Are ambakaro epones historically correct ?

[Dutchhoplite]

Well i'm sure the helm *could* be tilted back from the forehead but when i see the position of the neckguard it seems to be sitting normally on the head and with the facemask clapped up :)

And i see "something" that look like hinges ;)

Where are these pictures from?? They seem quite old.

[Ibrahim]

Well i'm sure the helm *could* be tilted back from the forehead but when i see the position of the neckguard it seems to be sitting normally on the head and with the facemask clapped up :)

And i see "something" that look like hinges ;)

Where are these pictures from?? They seem quite old.

clonde de clonard, 1861, IIRC. I use them to make spanish uniforms for the seven years war, along with the album de taccoli; these plates are from the associacion de modelissimo de Alabarda, so I'd like to ask the moderator to remove those pics; there is no permission to use them, and they are copyrighted (I and my boss had to wrte to them for permission to use, copy or distribute these). unless the guy who posted them is a member of course.

here is a work of mine (the template)

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.p...oledo_Infantry

[MeinPanzer]

clonde de clonard, 1861, IIRC. I use them to make spanish uniforms for the seven years war, along with the album de taccoli; these plates are from the associacion de modelissimo de Alabarda, so I'd like to ask the moderator to remove those pics; there is no permission to use them, and they are copyrighted (I and my boss had to wrte to them for permission to use, copy or distribute these). unless the guy who posted them is a member of course.

here is a work of mine (the template)

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.p...oledo_Infantry

If these images were published in 1861 then they are in the public domain now.

[Foot]

If its 1861 those pictures are surely not under copyright any more. Besides, I'm pretty sure they would fall under a fair use policy.

Foot

[General Appo]

For once, Foot got owned.

[mcantu]

For once, Foot got owned.

hardly...he's 100% correct about the copyright issue

[General Appo]

hardly...he's 100% correct about the copyright issue

I was referring to the fact that Foot´s post was preceded with a very short time by another poster saying pretty much the same thing. Foot owned me in the same way a few days ago. Revenge is sweet.

[lobf]

I was referring to the fact that Foot´s post was preceded with a very short time by another poster saying pretty much the same thing. Foot owned me in the same way a few days ago. Revenge is sweet.

Tell us what his underwear smells like, Appo.

[Ibrahim]

If its 1861 those pictures are surely not under copyright any more. Besides, I'm pretty sure they would fall under a fair use policy.

Foot

actually, ownership is still expressed. I'm well aware that this is beyond the c.75 years post mortem of the author(s), but the Alabarda associacion claims it as property-so no, no publishing. we are lucky at kronoskaf to have a few pages of the conde to display outside of the Alabarda; we cannot publish a single page of the Album de taccoli, from 1759. that one is owned by Mr. Torres. nice guy- really helpful. only he, my boss, and myself ever looked inside of it. and I swore not to show a single page-just the result.

so in summation: fair use applies if the author was dead for over 75 years, and ownership/ claim was not made on the work. sorry. I'd normally say yes, but the works are claimed, so plz.

[mcantu]

actually, ownership is still expressed. I'm well aware that this is beyond the c.75 years post mortem of the author(s), but the Alabarda associacion claims it as property-so no, no publishing. we are lucky at kronoskaf to have a few pages of the conde to display outside of the Alabarda; we cannot publish a single page of the Album de taccoli, from 1759. that one is owned by Mr. Torres. nice guy- really helpful. only he, my boss, and myself ever looked inside of it. and I swore not to show a single page-just the result.

so in summation: fair use applies if the author was dead for over 75 years, and ownership/ claim was not made on the work. sorry. I'd normally say yes, but the works are claimed, so plz.

fair use (only applies when there is a valid copyright. if a work is no longer under copyright, fair use is not applicable and the work can be used freely

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/definiti.shtml

Fair Use

The right set forth in Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act, to use copyrighted materials for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[Ibrahim]

I see. then I'll ned to have a talk with someone...

but it raises the question: why not let us publish the stuff(Album and what have you), without permission? I mean, If indeed what you say is true (and it is), why the ban? I even have the letter from torres copied by the boss.

[mcantu]

I see. then I'll ned to have a talk with someone...

but it raises the question: why not let us publish the stuff(Album and what have you), without permission? I mean, If indeed what you say is true (and it is), why the ban? I even have the letter from torres copied by the boss.

well if its their own personal property, they can do (or not do) whatever they want with it. if there are already images of the plates in circulation, then they have no say over how those are used.