To Sudek 13
 

Ok Sudek 13 whoever you are ,

Two years ago you have bought on ebay pictures which are far important for my book project. These were two shots of a belly-landed B-17 , " Judy E " # 42-30050 coded LN-X.
As obviously you can't be reached ( maybe someone knows , not me ) here's what I'll do : both poor quality scans will be used for my book ( better ones from original would be better , don't you think ? ) to complete the crew story and documentation I have. Needless to say that pictures will be quoted as " seen on ebay " , not from Sudek 13 source.
If ever you want to prosecute : my email is D010844(at)aol.com , but I'm sure you are a gentleman ( as everybody here ) and we'll find a happy end.

Laurent

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Dear Laurent,

I can imagine your disappointment for not getting into direct contact with Sudek, but IMHO your post would not lead to any reaction from him or his team either.

Please consult the content next thread for some other ways to try to get into contact with Sudek:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...ighlight=sudek

Frankly, I've never been into contact with him or his team and just as some (or many?) other visitors of this Board I've been frequently overbid by him or his team. But somehow I think contact can be made, it's just choosing the right approach.

Good luck and best regards,
Hans Nauta

Re: To Sudek 13
 

..bit dramatic Laurent...court proceedings would be nothing to a man of his wealth and if you can't produce the original images, your book will likely get pulped...

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Bullshit, he has only prints but no copyrights!

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi,
True .......
Whilst working at the Tate gallery, UK. about a year ago, I was in the 'archive ' section, and asked about photographs clearly explaining the,
'acquiring and copying of ' ww2 photos,
Apparently even if you have the negative of the photograph you may not have copyright unless the 'original photographer' released or sold the copyright to you, and you have to prove it.
If not it remains with the 'original photographer' or the company the photographer was employed by.
And in the case of an 'individual photographer' copyright can be passed to surviving family via estate once.
I didn't get time to discuss crown copyright etc.

As a publisher once told me, when I said I didn't know the copyright /or I got no reply....
'We will just publish' if someone complains we will agree on some money.
For the record this I withdrew from this book.

One suggestion was as RAF aircraft photos were mainly photographed by RAF personnel, the RAF personnel were employed by the RAF,so almost all the photos, in theory could be crown copyright.
Cheers
Jerry

Re: To Sudek 13
 

who says he has 'prints' only

he's probably got the original photos..and has thus acquired the copyright by default..I would have thought that was obvious....

Re: To Sudek 13
 

I think that's pretty much true of anything you do on your employer's time, so it's probably true of military service as well.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

All photos taken by RAF airmen are Crown Copyright and by now expired. All German photos are copyright free due to enemy property act.
Life would be a lot easier if some people would care to check what the copyright is.
If Sudek will win any legal battle it would be because of corruption and not the law. The one cannot acquire copyright that does not exist anymore.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

..copyright infringments are upheld in courts of law ..ergo only the judge would able to rule on that one ...

(your) ignorance is no defence..

Re: To Sudek 13
 

No, the law is decisive, and the law is extremelly clear that copyright has nothing to ownership of print or negative. Apart of that, dates of expiry are present in law and precise as well.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Come on Neil, who says that Sudek 13 is the master and keeper of one said positive image? You should know by now that many copies of the same positive image were made to hand out to the group when printed, so as far as I am concerned, Laurent has every right to do what he wants to do, regardless of the quality of the image.

I somehow doubt Sudek 13 has gone to each and every individual he's purchased photos from and has asked for the copyright; especially on images that it has expired.

Stephen

Re: To Sudek 13
 

I have dealt with copyright for years. All WW2 photos are FREE DOMAIN, unless the original photographer placed a copyright on the photos and CONTINUED a copyright after death. 10 years (more or less depending on where you live), after the original photographers death if no copyright is placed/renewed, they are FREE DOMAIN, and cannot be copy written again.

Owning an original photo does not and will not give anyone copyright. They would have to be the original photographer, and have a copyright the original negative. In death, the family naturally "inherits" the copyright, but if they do not register the copyright after his death, and 10 years have gone by, it becomes free domain (public domain).


mike

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi Mike,

That's interesting and it's what I figured; mind you, the copyright laws are always changing, so who knows what's what. Here's what get's me. First off, life is short. We all agree on that; I hope? Now, in the case of Laurent, he's probably been working on a labour of love for a long time and the only thing he's going to benefit is seeing his baby in print. I know because I've been there. Hell, if I had saved all of the money I've spent on copying veterans photos and log books, I would have moved out of my parents house a lot sooner than I did and would have had a many women and good times spent in bars under my belt but's that passion for you and I don't regret that I was able to interact with living history. Now, unless you are pumping out 5-8 plus books a year, there's no way in hell that you are even going to make a living as being an author unless you strike the cord first time around. In the case of Sudek 13, he or she or what has a lot of money and I don't begrudge that fact but if you wanna be the bully on the block and buy up everything and play the big yes I am or a vacuum cleaner for that matter, then we fine, there's nothing we can do about that but in the end we all loose. From the sounds of it, "we", yes white man, "we" are the ones loosing out on what could be an excellent publication or a missing link for that matter and I do feel for Laurent. In the case of Sudek 13, he, she, or what has a photo that I am really interested in, but I am not going to jump through the bloody flaming hoops just to get the nod or even make contact. I don't have time for that crap because I've got better things to do with my time. But you know what? A photo might be worth a thousand words, but only if you know what's going on in the photo and I can tell you right now, unless I am too cocky myself, Sudek 13 doesn't know what value of the photos I am interested in and the only way he's going to find out is if purchases my book.

Stephen

Re: To Sudek 13
 

One thing to clarify. We are interested in period (1939-1945) copyright law only (plus EPA), as one of the basic rules is that the law cannot work backwards.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Well....If I were this Sudek13? and I were reading this thread, The post above by SMF would turn me right off. Any chance of collaboration would become nil.
Who knows what the persons motives are? I am sure we all can guess? and probably all of us writeing in this thread have been stomped down in the last min. of bidding on the bay by him.
Before you come back fireing with both barrels SMF, Put yourself in this persons shoes. He has the means to buy this stuff, that is the beauty of our society? Perhaps in the future he will make this all available to those interested? Doubt it is my first thought, Then again Who knows?! Could he be contacted and worked with? Perhaps if a person shows genuine interest in his collection and an unhostile manner? Again.... Who Knows?
As for the Copyright's, As above stated in so many words....I suggest you contact a lawyer, as one never know's what loophole can be used in such a case, Especially when one has lot's of $$$$ to follow through with a lawsuit to make A point.
Just my thoughts, And YES!!! I have been blown out by this person at the last second while bidding on the bay, Yea, It Hurt. On the other hand I am not an Author trying to get the proper photos for my work, Only a collector of sorts so perhaps I do not feel your pain.
Kevin

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Law is extremelly clear. No copyright for German stuff.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Franek, all you brought it up to this theme is 100% right. I can't understand the motivatinos of some members, which still want to be oppsite against clear legal matters... and still are shivering against the truth.

Cheers, Horst

Re: To Sudek 13
 

hi
Sorry but not quite true, Copyright for ww2 can still be claimed & held.

a company here in canada is claiming it copyright on the following ww2 german documents .
( To be clear I am nothing to do with the company)

note the date of publication and the author,
and copyright was still given

Cheers
Jerry

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/c...1&language=eng

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Jerry,

Interesting. What is the link between Sicuro Publishing and the Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt companies. Or do they simply hold a copy of each document?

Re: To Sudek 13
 

How can Willy have any thing to do with a Dora?

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Horst
This is bussinness. If you can claim hundreds of $ of copyright fees per single photo, it will be always tempting.
Personally, I am always trying to get to original picture in order of getting highest quality and then to give respective credit.
In regard of those manuals, what is the actual subject of copyright?

Re: To Sudek 13
 

This publishing company is full of shyte. I have already spoken with them, and Sicuro has NO COPYRIGHT on those items. The Canadian Intellectual Property Rights dept., hands out copyright to ANYONE. You do not have to provide proof of anything. You register online, tell them you are the owner, and voilà, you get a copyright certificate in the mail. They do not investigate the claims, and WILL NOT back you up in court.

I know this, because 1) I am Canadian, 2) I have dealt with copyright for maaannnnyyy years, and 3) I own about 80 original manuals, and wanted to obtain the copyrights WAAYYYYY before Sicuro did.

WW2 copyright does not exist anywhere I know of, not because it is WW2, but because of the date. If I owned a aircraft company and printed aircraft manuals in 1940...copyright would be lost if:

1) original author died (company went out of business) and 10 years go by from his death

2) 50 years after original publication, no copyright was re-registered.

3) company lost all records proving they were the original publisher.

However, I can RETAIN the copyright if I re-register, have proof of legal copyright, and are WITHIN the legal tmeframes/dates.

Sicuro is under the impression that IF NO ONE claims copyright after the author's death, then the first person who does becomes the legal copyright holder. That is 100% FALSE. Copyright automatically would have gone to EADS when they took over Messerschmitt AG/Daimler-Benz., and automatically lost when 50 yesrs went by from the publication date.

If they did not register the copyright 50 years after the original publication (75 in Canada, I believe), then even THEY cannot claim anything. Once in FREE DOMAIN, it remains in FREE DOMAIN for life. This is recognized worldwide, even in Germany.

I have a letter from the legal department at EADS, stating they even THEY cannot prove they are the legal successor, as the company changed so many times, and there is NO documents showing they are the successor (even though it is pretty obvious). It would never hold up in court. EADS can offer a "non-exclusive" license to print the work (logs/branding, etc.), but Sicuro's copyright claim is BS.

Copyright law, though slightly different in every country, is GENERALLY the same. Once an item is in free domain, it remains in FREE DOMAIN.

To date, the family of William Shakespeare gets NO ROYALTIES from plays published...no copyright. That is why you see his plays published by 100's of different publishers.

Both Sicuro and sudek13 cannot claim copyright on anything, and would lose any court battle, as they would not be able to prove they are the LEGAL SUCCESSOR of the photos or documents

100% fact.

;)

mike

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Mike, German stuff (official and individual) lost copyright due to post-war decisions later implemented eg. by Enemy Property Act. Similarly, all the RAF stuff is considered Crown Copyright and according to HMSO is now expired and in public domain, while all the USAAF stuff was considered paid from taxes and again in public domain. Some, mostly companies, claim copyright, like Boeing for their photo collection, but the only problem is to find a lawyer for a long legal battle. They would lost.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Thanks Franek!

Now that I remember, I think I heard that somewhere before as well...

:)

Mike

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Gentlemen-

While it seems clear that copyrights can no longer be applied to WWII images, I imagine that Sudek13 would be well aware of this. Is it possible that he is not after copyright's at all, but publication rights instead? I am by no means an expert on these legal issues, but if publication rights apply to pictures, as I believe they do, then this may be his goal to obtain instead of the copyright's.

The following information was listed on Wikipedia.com concerning publishing rights:
"The publication right is a copyright granted to the publisher who first publishes a previously unpublished work after that work's original copyright has expired. In practical terms, the publication right is the same as all the exploitative rights granted under copyright, but does not cover the moral rights.
Germany has known the publication right since 1965, first with a term of 10 years since the publication, extended in 1990 to 25 years.With the EU Copyright Directive, the publication right was introduced in all countries of the European Union with a 25-year term starting at the publication of the previously unpublished work. In the UK, the publication right was introduced by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, effective on December 1, 1996."

-Eric Zemper

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Yes, this is a very valid question, but then the question is if it could be applied to WWII photos. Imagine, I have got an original print never published before, but someone publishes it just before me. Or even harder nut, I have got a scan and the situation repeats. Who would have any rights?
Doubtless copying a photo from a recent publication would be a violation, but then again, if a source would be stated, it will be not. I think the law was constructed to avoid plagiarism and in effect would not apply to the pictures themselves. Stating in credit that photo belongs to Sudek collection published in a book Blah blah, should solve the matter.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi Eric,

No, that would not hold water. Published or not, all photos became FREE DOMAIN many, many years ago. Once an item is in FREE DOMAIN, no one can claim anything on it, puiblishing rights, copyrights, etc. Sure he can publish as much as he wants, based on free domain, but he cannot hold the sole publishing rights.

Even if it were true, he would have to prove it HAD NOT been published at all in ANY magazine, book, etc. since it's conception (virtually impossible), and he would have had to do it within the timeframe allowed (dependant on country) BEFORE Free Domain came into effect...he is decades too late for that.

Let's say for example, I took a photo in 1945 of an Me109. I now have copyright. I am the original photographer, and copyright is automatic. If I die, the copyright transfers to my family. If the copyright is not "officially" re-registered within 10 years from my death, OR 50 YEARS from the original date I took the photo (both figures vary depending on country), it then falls into FREE/PUBLIC DOMAIN. And NO ONE can claim copyright or publication rights...even my family.

If someone lends you a photo for publishing in a book, it would be common courtesy to list who lent the pic in the book. But if you have a WW2 image of the web you do not need to contact anyone for printing/publishing.

ZERO can be done for Publication Rights and Copyright on items in Free Domain.

Mike

Off topic: Harrison 987
 

Hi Mike, did you get my PM about the DB605? Please PM me back if you can.
Best wishes.SM

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hello Again-

After reading conflicting information online from various sources on this topic and becoming completely confused, I decided to write to the Copyright Office at the U.S. Library of Congress (www.copyright.gov). I asked them if copyright protection / publishing rights still apply to WWII photographs and if someone were to buy or an original unpublished picture, if the new owner of the image claim any rights to it. Here is the reply:

"Publishing rights are only one in the bundle of the exclusive rights that
comprise copyright. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

A work created before 1978, but never published or registered, would be
protected for the lifetime of the author (photographer) plus 70 years. However, Section 105 of the US copyright law provides that copyright protection is not available for any "work of the United States Government", which is defined as "a work prepared by an employee of the government within the scope of his employment." Thus, if the photo was taken by a member of the military services as part of his duties during the war, it would not be protected by copyright.

On the other hand, a photo taken by a serviceman not specifically "employed" to take photos would be subject to protection.

If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are
determined by the photographer's will, or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. Mere ownership or acquisition of a photograph does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of the physical copy does not of
itself convey any rights in the copyright.

For further information on copyright duration in the US and how to assess
copyright status, please see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html,
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15t.html and
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html. "

Please keep in mind that this only applies to the U.S. and the laws may be very different in other countries.

-Eric Zemper

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi Gentlemen,
I own a fair amount of original WW2 photo's.
This copyright thread is very interesting but you all are forgetting one thing.
In the case of WW2 photo's, especially photo's taken by German soldiers/sailors/airmen and so on, the copyright is not in question.
Why do you think many photo's appear on Ebay ?!
Almost any photo on Ebay is sold by the relatives of the real copyrightholders and they (the ones who can claim the copyright because they inhereted it) have no interest at all to register the copyright to the photo, but just want to make a quick buck out of the legacy of their deceased relatives.
So if you buy a photo on Ebay you are pretty save to use it for a publication.
Just don't claim the copyright to the photo but claim it is a photo of your own collection (and you can prove it !).
This will not prevent that this print can be used again by somebody else, but in most cases this is not your concern.
Most collectors are not out for making money out of their collection (certainly not in my case), but for completing a photo-selection for a publication or just to add to a personnal collection of a specific type of aircraft.
In the case of Sudek13 I can't imagine he wants to make a profit out of his photo's. He is so wealthy that he don't need that. So, although I don't like it as so many others, that he pinches a photo away from me, I believe he is doing a good thing for the airminded community.
I believe in the good intentions of people and I believe Sudek13 is using his money for the benefit of the future generations of fans of aircraft/tanks/guns and so on.
When you are that wealthy as Sudek13 what else could be the reason for buying photo's on Ebay. I don't believe it is for making more money.

Regards,
Jan

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hello to all,
For a several days I have been following this interesting thread on the situation regarding copyright and Sudek13 who seems to have become one of the favourite subjects on this board. I don’t have enough knowledge regarding the copyright aspect to be able to add anything significant in this matter, but concerning Sudek, (unfortunately not the famous Czechoslovakian photograph Joseph Sudek, but “our” Sudek-Cresus-13), I would like too to post a few lines.
Like most of you, I am looking for original documents and photos – in fact for over 20 years. This has led me to cross paths with of a lot of collectors. They can be roughly put in two categories: the ones who gain their pleasure just sitting on their collections, even if they have no time to assess or understand what they have or look at them. They often don’t want to share, they just want to “have”, and if possible to be the one who has the best collection. This is a depressing situation because the doors are closed (except for their own interest), and the future of this study is in a kind of black hole, - it is difficult to progress and expand our knowledge and understanding.
Other collectors have other views: they can be proud of what they have, but find great pleasure sharing, to see what one can do, what one can find with the collected documents. What is behind the photo, the human context…? This is of course much more constructive and reveals a real interest in history.
I can not say of course in which category Sudek13 is. Maybe somewhere between both? Indeed, I should mention that several photos from his huge collection appeared in publications with a mention like “Archive of the modern war conflicts”. The fact that the word “Archive” and not “Collection” is used denotes a certain will to do something else than just possess. Also, the fact that some authors appear to have access to his documents proves that Sudek13 is not a completely closed book. But now, we should also wonder about the role played by those who have access to publish his material. Shouldn’t we fear that this role is maybe not very positive? To Sudek13 himself but also to colleagues and researchers? Knowing that they have a quasi-exclusive access to a very large and fantastic source, wouldn’t they do all possible to keep for their own this access? Even to blind the owner of the collection?
Of course, if this archive was opened to all enthusiasts, that would give Sudek-13 a terrible problem to process all the requests. But it is possible to find a solution to every problem when one has a good will.
Honestly, at the moment, I would not like to be in Sudek’s shoes. His first intentions were maybe not to cut the historians and enthusiasts from thousands of interesting documents, but his lack of communication and the manipulation he maybe suffers led him to this existing situation. A situation which seems to apply to so many rich people and to the well known expression “Money does not buy happiness”.
We know now that he is rich, that his collection is probably one of the largest we can dream of. But it is time that Sudek13 reveals a bit about himself and his intentions. I am sure that he and his well and bad-intentioned collaborators are also following this thread. He has certainly nothing to lose to show (to us and to himself) that he is a man with courage, respect, interests, knowledge, plans… qualities that money can not completely hide.
Best regards
Erik Mombeeck

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Dear Sir I am Dr. Sicuro President of Sicuro Publishing I see that misinterpretation and lack of " Basic Law " knowledge .
Few Clear Words : I never was contact by anyone in this Arena .. so please ..
Our Copyright refer not " ONE Public Domain publication ' But indeed " Bundle Public Domain Publication " .. Because Sirs you sound.. well informed .. you cam explain to this community what this copyright law is about .. I strongly advise you or any member to this community to engage legal advise on this matter.....Or contact a Publish company that can explain in details ... this issues I have enjoy to read ... my Best Regards to everyone ... Fortunato Sicuro .... Sicuropublishing.com

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Dear Sir I am Dr. Sicuro President of Sicuro Publishing I see that misinterpretation and lack of " Basic Law " knowledge .
Few Clear Words : I never was contact by anyone in this Arena .. so please .. ... I suggest to avoid this.........

Our Copyright refer not " ONE Public Domain publication ' But indeed " Bundle Public Domain Publication " .. Because Sir you sound.. well informed .. you cam explain to this community what this copyright legal act is about .. I strongly advise you or any member to this community to engage legal advise on this matter.....Or contact a Publish company that can explain in details ... this issues .... I have enjoy to read about ... my Best Regards to everyone ... Fortunato Sicuro .... Sicuropublishing.com

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Dr. Sicuro,

As far as I see from the Canadian copyright links, you own the copyrights of several Luftwaffe aircraft manuals (especially the Ersatzteil-Liste BF-109 E, F and G) and the Fw 190 blueprints.

Are you aware that the same manuals are also for sale at eBay in CD/DVD format. And, in addition to that, are you aware that the sellers of these CDs claim the copyrights of these manuals by a system called "VeRo", which is an "ultra-genious" copyright agreement of eBay itself? VeRo has nothing to do by law. Once you tell them that you have the copyrights of a book, they give it to you without questioning it! Ebay loves its users.

Back to the life out of eBay, as you have the copyrights, I strongly advise you to take all legal action and earn your best. Law is with you :)

Regards,

Batur


PS: I visit this forum only a few times a year. However, if you win the court, I would love to know that. An e-mail is welcome.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

This guy's taking the piss. I love taking on piss-takers. What else have you got to say, Mr. Sicuro. Please tell me you have copyright over the words: 'Bombsights Over England', or 'Sting of the Luftwaffe'. Maybe you've copyrighted Vasco da Gama's name, and will sue me because of my surname. Man, I'm shitting myself.

John Vasco

Re: To Sudek 13
 

MR Vasco
In you Country a Publisher company Call CopyZone has registed copyright about Spitfire Lancaster etc please see web site http://spitfirerestoration.com/ ... I do not want ad anything else .

We Claim the Copyright about OUR work.. That Came from The Original Manuals But it is NOT the ORIGINAL Manual.. It is Translate Or It was Modify From the Original Title is the same contents It is Not


As well other Company Very well know

Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner
Udo Hafner
www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de

Has done the same Mr Hafner HAs ISBN Number Like we have done .. and we sell in Bookstore Like Mr. Hafner does...


Please give me the courtesy .. to look at .. the legal issue ... in deeply way

Mit freundlichen Grüssen / kind regards

F. Sicuro Dr. P. E. PhD

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Mr Batur
The Only One on ebay that has the right to sell is ebay id:Bvah
This Ebay id is located in Germany and he is family relate with Udo Hafner

Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de


Somebody else From NZ has created a lot of mess ...

It is Very Costly to go after someone for copyright issue Mainly because any company will be not able to recuperate legal fee and other expense so the most of ...... file a complain Via VERO and item is removed from Ebay.... likely someone re-list same or similar item and it will be removed again .. It like a game ..

Some one to make a buck .. dear to go against the law ....
He is a little guy that need the $ 15.00 USD to make the day ...
He has not economical resource ..... and a Legal Counselor for copyright matter cost $ 400.00 USD per Hour ..

I invite you to " Google " " Rolex Vs Ebay "

We Claim Copyright or what we have done .. Our Work...
... Our Work is a Modify Version of Original Manuals.. ...

.... We have ISBN number and OUR .." Manuals are in Bookstore " ...

... Because Title and Original Author is the same ... this do not imply .. that after 51 years It is the same ..

... For Publishing reason we are compel to register copyright . like any other Publisher company ..world wide and NOT Only in Canada

Please give us some credit.. We do know what we are doing...

Some One in this Arena has quote US without be aware what it was done in back stage ..

Anyway I like what you are doing .. It is evident no one is a Legal Counselor .. in this forum...

Mit freundlichen Grüssen / kind regards

F . Sicuro

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Thanks for your reply Mr. Sicuro. I guess I know that "someone from NZ" who caused lots of trouble at eBay.

Have a good day,

Batur

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Mr Sicuro,

What you say in reply to me says nothing. It is a load of bollocks.

"...We Claim the Copyright about OUR work.. That Came from The Original Manuals But it is NOT the ORIGINAL Manual.. It is Translate Or It was Modify From the Original Title is the same contents It is Not..." Yes, and some Polish prick did that to a joint work that I did with another researcher/author - lifted parts of our book, translated them into Polish, then back into poor English, and didn't even have the courtesy to contact me about it (I was the Publisher!) Of course it's not the original manual. The original manual was printed during the Third Reich years! Do you think I'm fuckin' stupid! If I (or any other author) quote from an official wartime document, we don't claim those sentences/paragraphs as our own copyright.

By this argument: "We Claim Copyright or what we have done .. Our Work... ... Our Work is a Modify Version of Original Manuals.. ..." I think I'll publish, let's see, 'Flieger, Ritter, Helden', or 'Mölders und seiner Männer', or how about 'Unsere Flieger über Polen'. I'll just write a single paragraph on the first page and claim complete copyright over the whole thing. Am I right? Cos that's what you're doing. But hang on, there are copies of those books still out there (I have a copy of all three of them for starters) and if others were to quote from them, could I then sue them for copyright violation? I don't think so.

I see through you. Why don't you just piss off and stop spamming this Forum.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

I see Mr Vasco

Some One claim that Has talk with me and it is not true

You Insult me in Public in this Forum .. and I do not understand if you have understood or read our books .. Did you ???

You are not aware what all this issue is about You have NOT SEE and Read OUR BOOKS Did you ???

You claim that I or MY people Just Bull....t or what ever ...

And I have to say I am sorry .. ..


Mr Vasco You answer define yourself ... do you you agree .. Do not you ??

The Translation OF Reprint of German Manuals and Publication was made since 1950 in USA and Europe ..

AAF has done the first Reprint and Publication of ME-162

Anyway I do not have to explain .. You were Publisher or you say you have published .... Good so you know that You have copyright your work and Legally Deposit..

So you are aware about all the procedures.. Do not you ??

About What is Original and what has change from the Original ...
Pages or other is one other issue.. Pages Chapter and what ever is a LEGAL FORM with application and details that can not be discuss in this ARENA

I see that You Sir Vasco you are trying to make a point that is far away from the Gist of this copyright issue .

What we sell ARE NOT COPIES ....

About " Piss and other elegant expression .... " ube " ..... above and beyond ...

I can see where you can from and the " Intellectual level and rank you feel proud to belong to.... "


thank you for you comment

and

I apology .. if I have intrude ....

Because some one has claim that has spoken with us ( Nobody Did... ) .... and .. a lot of incorrect .. misinterpretation and ..... was written.. we felt that we should have take part of......

I realize now we were wrong ..... we apology ....

We accept to be the Bad Guys .... When some one can not defend himself or his own company.... and somebody else is ready to jump on with a lot of miss leading and untruthfulness ..... what we can do .. Nothing It is Correct Is it not ?...

You Mr Vasco are right I stop " to just piss you off and stop spamming this Forum "

I apology if I have bother you ... I was not in title to intrude in this community.. Was I ???

Have nice day

Mit freundlichen Grüssen / kind regards

F. Sicuro Dr. P. E. PhD