Long EZ plans available

Hello,

if anyone needs a set of plans and templates for the Long EZ, I have a set of copies made at an engineering firm, high standards, extremely accurate. We can arrange for you to check them against original plans. I also have all the canard pusher newsletters and the owners manual, plus assorted items.

If anyone needs part of this or the whole lot to finish their project, please email me at longez2006@yahoo.com.

Best wishes

Michael

By the way, may I remind you of this thread:

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8318&postcount=14

longez2006 said:

By the way, may I remind you of this thread:

The context/entire thread of that discussion can be found here: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1239

Additional points to be made are:

• Long-EZ plans are no longer sold by RAF
• "Licensed" Long-EZ plans holders are no longer supported by RAF
• You can acquire Long-EZ plans (less templates) from TERF (for reference only)
• You can acquire Long-EZ templates from various sources, such as Michael (longez2006) here
• It is legal to purchase Long-EZ plans from TERF and a set of copied templates from someone else, and build an experimental canard aircraft (not to be called a Long-EZ) for educational purposes
• It is illegal for someone (other than TERF) to profit from selling copied Long-EZ plans OR templates

In the spirit of keeping the Long-EZ design alive, it is a great service to the community to make template drawings available. However, considering copyright law, the charge for providing these drawings should be based only on the expenses required to produce and deliver the copies. Charging fees above reasonable costs for duplication, shipping, and handling is illegal (read: stealing and breaking U.S. copyright law). Copying templates and shipping to someone, for educational purposes (such as building an experimental aircraft), at cost is not breaking any copyright laws.

My point is NOT to discourage copying -- it's legal for our purposes -- but to point out that profiting should be known to be discouraged and generally not accepted within our community.

Hello,

It seems someone told RAF that I was selling illegal copies of the plans, which is not true, I haven't sold to a single soul. By the way, some builders of this forum contacted me and I told them I would send the parts of the plans they needed for free, only charging shipping costs (ask the Cozy girrls...).

I'm not from the US so I'd like to ask someone to pass this message to a person close to RAF or responsible at the EAA.

Consider my offer of the Long EZ plans closed, I don't want any legal problems...

Jon -

thanks for the excellent explanation...

LongEZ2006.. .sorry you are pulling out. I'm not in the market but it is a shame to be threatened into submission...

All the best to you both...

Happity New Year

John

longez2006 said:

It seems someone told RAF that I was selling illegal copies of the plans...

Sorry to hear that. Whoever that was is definitely missing the point of all of this. The fact is that it is entirely legal to copy Long-EZ plans, complete with templates, for purposes of personal education (including building one) provided the charges are as I described.

I am a member of the Defiant mailing list as well, and just saw this today:

Anonymous (to protect the guilty) said:

I have a copy of a set of plans for building the Defiant airplane. I am building my Defiant from a copy of my original plans, so the plans are better, easier to read, than the original. The price is $900.00 U.S. plus shipping.

To which I responded:

-----

The topic of selling plans/templates that are no longer available from RAF comes up often. Here are the facts:

• It is ILLEGAL to sell copies of these plans for a profit.
• It is LEGAL to sell copies of these plans for cost of paper, reproduction fees, ink, and postage, provided they are for personal/educational use (the definition of 'experimental aircraft'). (Note that charges for time and labor are NOT included).
• It is LEGAL to sell an original/authentic time for as much money as you can get.

Both of these statements can be verified by layperson review of US Copyright law at www.copyright.gov

I personally find it disappointing when I see copies of these plans for sale at such high amounts, where the seller is clearly making a profit (in violation of the law), and effectively hindering the continuance of the aircraft type. This applies to all RAF models, and not only the Defiant.

-----

This was the purpose of my prior post -- just to give a heads up that the costs for these plans need to be very reasonable, and not a source of profit. Charging $900 to sell a copy of these plans is highly unethical, let alone illegal.

Well John, it seems the EAA sees this differently from you.

I contacted them to solve this matter, explained that I didn't sell a single copy, sent emails to everyone saying that my offer was off, but told them that I was sending free copies to some people (students, researchers, I was contacted by a lot of poeple).

Here's what they said:

With regards to your note, it is illegal to copy and distribute

aircraft plans, either for free or for payment. This violates United States

and International Copyright laws.

Even though the Rutan Aircraft Factory no longer supplies the plans it

still owns the rights to the information, regardless if they support

the plans, aircraft, information, or not.

Rutan Aircraft Factory can be contacted via their website at:

http://www.rutanaircraft.com/

Regards,

Aviation Services

Experimental Aircraft Association

Oshkosh, Wisconsin USA

longez2006 said:

Well John, it seems the EAA sees this differently from you.

It doesn't make them right.

EAA person said:

With regards to your note, it is illegal to copy and distribute aircraft plans, either for free or for payment. This violates United States and International Copyright laws.

Per the Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law, copying for research and education (the basis of the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft') is NOT illegal. Reference Chapter 1 Section 107 of the Copyright Law of the United States.

EAA person said:

Even though the Rutan Aircraft Factory no longer supplies the plans it still owns the rights to the information, regardless if they support the plans, aircraft, information, or not.

No argument here.

One thing that did just come to mind is that, while I firmly believe that we should feel free and legal to copy Long-EZ, VariEze, Defiant, or even VariViggen plans as we see fit, we should recognize:

• TERF is selling a RAF CD for $295. I don't know if Burt or RAF gets anything from these sales, and while not necessary (given US Copyright Law), a courtesy would be to buy the TERF CD for the plans (less templates). To whom we are paying this courtesy, I don't know.
• Templates need to be provided by those willing. To avoid all this nonsense, it's best to do this "in the shadows".
• Anyone can sue anyone for purposes of scaring them out of what they were trying to do, right or wrong. When faced with excessive legal costs, many "defendants" throw in the towel.

I think it all comes back to the point that Burt/RAF want ALL Long-EZs, VariEzes, and Defiants to go away (except those that Burt and friends own) so that no more frivolous lawsuits are thrown his way. Copying these plans doesn't help that cause, and so is likely why Burt will have an eyebrow raised, and why the EAA is watching out for their biggest success story ever.

You know, I guess everyone has to make thier own opinion on this. I was one of the ones that contacted Michael about his offer and I respect his desire now not to pursue. The situation seems similar to that of abandonware with all the legal/ethical opinions of everyone from one end of the spectrum to another.

RAF doesn't seem terribly concerned all of the other Long-eze inspired designs that clearly only modifications/enhancements to the original theme and I really don't think Michael had any intentions other than to help future builders.

I'm just as certain that I'll eventually obtain a set Long-ez plans/templates as I am that I will not pay $1200+ for them on ebay.

Personally, I think its all Burt's fault for designing such a cool and enduring airframe in the first place.

Cheers,

Bart

sbarton said:

The situation seems similar to that of abandonware with all the legal/ethical opinions of everyone from one end of the spectrum to another.

Yes! www.freemameroms.com is what comes to mind for me. The issue there is that the original copyright owners occasionally surface, and want to be compensated. The issue with Burt/RAF is that they could care less to be compensated. He/they just want to avoid any and all lawsuits.

Quote

RAF doesn't seem terribly concerned all of the other Long-eze inspired designs that clearly only modifications/enhancements to the original theme...

Yes, provided there is no reference back to Burt Rutan, as is the case with the E-Racer, SQ2000, and Velocity aircraft (all derivatives of the Long-EZ).

Quote

...and I really don't think Michael had any intentions other than to help future builders.

That may very well be so, but it would have been entirely clear if Michael posted "for only the cost of material, printing, and shipping, etc." Michael, I also do not think you had anything but good intentions, and find it unfortunate to have you off the gray-market.

Quote

I'm just as certain that I'll eventually obtain a set Long-ez plans/templates as I am that I will not pay $1200+ for them on ebay.

Good for you!

Quote

Personally, I think its all Burt's fault for designing such a cool and enduring airframe in the first place.

So true, on many levels.

I started a new thread in the Long-EZ section to talk about how to make plans available. Comments and feedback are welcome.

Jon Matcho said:

Per the Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law, copying for research and education (the basis of the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft') is NOT illegal. Reference Chapter 1 Section 107 of the Copyright Law of the United States.

Jon, don't start this argument again. In the chapter you reference, part three states:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

This obviously means that the more of the copyrighted work you copy, the less likely the courts are to consider it "fair use", no matter what the purpose. Copying the whole this is extremely unlikely to be considered fair use. Please. You're going to need a far better argument than this to claim that it's OK to copy and distribute other folks copyrighted plans sets.

Or someone could just hand draft the whole design, change it subtlety and start selling whole aircraft and airframe components. That would far more ethical.

Marc Zeitlin said:

Jon, don't start this argument again.

Why not? It has never been concluded, and has always ended with team members of "Team Rutan" trading rounds with "Team WIOD (Where Is Our Designer)". Keeping things hypothetical...

Quote

This obviously means that the more of the copyrighted work you copy, the less likely the courts are to consider it "fair use", ...

True.

Quote

...no matter what the purpose.

Where'd that come from? The item you reference (#3) is just one of 4 FACTORs used in determining fair use. Here's my factor-by-factor understanding of each factor, as relevant to the Long-EZ:

US Copyright Law said:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

The character of the use is entirely for nonprofit educational purposes.

Quote

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

Research, education, and experimentation.

Quote

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

100% of the work is reproduced as-is to maintain the accuracy of the original design.

Quote

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Copying only templates, the market value of templates provided by "official" vendors (formerly RAF) will be, zero. No revenue to be lost or created by anyone.

Yes Marc, #3 is not in favor of producing exact copies -- if the other factors were ALSO not in favor. However, in this case, the substance of the other factors outweigh the negative aspects for #3. Considering the context of this hypothetical discussion, I believe a court of law would find in favor of my position here.

sbarton said:

That would [be] far more ethical.

There is no ill will or ethics at play here. The US Copyright Office is in place as much to protect copyright holders as it is to maintain and encourage innovation and invention.

Jon Matcho said:

<snip>

Yes Marc, #3 is not in favor of producing exact copies -- if the other factors were ALSO not in favor. However, in this case, the substance of the other factors outweigh the negative aspects for #3. Considering the context of this hypothetical discussion, I believe a court of law would find in favor of my position here.

Wouldn't buying the plans from TERF for $295 mitigate this particular 'problem'? isn't the only item being 'copied' not purchased are the templates? Isn't Jon's observation about the templates having negligible value in and of themselves true?

I'm leaning more and more to a non-canard [for a couple of reasons] but love the design and would like to see it kept alive in all its forms.

Seems to me that Jon has a strong position if the plans are purchased. Seems stronger still if the plans are modified to not be identical, is only done for self and non-profit and if not referred to as a Rutan design [re-named] but as a Rutan inspired design.

John

Jon Matcho said:

There is no ill will or ethics at play here. The US Copyright Office is in place as much to protect copyright holders as it is to maintain and encourage innovation and invention.

I was being factitious.

It seems so hypocritical that some would hold up a torch and cry foul over the uses that are being proposed. There is this whole history, past and present, of individuals leveraging the design for commercial purposes. And on top of that, there is very little evidence that RAF has ever tried to protect the original art.

So some people wan't to build an original airplane based on the Long-eze design for *personal* *education* and *research*. Copying those templates and building a plane while designating it as something other than a Rutan Long-eze design is perfectly legal from everything that I've read.

Copying those templates and SELLING them for a profit IS ILLEGAL.

The FAA (a goverment entity) licenses and regulates the operation of experimental aircraft for the purpose of *education* and *research*. There couldn't be a better qualifier for "useage" under the Fair Use clause.

Realisticly, RAF can't endorse this practice one way or the other. If they did, that would reopen the door to thier liability concerns. However, I think you can take a queue from their lack of action over the commercial long-eze variants to deduce that they have completley moved on.

I certainly respect other peoples opinions on this matter, but I don't agree with them given the context and scenarios we discussing.

Bart

Hmmm... you know, if a copy of these plans were downloadable in DXF format from a servin in someplace like Jordan or the like that really could not care less about debating the fine points of the US Copyright system, then things would be ever so moot...

Anything wrong with the Adobe PDF format?

Nothing wrong with the PDF format, it just isn't a real engineering format. Any computer and view it, but if you want to get the data into a CAD package of any kind to manipulate, edit or print full-size then the dxf files are the #1 most common format.

Just my 2 cents as an engineer. If you need any help with CAD drawing or conversion of files or the like I would be glad to help.

Paul

Quote

Any computer and view it, but if you want to get the data into a CAD package of any kind to manipulate, edit or print full-size then the dxf files are the #1 most common format.

For editing, yes, but for printing (in general), I disagree. Keep in mind that printing a large piece of paper does not require an engineer. Along those lines, you do not have to be an engineer to build a Long-EZ/experimental canard aircraft. You just need the printed plans.

Quote

If you need any help with CAD drawing or conversion of files or the like I would be glad to help.

That would be great! All I am saying is that for my purposes (and most other's), CAD files are NOT required. That's not to say that they wouldn't be appreciated by the community. They would. It's just that there's a certain amount of work required, for which, so far, nobody has been willing

Finally, think about what would happen IF CAD files were made available. Questions would arise as to their accuracy, origin, and whether they contained all the information in the originals, etc.

Still, your offer is appreciated and now forever penciled into the "registry".

Jon

At some point you /we are going to have to decide on the format for printing and what is to be printed. When I made some of those cad drawings initialy, what I was hoping to accomplish was just contrast for the most part. Where the templates were, and where they are now. As far as modification is concerned, I think we can all agree that a Long nosed Long ez looks better than the original nose. This would be supported by the so many requests on how to do it and the already retrofitted Longs. With that, lets just use the design for the new bulkheads for the long nose and call it the canard zone Ez or whatever?? this way there is no question as to its origination of design all other techniques will remain the same. lets just stick with the most common modifications

1) longer nose

2) wider fuse

3) slightly longer fuse for the big motor guys.

4) retracts.?

1,2,3, I've done to my airplane and am now working on #4 but, 4 can be an option left to someone else it's really not in the spirit of the plans set as I see it. So maybe on the next post put your foot down! decide on a format dxf or pdf, modifiable not modifiable, you of course will have both as it is very easy to turn a dxf into a pdf so maybe upon request you can hand out the dxf files if someone wants to play around with the drawings otherwise just have them in PDF and lets get on with drawing. Your thoughts?

Tony

tonyslongez said:

At some point you /we are going to have to decide on the format for printing and what is to be printed.

The format depends on the intended purpose. The format for printing should be PDF and/or TIFF, since that's what most all large format-capable print shops support. The format for modeling should probably be a "standard AutoCad file format" -- whatever that is (you tell me, BTW, I like Rhino!).

Quote

When I made some of those cad drawings initialy, what I was hoping to accomplish was just contrast for the most part. Where the templates were, and where they are now.

It is very interesting to be able to look at an original Long-EZ bulkhead next to (or below) your modified bulkhead. We can expect Long-EZ drawings to be available shortly, and so you may want to only focus on drawing your modifications. If someone wants to compare the two designs, they can do so -- you don't need to work extra to do that for them, and it even becomes a waste of paper, etc. Keep in mind that print shops charge $/square foot of paper printed. Of course you can go nuts and draw anything you like.

Quote

As far as modification is concerned, I think we can all agree that a Long nosed Long ez looks better than the original nose. This would be supported by the so many requests on how to do it and the already retrofitted Longs. With that, lets just use the design for the new bulkheads for the long nose...

Sounds good to me!

Quote

...and call it the canard zone Ez or whatever?? this way there is no question as to its origination of design all other techniques will remain the same.

How about the T-Z? Teasy? or TZ1? After all, it really is YOUR design here. They're your drawings, lines, curves, etc. You're doing all the work with these mods, and I AGREE -- let there be no question as to its origination. You should proudly take credit (and ownership/copyright). Unless, of course, you want to disconnect yourself from it for liability purposes -- then do NOT copyright it, and keep yourself removed from it. Either way works for me -- I don't have a problem publishing it here.

Quote

lets just stick with the most common modifications

1) longer nose

2) wider fuse

3) slightly longer fuse for the big motor guys.

4) retracts.?

1,2,3, I've done to my airplane and am now working on #4 but, 4 can be an option left to someone else it's really not in the spirit of the plans set as I see it.

You need to think in terms of someone already having Long-EZ plans, and looking to build a plane like yours. This will soon be easy, as you can say, "Get the Long-EZ plans, understand them, then take a look at the TZ drawings."

Quote

So maybe on the next post put your foot down!

Last time I did that some sh*t hit the fan.

Quote

decide on a format dxf or pdf, modifiable not modifiable, you of course will have both as it is very easy to turn a dxf into a pdf so maybe upon request you can hand out the dxf files if someone wants to play around with the drawings otherwise just have them in PDF and lets get on with drawing. Your thoughts?

For the other 'Long-EZ drawings' project, they will be available as TIFF and PDF, since that's all they are -- 2D drawings/art.

For your mods, you can make your "replacement drawings/parts" available as PDF so someone can run to Kinko's and print to build. You can also choose to make your MODEL files available (DWG, DWF, DXF???) for those you wish to share your models with.

Are we on the same page?

Quote

Are we on the same page?

Yes sir we are

Tony

So what did we decide? Can I get a copy of the LE plans or not? I won't tell if you don't!! I just need them for reference not to build the LE.

July 3rd, 2021   HELLO, I would like to purchase a set of drawings (any format) and templates for the long ez.... what is the current price?   thanks    mike l.