Jump to content

1981 M20J restoration


Recommended Posts

Even though I am most definitely Not A Lawyer, I've spent much of my career dealing with Intellectual Property including patents, copyright, and trademarks (mostly technology-related utility patents, though).   When I worked for a Large Household Name technology company for many years on an internal patent committee our patent lawyers would often say, "It's not a patent until a judge says it's a patent."   While somebody might rightly claim a copyright on something like a paint scheme, my personal (non-lawyer) opinion is that it'd be difficult to argue for it in a court when there is a lot of similar prior art.   Even if the case was won, I'd think the cost to litigate it would not likely be worthwhile in such a small market.   In a case like this where the claimed scheme is so similar to a factory scheme, one might find oneself having to defend a claimed copyright against a factory with similar prior art, and the factory may have deeper pockets and more reason to defend their claim in court than a smaller, aftermarket business.

So it sounds to me like anybody who would wade into those waters making an infringement claim would have a pretty uphill battle with some significant downside risk.  That can of worms might better be left unopened, to my non-lawyer thinking. ;)

But stuff like this happens all the time and there is never a shortage of people trying to make claims on stuff that may not be very defensible.   Case in point in recent news:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/gene-simmons-seeks-to-register-trademark-on-devils-horns-rock-hand-gesture/

Simmons often tries to make claims on stuff that he may not have originated, but maybe his real goal is just to get media time.   It usually works.   Or maybe he really needs the money.   Who knows?

On the other hand:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Devil-Horns-Hook-Em-University-of-Texas-KISS-11225169.php

So, clear as mud.    This is often the case with Intellectual Property and I think the paint scheme thing is no different.    Anybody who really wants to assert an intellectual property claim should carefully consider the opinion of relevant legal counsel.   Anybody worried about a claim against them shouldn't worry until such a claim is actually made, and, IMHO, even then maybe not so much.

Disclaimer:   Not a lawyer, not an A&P, not a CFI, totally irrelevant and should never be taken seriously or listened to at any time on any topic whatsoever.   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can copy anything they want and do so everyday. But the overwhelming majority does care and take the time to extend the courtesy of asking. Since I had my airplane painted there have been several folks who have asked me if it'd be ok for them to utilize my scheme. Some even have asked me if I'd provide the files for the paint shop. This is the first time someone just arrogantly stole it.

I'm actually flattered that it's so appealing and popular! Tough job to be a leader but somebody has got to do it!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can copy anything they want and do so everyday. But the overwhelming majority does care and take the time to extend the courtesy of asking. Since I had my airplane painted there have been several folks who have asked me if it'd be ok for them to utilize my scheme. Some even have asked me if I'd provide the files for the paint shop. This is the first time someone just copied it without asking. 
I'm actually flattered that it's so appealing and popular! Tough job to be a leader but somebody has got to do it!


Peter -- can I copy your design? I'm most likely painting next year. I loved your design when you flew out here.

Why haven't you been back? Surely it wasn't something I said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize, I didn't think to ask.  I just thought it was a really nice looking paint job.  Honestly I didn't expect the final product to come out of the shop looking as much like yours as it did.  Again, I am sorry, I meant no ill intent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say they are all nice paint schemes but they are also versions of a very common basic design that's been done a lot lately.... Hard to claim anyone owns the basic scheme...

If and when I paint I hope I can come up with something cool and unique. Hard to do!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 


Peter -- can I copy your design? I'm most likely painting next year. I loved your design when you flew out here.

Why haven't you been back? Surely it wasn't something I said. emoji51.png


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Only if you behave from now until then! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PTK said:

Only if you behave from now until then! 

OHG Peter, leverage him to not post anymore of his girl photos for the use of your paint design.  We'll all donate to you for holding those pictures off line.  You will probably get more that way than if you SOLD him the design!!

Tom

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jclemens said:

I apologize, I didn't think to ask.  I just thought it was a really nice looking paint job.  Honestly I didn't expect the final product to come out of the shop looking as much like yours as it did.  Again, I am sorry, I meant no ill intent.

I am a Scheme Designers customer, having my Lancair design (not painted yet) done by them.  So.....I think I have a vested interest in people not copying a design that I paid for without asking for my, or Scheme Designers, permission.  I know they have allowed past designs to be used with the approval of the original owner, and I believe they were approved for less cost as well.  That said, the design you displayed was very similar to a factory paint scheme and older Mooney owners have been copying newer factory paint schemes since forever.  I personally have no issue with the design you proposed as I think all examples shown thus far in this thread are basically outright copies or spin-offs of the FACTORY design.

Tom 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my feeling as well.  I would never even consider copying a unique design.  After reviewing tons of the designs on scheme designers website tonight after being accused of doing so, I am pretty certain that not everything on their website qualifies as a unique design.  There are examples that range from period correct warbird, iconic designs that everyone recognize, and some that are certainly of their own creation.  But, by and far, there are a ton of minor deviations to factory paint schemes.  There is even one in the Cessna examples that is just white with one blue stripe (and a fish on the tail). There is no way that a white plane with a blue stripe is copy write protected.  I always felt that scheme designers product is the drawings and stencils they provide to paint shops in order to put the scheme on the plane.  This is a great service, worth paying for if you have a airshow quality paint scheme in mind you want applied.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a relevant question that some might want to clear up is whether the Scheme Designers customer agreement gives the customer any copyright ownership.   I wouldn't assume that they do.   Generally the copyright for commissioned art stays with the artist, not the commissioner or person who paid for it.   The person who paid for it may own the particular instance (the canvas or, in this case, the airplane), but I think usually the artist typically retains ownership of the expression, i.e., the image or scheme.   If you buy a canvas with an oil painting on it, you own that painting, but the artist may retain the copyright to the image.   The artist may retain the right to reproduce copies or license copies, the buyer just owns the particular canvas.   If something else is desired one would be wise to negotiate that ahead of time and get it in writing.

So my (non-lawyer) expectation would be that if anyone would have claim to the copyright it might likely be Scheme Designers, but that may depend on the wording in whatever contract or agreement they use with their customers.   Even so, their claim could easily be challenged by whoever originated the earliest version of that general scheme, whether that would be the factory or somebody else.   Who would prevail would not be known until/unless it actually went to court, in my view.   "It's not a patent until a judge says it's a patent."

A web search on "commissioned art copyright ownership" or something similar might provide some more detailed guidance, or, as the case may be, muddy the waters a bit further.

FURTHER DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer, an IA, an A&P, a CFI, or somebody anybody with much sense should be taking advice from at any time on any topic.   Your mileage may vary. Contents may have settled during shipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a unique paint scheme on my 261 that no one copied, nor was it like any factory paint scheme I knew of. It was painted by the former owner in white and tan with gold, blue, and red stripes that went to rear of the airplane, and the up the tail. Emphasized the Mooney vertical stabilizer. It was not an outstanding design, but not offensive either. I'll try and find a photo and post it. On the other hand I shamelessly had my DOVA painted Ferrari Red, and followed the Falco stripes in gold and silver. Truly outstanding, but that scheme would look strange on a Mooney (although I did consider it). There are certain paint schemes and colors that look "right" on a Mooney, and some that do not. There is good reason that many of our aircraft are painted similarly.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

There's a very long and very prominent statement on the Scheme Designer website about the copyright of their designs.

Hmmm...the only thing I can find is on one of the example drawings it says, "Reproduction of this scheme on another aircraft requires written permission of Scheme Designers, Inc."

Sounds to me like their intent is to retain whatever copyrights they may have right to.   I don't think they'd have rights to schemes that aren't original to them.

EVEN FURTHER DISCLAIMER:  I am generally not be listened to for any reason whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Hmmm...the only thing I can find is on one of the example drawings it says, "Reproduction of this scheme on another aircraft requires written permission of Scheme Designers, Inc."

Sounds to me like their intent is to retain whatever copyrights they may have right to.   I don't think they'd have rights to schemes that aren't original to them.

EVEN FURTHER DISCLAIMER:  I am generally not be listened to for any reason whatsoever.

It is a pretty long and drawn out explanation. See link. https://www.schemedesigners.com/copyright-information/

PS: I don't think a similar design is copyright infringement and frankly think Clemens overall Mooney work looks great. If it was a K I might just buy another one. I used to own N231DH before upgrading. Always thought that scheme designers paint was pretty sweet too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a magazine article on Scheme Designers and Craig within the last year.  He talked a lot about people copying his work and how he understood some were intentional violations of his copyright and many were done without the knowledge the particular design was copyright protected.  If I recall, he had pursued few, if any, infringements and accepted that there were always going to be copy's of his work. He mentioned he was pleased when a few called him after the fact admitting they were not aware of the copyright.  Can't remember how he handled it but I seem to recall any fee at that point was voluntary.   Clearly he can't persue every possible infringement, especially if they are not EXACT copies.  If parts of a design, when it's not an exact copy, are considered an infringement then even Craig's work could be considered infringing on prior work.

My fee is double what's been posted here so I've got as much of a horse in this race as anyone.  Chill everybody.  There was no malice intended here.

Tom

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zwaustin said:

It is a pretty long and drawn out explanation. See link. https://www.schemedesigners.com/copyright-information/

PS: I don't think a similar design is copyright infringement and frankly think Clemens overall Mooney work looks great. If it was a K I might just buy another one. I used to own N231DH before upgrading. Always thought that scheme designers paint was pretty sweet too. 

If I were browsing photos online of paint jobs I like, how am I to know who exactly designed it? 

And with hundreds of similar, if not identical, schemes - I would be very surprised if a copyright claim could ever be enforced.  

Not a lawyer, but I do sell custom designed art for a living.

I also see that the copyright only seems to apply to work found on their website, followed by a claim that many of their clients have sued and won.  Id be VERY interested to read even one of those cases 

Edited by ragedracer1977
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N9495V said:

I am surprised that we have endless posts about the shade of the N numbers, but nobody commented on the KX175 in the panel. Spending $12K on a paintjob and not investing another $1K on a used KX155 etc. seems the wrong approach to me.    

That's a KX170B in the panel which will probably be receiving and transmitting long after all of us are gone. However the face could use refurbishing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, N9495V said:

I am surprised that we have endless posts about the shade of the N numbers, but nobody commented on the KX175 in the panel. Spending $12K on a paintjob and not investing another $1K on a used KX155 etc. seems the wrong approach to me.    

This is especially important in my opinion with the vintage birds. If you're going to paint a C or E, at least make sure it's got an autopilot, and WAAS GPS. And even more important, get the speed mods from LASAR installed before spending $12K on paint. A paint job is very personal and so from a buying/selling perspective, I'd be buyer much quicker on a plane that had all the pieces installed but desperately needed a paint job, rather than one with beautiful paint, but no speed mods, panel, or other issues. The paint should go on last after there's nothing else to do.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jclemens said:

That was my feeling as well.  I would never even consider copying a unique design.  After reviewing tons of the designs on scheme designers website tonight after being accused of doing so, I am pretty certain that not everything on their website qualifies as a unique design.  There are examples that range from period correct warbird, iconic designs that everyone recognize, and some that are certainly of their own creation.  But, by and far, there are a ton of minor deviations to factory paint schemes.  There is even one in the Cessna examples that is just white with one blue stripe (and a fish on the tail). There is no way that a white plane with a blue stripe is copy write protected.  I always felt that scheme designers product is the drawings and stencils they provide to paint shops in order to put the scheme on the plane.  This is a great service, worth paying for if you have a airshow quality paint scheme in mind you want applied.  

Humm, when did Mooney start using this theme? I had my F painted in 2004 like this. I thought is was very original until I started seeing Ovations show up like it. The painter was an artist and craftsman.

Conor wanting another ride.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first off I have had the sublime checkered flag done into bike jersey in 2008 so if I wanted to do the same to the plane, I would be first so there.   Second the tail bold lines are going the wrong way.  It is catching the wind.  Turn it around and the plane will look faster.   Not this )   but this (   See looks much faster and make the checkered flag make sense in the design

mooneypaint.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Craig has ever put the paint shops, a finite number, on notice regarding the ownership of designs? I suppose many/most(?) owners would be willing to pay for a design that they liked if they were told what the situation is. Particularly if they knew that for a reasonable fee SD could provide the full size masking or whatever the paint shop gets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.