Statement on Roy Chaffin's website

[Sonar5 3]

I looked at the Avsim post about the bitmaps.RCS also states they have turned over evidence to 3rd parties to verify.In it, they state:http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs_statement.htm"However, the crux of the accusations against me is that MAAM believe they have some sort of agreement with me that any reference material gathered by me at MAAM would not/could not be used in the production of RCS Panels Packages. I can assure you that no such agreement was made."That was what I questioned. This alleged agreement. If Maam has one, they should produce it.Also, they stated:"We have been asked to submit a detailed

[Guest IanP]

...for you while you wait.It runs to several hundred pages of printed text, so I would recommend you read it online.http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htmThat, for the uninitiated, is the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) - why specifically Chapter 48 is, so far, eluding me. It does, however, contain information that the bar-room lawyers on this thread could do with reading.It does not apply in the U.S., obviously, but does cover Roy Chaffin. I suggest to anyone who clicks that link that you get a long cool drink and buy a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary before you even try!Ian P.(Edited to add: By the way, it is covered by Crown Copyright so if you wish to use it in arguments for or against, DO NOT COPY IT TO HERE - instead link to the argument you wish to use.)

[Guest Bigshot]

Sounds to me like there is a series of memorandums ie; e-mails that allegedly make up some type of an agreement. Probably some responded to and some ignored. If so, this isn't gonna get resolved anytime soon. Publishing a bunch of e-mails and letters isn't gonna prove squat. Just because a particular e-mail or letter was sent doesn't mean anything unless it was responded to and accepted as is in a manner consistent with the way it was offered. The law interprets any ambiguities against the drafter of the document. The intent of the document and acceptance must be clear. Sometimes with a lot of testimony, a series of memorandums can be interpreted as an agreement in writing between parties; but it takes a lot of effort to get there. So, publishing a series of e-mails is likely gonna raise more questions than they answer. My two cents worth.

[Guest IanP]

That isn't true. If the author of a work claims copyright, the receiver does not have to reply for the claim to stand. The receiver can argue against the claim, but cannot just ignore it. If what you say were correct, any claim of copyright on any product that does not require a written reply - such as that on 99%-odd of flightsim add-ons - would be invalid.Ref: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_5.htmIn addition, if you read Russ' original statement, you will find that Roy did reply to the claim of copyright and said that he would not use any of Bill's work in his product. He found it incredible that Russ could believe he would, if I remember correctly?Ian P.

[Magic Man 2]

RCS say that they have not used Briefing Time material and effectively that everything is their own work.Roy couldn't use any photographic material taken of Briefing Time without MAAM's permission.So RCS are claiming that everything you see in their B25 was created by them from other source material and has no link whatsoever with Briefing Time... rubbish!You only have to compare the waist gunner bitmaps to see that the source photo from which the bitmap was created is one and the same - the angle, perspective and crop is identical, i.e. taken from the exact same spot from within the aircraft.As for those that are happily flying the RCS B25 and are "thinking about getting the MAAM B25" then that is the whole issue here - MAAM and the aircraft it tries to maintain, are missing out on the funding that they should be getting.And to the guy(s) complaining about money grabbers and privately owned museum's - grow up. For "privately owned" read "Run by enthusiasts", i.e. the people without which there wouldn't be any historic aircraft left.

[Guest Bigshot]

I'm referring to contract law. Not copyright law. Copyright law isn't even relevant if a contract to use or not to use existed. If no agreement existed, whoever took the photographs owned them. Plain and simple. You cannot copyright the object of a photograph. Not the case all of the time, but certainly is with an airplane like this. I don't think Ford would have a Complaint if I took a picture of my car and published it in a bitmap format. Unless there existed a contract between Ford and I otherwise.

[Guest IanP]

The claim here is theft of copyrighted images.Ian P.

[Guest Bigshot]

The claim may be copyright; but the issue is contract.

[Guest IanP]

No formal contract exists to the best of my knowledge, Roy was simply asked to help by Bill Rambow and agreed. Even were it to do so, however, the law as it stands in the UK is that the copyright for a work created by an employee whilst working for an employer remains with the employer when the employee leaves - whether that be by being dismissed, or by leaving of their own volition.If I write a program for my current employer, or take a photograph as a source for material to be created on behalf of my employer, the copyright is theirs and not mine. If I try to use something that I created for an employer after I have left their employ - especially if my intention is to harm their business - I am in breach of their rights.I don't know exactly how it stands in U.S. law, but very strongly suspect it is the same.Ian P.

[Guest Bigshot]

Doesn't sound like an employer/employee relationship to me. Was Roy getting paid? Were they controlling his hours? Was he being paid hourly or salaried. Doubtful? If no consideration was being exchanged, it wasn't an employee relationship. Sounds more like a joint venture. What kind of joint venture?? Partnership perhaps? Or was Roy an independent contractor? If so, what were the terms of the contract? I suspect some sort of joint venture was what was going on. If so, who were the parties to the joint venture? Was Maam even involved in the relationship? Or was it just a loose affiliation of some sort. Was any fiduciary duty owed? If so, by who to whom? Did Roy owe a duty to Maam or the other way around? You see, it's not a simple matter. Sounds very complicated to me. I suppose the first thing that needs to be ascertained was what was the business relationship. Who had authority to do what? Which copyright laws apply. The ones in the USA or elsewhere? What rights did Maam own and what rights did Roy own? All kinds of questions. None of which can be answered by spectators who don't have all the facts??

[rambow 0]

Here it is, for what it's worth, and I am heartily tired of all this.http://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/rcs_letter.zipThis should be good for another hundred posts or so. :-(Bill Rambow MAAM-SIM - Rambow, Visser, Banting, Young, Womack, and Hamblyhttp://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/maamsim_logo.gif

[Guest Len]

Personally, I considered the accusation by MAAM that those who downloaded the RCS product to be engaging in piracy a reprehensible tactic and completely offensive. Up to that point I had not downloaded the plane. When I saw the pathetic accusation I immediately downloaded RCS' excellent plane. Thanks for the bald-faced accusation MAAM.

[Guest Len]

>For most of us it is a private matter between the two parties. Nothing written here by anyone else is going to enhance the good reputations of either. MAAM accuses people who download the RCS product of engaging in piracy. Do you think that accusation took it out of the "two parties"? I do.

[rambow 0]

That's twice you have been mistaken, Len. RCS was accused of software piracy. People of good conscience were asked not to support the piracy. That's asked, not accused. No one implied that those who had unknowingly downloaded the product were guilty of anything. Bill Rambow MAAM-SIM - Rambow, Visser, Banting, Young, Womack, and Hamblyhttp://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/maamsim_logo.gif

[Guest Len]

>People of good conscience were asked not to support the piracy. People of good conscience don't make accusations, particularly about piracy and copyright violation except by appeal to legal counsel and enforcing same. If MAAM can't put up then they should shut up.Secondly, if you didn't see the plain language of implication accusing those who had no dog in these allegations, of participating in software piracy then you missed the boat. I don't take lightly people accusing users of participating in software piracy. If MAAM had a case then their legal counsel could have shut RCS down by an interim order by virtue of a prima facie case. They then could have either settled it out of court or gone to litigation. Until I see any of this, I consider the MAAM accusation offensive to me personally. Indeed, I would expect an apology from MAAM. If they get an order and then there is a declaration or admission of copyright violation I shall be one of the first to remove the plane from my hard drive. Otherwise, keep your offensive accusations to yourself or between RCS-MAAM.Thanks