Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 15:01:04 -1000 From: cvdunton@pinn.net (Charlie Dunton) Message-Id: <3au48g$8eo@everest.pinn.net> Organization: Pinnacle Online Subject: AKA and Copyright - Kite Making Regs I looked through the latest edition (2nd) of the official "AKA Rules and Guidelines for Kitemaking Competitions". I didn't spend a great deal of time reading it but I think I've found most of the parts applicable to the copyright discussion. In Chapter 6, page 24, "Criteria for Judging Aesthetic Visual Flight Appeal" the following questions are asked: "Does the surface of the kite contain original artwork, or is it a copy of the work of another artist?" "Is the kite's concept original?" Even more to the point are these lines from Chapter 3, Competitive Categories, Paragraph 12, Cooperative Kites: "Persons who successfully make a kite from published or personal plans of another DO NOT QUALIFY for this category; persons who order a kite >From another kitemaker DO NOT QUALIFY for this category." Emphasis is the AKA's. Guess that pretty well answers whether it should have been allowed to compete or not. Charlie --- May you never stand in the shadow of your kite cvdunton@pinn.net = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 04:39:40 -1000 From: kml@mathcs.emory.edu (Kevin Lahey) Message-Id: <3b28jc$84o@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS Subject: Re: AKA and Copyright - Kite Making Regs In article <3au48g$8eo@everest.pinn.net>, Charlie Dunton wrote: >I looked through the latest edition (2nd) of the official "AKA Rules and >Guidelines for Kitemaking Competitions". [Snip] >Even more to the point are these lines from Chapter 3, Competitive >Categories, Paragraph 12, Cooperative Kites: > >"Persons who successfully make a kite from published or personal plans >of another DO NOT QUALIFY for this category; persons who order a kite >from another kitemaker DO NOT QUALIFY for this category." > >Emphasis is the AKA's. Guess that pretty well answers whether it should >have been allowed to compete or not. [It clearly never should have been entered, and if the judges *knew* that it was a blatant copy, down to the colors, of Carl's otherwise unique kite, it certainly shouldn't have been allowed to compete. Those in doubt should check out the pictures he's made available. Ouch!] I was confused by this rule, though. Does it mean that I can't make a cooperative flowform with a pal, because I used a published plan? That's certainly what I interpreted it to mean (you can see why I *not* a lawyer). However, on page 7, section I.C.7, of the '91 rules, it says: "One person who successfully makes a kite from published or personal plan of another is NOT considered a cooperative effort." This make a bit more sense -- I'm not 'cooperating' with the original artist, I'm just building his kite, and this category is about 'cooperating' with other builders (or designers). Is there some good reason for the rewording? Was anybody else as confused as I was? The current rules make it sound like the cooperative kite has to be *completely* original in structure and in decoration. Sounds kinda tough. Fly kite! Kevin kml@mathcs.emory.edu http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~kml/kites/kites.html (Yet another kites page) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 23:49:45 -1000 From: crowell@teleport.com (Carl Crowell) Message-Id: Organization: Kites By Carl Crowell Subject: Re: AKA and Copyright - Kite Making Regs >>"Persons who successfully make a kite from published or personal plans >>of another DO NOT QUALIFY for this category; persons who order a kite >>from another kitemaker DO NOT QUALIFY for this category." The kite was in co-operateive because he built it with his wife. I am not included in this factor. The AKA does include statements as to crediting the origonality of a graphic of the kite. It is somewhere under aesthetics. It is one of five or six factors that make one of the many scores that is a part of the kite. I did the math about two years ago on an early manual and figured that creativity in graphics was less than 80f the total score IF it was considered. I then talked to a handful of people that competed at Lubbock (AKA '92) as none of them were asked as to the origonality of the graphic. I was even told by one judge at the event that it had to do with, "If it was a design that had been at the A.K.A. grand nationals before." Oh well... carl ___________________________________________________ email: crowell@teleport.com FTP: ftp.teleport.com/pub/users/crowell WWW: http://www.teleport.com/~crowell Kites By Carl Crowell - O.S.F.M. World Headquarters = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 05:12:00 -1000 From: gaffer@ibmpcug.co.uk (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organiszation Subject: Re: AKA and Copyright - Kite Making Regs Kevin Lahey wrote: >Those in doubt should check out the pictures he's made available. Ouch! Well I've had a look at the images on Carl's page, and to me, it is fairly obvious from the pictures that *Carl's* kite is the copy. Carl's kite has a washed-out, grey tint to it, he has been unable to capture the vibrant colours of what is clearly the original. It is immediately obvious to the most casual observer that Carl's kite is a pale immitation of the original work. Andrew -- You can permanently disable the disclosure of your phone number by asking 150. You can enable the disclosure for one call by prefixing with 1470. You can subscribe to the BT price list by requesting it on 0171 356 7231 British Telecom: The *Corporate* Personification Of Evil = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =