct if I'm wrong,
>please, but at least some of them bore names which were
>legally owned by others.
>
>The kits I acquired all included copies of plans, which I
>suspect were illegal copies of plans legally owned by others.
>
>With all due respect to Mr. Drago, it seems a bit hypocritical
>to bring out the ethics hammer only when it suits us.
>
>That said, I again applaud Mike for his response.
>
>But the incident should perhaps serve as a reminder that a
>number of "cottage industry" productions walk a very
>thin/gray line ...
>
>
>Dennis
>
> Dennis
I had obtained permission to kit the models and use the plans as i wished in the kits that i had produced

>>
>> Dennis
> I had obtained permission to kit the models and use the
>plans as i wished in the kits that i had produced


Then that's great! So, for example, Ambroid gave you permission to kit the Stuka Stunt? And from whom did you get permission to use the Air Trails plans?

Just curious ...


Dennis

>>>
>>> Dennis
>> I had obtained permission to kit the models and use
>the
>>plans as i wished in the kits that i had produced
>
>
>Then that's great! So, for example, Ambroid gave you
>permission to kit the Stuka Stunt? And from whom did you get
>permission to use the Air Trails plans?
>
>Just curious ...
>
>
>Dennis
>

You can copyright a plan, but not a design. So if anyone wishes to produce a kit of a plane someone else has designed, he is free to do so. As to the plan itself, if it has a copyright, you can redraw it and that is perfectly legal. And if the copyright has expired (as would be the case with the Air Trails plan) anyone can copy it at their leisure. (The patent on Lipitor has just recently run out and people can now copy it, too. That's the law.)

Just stating the facts for the defense. (New copyright laws are different, but the old ones do expire).

>You can copyright a plan, but not a design. So if anyone
>wishes to produce a kit of a plane someone else has designed,
>he is free to do so. As to the plan itself, if it has a
>copyright, you can redraw it and that is perfectly legal. And
>if the copyright has expired (as would be the case with the
>Air Trails plan) anyone can copy it at their leisure. (The
>patent on Lipitor has just recently run out and people can now
>copy it, too. That's the law.)
>
>Just stating the facts for the defense. (New copyright laws
>are different, but the old ones do expire).


Leonard, please clarify. I understand the current owner of the Veco line has threatened legal action against "cottage industry" kit makers who reproduce "Veco" kits.

Let me put it another way - you're saying it would be perfectly legal for me to sell "Control Line Classics Ares kits"?

I might very well start a new thread within a couple of days - not to "stir the pot", but because I'd like to clarify "our" views. Two well-known designers have given me written permission to kit their designs, so I do have a real and sincere interest ...

Look at it from both the legal and ethical perspectives ... a PAMPA newsletter editor has refused to run ads for a kit maker he felt was doing an "unauthorized" kit, yet welcomed ads from others who - by all appearances - were actually doing so.

I would suggest there is far more going on behind-the-scenes than most readers here are aware of ...

And I wouldn't have to search long and hard to find criticism of "unauthorized" kits.

Personally, I think those who bring back some of our favorite "oldies" are providing a service to the modeling community, but there are those who (1) disagree, or (2) seem to want to pick and choose the people who should do so.


Dennis

>Look at it from both the legal and ethical perspectives
>... a PAMPA newsletter editor has refused to run ads for a kit
>maker he felt was doing an "unauthorized" kit, yet
>welcomed ads from others who - by all appearances - were
>actually doing so.

Most of the "who owns right to what" of this is speculation (that I have no interest in revisiting) that I never attempted to assess, but the part about deciding whether or not to run particular ads based on some legal analysis is generally correct. It was in the Feb, 2008 time frame, for reference.

It was my rather strongly-held opinion as PAMPA VP at the time that PAMPA should take no position on ad content, and disclaim ALL ad content no matter what the provenance or back story might be. Tom's motivation was sound and his experience was hard-won so I can't fault him for it. But I think making those sorts of judgments and dong legal research on the rights issues was, in my opinion, far beyond PAMPAs charter and probably let us in for more trouble than it was going to avoid.

I went back and looked at the correspondence on this topic that I have, and I *think* the upshot was that PAMPA retains the right to reject or accept any content, including ads, for any reason, but won't engage in legal speculation about the content or the merits of various claims.

Point being that yes, that did happen, but that PAMPA at one time ran some ads and not others doesn't have much bearing on the larger issues of copyright discussed here.

Brett

> Most of the "who owns right to what" of this is
>speculation (that I have no interest in revisiting) that I
>never attempted to assess, but the part about deciding whether
>or not to run particular ads based on some legal analysis is
>generally correct. It was in the Feb, 2008 time frame, for
>reference.
>
> It was my rather strongly-held opinion as PAMPA VP at the
>time that PAMPA should take no position on ad content,
>and disclaim ALL ad content no matter what the provenance or
>back story might be. Tom's motivation was sound and his
>experience was hard-won so I can't fault him for it. But I
>think making those sorts of judgments and dong legal research
>on the rights issues was, in my opinion, far beyond PAMPAs
>charter and probably let us in for more trouble than it was
>going to avoid.
>
> I went back and looked at the correspondence on this topic
>that I have, and I *think* the upshot was that PAMPA retains
>the right to reject or accept any content, including ads, for
>any reason, but won't engage in legal speculation about the
>content or the merits of various claims.
>
> Point being that yes, that did happen, but that PAMPA at
>one time ran some ads and not others doesn't have much bearing
>on the larger issues of copyright discussed here.
>
> Brett


Then Brett, I think the logical question is, "Who is PAMPA?". Will I find a record of a vote in minutes of Board meetings? Was the membership at large made aware of the questions involved? From what I know, I choose to strenuously disagree with you.

I don't think you or anyone else involved has a leg to stand on. How can you, or anyone else, convince us that you're aware of conversations another person had with a third party who's deceased? What evidence can you provide - in written correspondence from that third party - to support your position?

I think this is another very clear case of the few choosing to act as if they have some God-given right to pick and choose.


Dennis

And Brett, the central issue here was legality.

I think you've said it yourself - those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions could well expose PAMPA and its Directors to legal action. Clearely not the path most of us would choose.


Dennis

I was advertising editor of Stunt News at the time, but the only involvement I had with that issue was to calm a guy down who called me threatening to sue everybody. It wasted a couple of hours I could have spent sanding my airplane. Stunt News advertising editor was a pretty silly gig. I was able to get the PAMPA EC to pass some advertising guidelines, including, for example, to charge all the advertisers for ads and cut off the deadbeats, but enforcing them proved to be difficult. My final recommendation was that Stunt News probably shouldn't accept advertising.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

>
>I don't think you or anyone else involved has a leg to stand
>on. How can you, or anyone else, convince us that you're
>aware of conversations another person had with a third party
>who's deceased? What evidence can you provide - in written
>correspondence from that third party - to support your
>position?

This should not be addressed to me - I was the one suggesting that WE (PAMPA) should not make ANY legal judgements of any sort. To avoid precisely the situation you are also concerned about.

I had no idea who had the rights to what, and still don't. Nor do I care nor is it important to my point. I didn't think it was for PAMPA to determine, and more importantly, we (PAMPA) shouldn't have been making any speculative judgments based on who we thought was legally right or wrong.

I was rather dismayed that this had happened, and even more dismayed to find out about it after it had gone on for several months. I certainly made no decisions about the topic and advised that the policy be made clear so it did not recur. It should never have happened, as far as I am concerned, we (PAMPA) should have stayed the heck out of the legal opinion business.

I think we agree, so I can't see why you are wound up at me about it.

>
>I think this is another very clear case of the few choosing to
>act as if they have some God-given right to pick and choose.

What do you want me to say? I agree with you in this case, that's more-or-less a fair characterization of the issue and I thought it was a mistake. I certainly never would have voted to do it for the very reasons you mention.

I was IN FAVOR of removing the picking and choosing ads based on some interpretation of the law or some opinion about the content that someone might have. PAMPA should have policies that cover it so it doesn't happen again.

Brett

p.s. here is the essence of my communication with the EC on this topic, from Feb 29, 2008. I will happily discuss my reasoning when the topic is *something I actually said/wrote*:

... I do not want PAMPA to become involved in or make any judgements on what are or may be legal disagreements between other parties. I believe our position should be one of TOTAL neutrality. If we need legal research done, we will engage a lawyer. I would suggest we adopt a policy that if any of us feels a compelling need to "get to the truth" in such matters, or engage in arguments, discussions, etc, on such topics, we do so on our own volition and not as representatives of PAMPA.

Whether or not it was intended or regardless of the truth or accuracy of any of the legal *opinions*, we should not position ourselves as arbiters, referees, or gatekeepers. I feel that's exactly what we run the risk of becoming.

> This should not be addressed to me - I was the one
>suggesting that WE (PAMPA) should not make ANY legal
>judgements of any sort. To avoid precisely the situation you
>are also concerned about.
>
> I had no idea who had the rights to what, and still don't.
>Nor do I care nor is it important to my point. I didn't
>think it was for PAMPA to determine, and more importantly, we
>(PAMPA) shouldn't have been making any speculative judgments
>based on who we thought was legally right or wrong.
>
> I was rather dismayed that this had happened, and even more
>dismayed to find out about it after it had gone on for several
>months. I certainly made no decisions about the topic and
>advised that the policy be made clear so it did not recur. It
>should never have happened, as far as I am concerned, we
>(PAMPA) should have stayed the heck out of the legal opinion
>business.
>
> I think we agree, so I can't see why you are wound up at
>me about it.


Brett, I commend you and apologize if I seemed to make you a "target".

You hit it right on the head here - PAMPA should not serve as some kind of kangaroo court run by very opinionated, biased judges. The organization could ill afford to be spending the kind of money that would be required to defend against such actions.


Dennis

>Brett, I commend you and apologize if I seemed to make you a
>"target".


No problem, I had assumed that we were miscommunicating somehow This was a very contentious issue at the time, and I give it about 50/50 that this discussion will get spun up at some point in the next week or so.

>
>You hit it right on the head here - PAMPA should not serve as
>some kind of kangaroo court run by very opinionated, biased
>judges. The organization could ill afford to be spending the
>kind of money that would be required to defend against such
>actions.

That's a little stronger that I would put it, because I know that everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing and had some strong reasons to be concerned. So I can't really find fault in anyone's motives. People of good conscience will disagree sometimes, and in this case it was over what "the right thing" actually was.

People may not believe me but in my maybe 25 years of significant involvement with PAMPA, there have been very few cases where people seemed to be actively malicious, and even then it was restricted to very few people. But you put a bunch of highly-competitive types togethe, add in the tendency towards hero worship, and there will be very frequent, honest, differences of opinion over how to proceed. And precious little willingness to compromise. That's why tiny, almost irrelevant issues and minor differences of opinion will blow up into massive arguments.

Brett

>Leonard, please clarify. I understand the current owner of
>the Veco line has threatened legal action against "cottage >industry" kit makers who reproduce "Veco" kits.
>
>Let me put it another way - you're saying it would be perfectly >legal for me to sell "Control Line Classics Ares kits"? (snip)
>
>
>Dennis
>

That wasn't what I wrote and certainly not what I intended.

First off, copyrights: Old copyrights expire after a certain period of time, just as patents run out. When a patent runs out (as on Lipitor) anyone can reproduce it exactly. If the name "Lipitor" has been trademarked, then they cannot use that name, but you can still produce the product. My doctor has not ordered this for me--not the more expensive original, but the cheaper (nameless) version. And did you know that "Zipper" is a trademark? In its generic form it is a "slide fastener", but nobody tells you that your slide fastener is open. They refer to it as a zipper, because "Zipper" was the first one to make it (And I suppose I should have applied the trade mark symbol here, because that is what it is.) Anyway, when a patent expires anyone can reproduce the item. When a copyright expires anyone can reproduce the item. Why are so many King James verson Bibles still being sold? Because there is no copyright.

So, back to the plan. If the plan's copyright has expired, then anyone can reproduce it. I have a number of plans this way and do this regularly, but only with plans that are in the common domain. I also have plans that are more recently Cad drawn. And I have the permission of the drawer of this plan to reproduce and sell these. For these you would have to get permission.

Now, about the design. If Ambroid produced a Stuka kit (which they did), their name is trademarked. I can reproduce the plan because the copyright has expired. But I cannot produce an "Ambroid Stuka" kit. I could, however, produce a Stuka kit of the 1950 version (old time legal) or of the 1957 version (as kitted by Ambroid, but don't need to mention that.) The design is in the public domain. And if you drew up the plans for a certian design in the current day and age, I could not legally reproduce that plan without your permission. I could, however, redraw it--put the wing in a different location, put the tail in a different location--change a few things if I wanted to, but still remain faithful to the design and that would be legal. But if you trademarked the name for it as the "California Raptor" I would not be allowed to use that name.

Now, would it be legal for you to produce and sell "Control Line Classics Aeres" kits, well, I suppose if you got the trademark on the name you probably could. And, depending on when the plans were drawn, they may or may not be in the public domain. But you could redraw the plans if they were not. In recent years corporations have purchased defunct names in the electronic industry because people still remember them from the past. The new company has no connection to the old, but people associate it with the old and think they are getting a quality product when they probably are not. Such is the confusion of the times.

It would be much better for you to produce a kit of the Aeres under your own name. People don't care who peoduces the kit so long as it is faithful to the design (for contest purposes) and quality done.

>>>
>>> Dennis
>> I had obtained permission to kit the models and use
>the
>>plans as i wished in the kits that i had produced
>
>
>Then that's great! So, for example, Ambroid gave you
>permission to kit the Stuka Stunt? And from whom did you get
>permission to use the Air Trails plans?
>
>Just curious ...
>
>
>Dennis
>
Dennis.
No. Ambroid Sold all the kit rights (r/c&c/l ) to MidWest Models long before i started making kits.
I obtained permission from MidWest Models to kit the Ares from the late Frank Garcher of MidWest.
Not the Stuka Stunt. I never kitted that Model.
Ambriod was in the glue business at that time.
They wanted to get into the model kit business so they bought out Enterprise Models.
Then they added the Ares and the Stuka.

The E-Z Just controline handle company was sued around 1970 by a lawyer who represented a widow whose husband had been electrocuted because his controlines hit a high voltage wire. E-Z just had no liability insurance, so they went out of business.

20 years later (1990-ish) another company started producing EZ just controline handles. Their handle looked completely different and they were a different company than the original E-Z Just company.

2 or 3 years later, another lawyer representing another widow whose controline flying husband had been electrocuted by contacting high voltage wires. This guy had been using an original E-Z Just handle.
(Red or Grey plastic handles)

Since the original E-Z just handle company was out of business, the lawyer went after the new EZ Just company. The lawyer couldn't collect any money from the new company, but the new company had to spend between 18 and 20 thousand dollars to defend themselves in court against the lawsuit.

They were found innocent, but they were still out $18 - $20 thousand dollars. The owner closed the company due to the lawsuit.

Now do you see why Tony was concerned about the use of his company's name?

I don't see any connection what so ever. I consider Tony a friend, but he hasn't produced a kit in over 20 years, he let his web site go, I can understand a personal attachment to the name, but he should
be happy that it is being perpetuated, in a very good manner. Just my opinion. This is being talked to death as usual.

Walte

> I don't see any connection what so ever. I consider Tony a
>friend, but he hasn't produced a kit in over 20 years, he let
>his web site go, I can understand a personal attachment to the
>name, but he should
>be happy that it is being perpetuated, in a very good manner.
>Just my opinion. This is being talked to death as usual.
>
>Walte

Hi Walter,

It would seem that if a lawyer went after Controline Classics, he would go after anyone who was using (or had used) the name Controline Classics. It would cost money for you to defend yourself even if you were no longer actively using the name.

Hi Dee, I don't really disagree with you. In this sue everbody you can mentality, we seem to have gone too far down this path. I still choose to think that Tony was just having a bad day.

Walter

Walt,bad day kinda. It was late at night when i found out and being that i had to get up at 3am to go to work didn't help. I relized after the email was sent that i was a bit to strong of a subject matter.
So when i was able to get Mikes Phone number from a friend i called Mike and apologized for that and explaned why. We had a good talk and there are no hard feelings what so ever for both parties.
When Control Line Classics comes up though so does my name as being related to it.. I've been asked many times over the years when i was going to start up again. Knowing first hand what is envolved. Time,time and a love of labor for all the hard work. I had no time to spare at all.
I will be retiring very very soon. So will see.

Tony

>Walt,bad day kinda. It was late at night when i found out and
>being that i had to get up at 3am to go to work didn't help. I
>relized after the email was sent that i was a bit to strong of
>a subject matter.
> So when i was able to get Mikes Phone number from a friend i
>called Mike and apologized for that and explaned why. We had a
>good talk and there are no hard feelings what so ever for both
>parties.
> When Control Line Classics comes up though so does my name as
>being related to it.. I've been asked many times over the
>years when i was going to start up again. Knowing first hand
>what is envolved. Time,time and a love of labor for all the
>hard work. I had no time to spare at all.
> I will be retiring very very soon. So will see.
>
>Tony

Tony and I had a very good conversation and I just wanted to reiterate what Tony has already said that we hung up the phone in good humor with each other. I am very happy with "Wings On Strings" and will move forward with that and hope it will serve as an asset to the hobby. I wish Tony only the best in his upcoming retirement and if he chooses to revive Control Line Classics in the future, I wish him great success as he experienced in the past.

Mike