[wingspan33]

I am wondering about the opening topic which included voting on options that still need to be addressed given the above result.

Those options would include -

Do we now change our rating system a lot to avoid certain "problems", or only as much as needed to have it make sense as a US Hawks hang gliding rating system.

Can we hold a vote on those issues in this thread? Or would it be best to open a new topic on that?

[Bill Cummings]

I am wondering about the opening topic which included voting on options that still need to be addressed given the above result.

Those options would include -

Do we now change our rating system a lot to avoid certain "problems", or only as much as needed to have it make sense as a US Hawks hang gliding rating system.

Can we hold a vote on those issues in this thread? Or would it be best to open a new topic on that?

Scott you had mention that there are exclusions to the copyright when it came to educational material so I want
to thank you for jogging my memory. I looked in my Snipping Tool folder and found this. It probably isn't the
original from the Supreme Court but maybe the original can be found.
We could make a motion here unless Bob would like this past vote to stand alone. I'm good with either way IE. (Here or new thread.)

Copyright Law.JPG (39.64 KiB) Viewed 7597 times

[wingspan33]

I like the "and parody" part. We might be able to use it!

The only problem is it would best work if a (mainly?) paragliding organization took our serious hang gliding rating system and turned it into something funny. What's actually happening is the other way around. We're taking something rather funny and making it serious (again).

[Bob Kuczewski]

Let's consider what's in the quote (which is probably pretty close to right - if not exactly right).

It lists: Criticism, News Reporting, Teaching, and Parody. If we were to use USHPA's standards as they are, the only one that might be applicable seems to be "Teaching". But I don't think that fits either. We may be teaching hang gliding, but we'd be using those standards to issue ratings. Those ratings might not require any teaching since the person might already possess all the skills they'd need. Furthermore, those ratings have value (even if we give them away), and USHPA could claim that we were using their work product to our benefit and their detriment. That's what the copyright law is meant to prohibit.

In other words, I think USHPA's copyright would hold up in court, and I'm not willing to risk any of my savings to test it. If anyone else wants to test those waters, please feel free to challenge their copyright on another web site (there are many free options out there). If you can prevail in establishing that their standards are in the public domain, I'll be happy to have them published here.

So where does that leave us? I think we have 2 choices:

1. We could still issue ratings based on USHPA's standards, but we just can't make copies of those standards (that's a key difference between a patent and a copyright). Since USHPA has their standards buried behind their "pay wall" that makes it pretty tough for us.

2. We just write our own standards. That's what I was expecting we would have to do anyway, because I was anticipating that USHPA would tell us "no". I figured that by asking, we would at least be able to hold them accountable for it, but we've voted to not do that.

There is still a bit of a third option (mentioned above) that anyone (not the US Hawks) is welcome to challenge USHPA's copyright in court. I would vote to have the US Hawks cheer them on, but lacking deep pockets, I wouldn't feel comfortable having the US Hawks be a direct party in the case.

If there are other options, please put them on the table. Please note that any options that merely make cosmetic changes to USHPA's standards would still put us in legal jeopardy, and I wouldn't be able to support them. This is one of the cases where certain decisions of the Board might put me at personal risk, and I'd likely use my veto power to avoid them.

Maybe we should just buckle down and start writing our own standards. We've probably spent more time trying to avoid it than if we actually wrote our own. The only benefit to not writing our own would have been to maintain consistency throughout the sport, but we've chosen a different path, so let's see where that takes us.

As for this topic, I think we've answered the question about "Approaching USHPA for a Shared Rating System", so we should start another topic on what to do next. There have been no objections to moving this to the public section, so I'll do that now.

[Bill Cummings]

Quote = Bob K.

Those ratings might not require any teaching since the person might already possess all the skills they'd need. Furthermore, those ratings have value (even if we give them away), and USHPA could claim that we were using their work product to our benefit and their detriment. That's what the copyright law is meant to prohibit.

I think Bob is right but probably for different reasons. Why? I don't know. Maybe some one can help me out. Because How would the US HAWKS have a value benefit?
Is the USHPA a business or a non-profit? How would a rating from the US Hawks benefit anyone but an individual pilot?
Do the ratings have value to a business or a non-profit whose goal is to advance, "free flight?."
How did the scuba divers split into two businesses that honor each others ratings?
Were the ratings set up for all instructor businesses or for recreational pilots?
Should we pay a royalty to USHPA when giving away one of their printed booklets?
These are questions that aren't clear in my mind. Can anyone answer all these questions or would it take a lawyer?

[wingspan33]

Bill,

Besides teaching/educational use there is still copyright law that disallows systems and procedures from being copyrightable.

But as I read your (below) post, something occurred to me. If the U$hPa actually had a legal monopoly on controlling US hang gliding activities, then giving out ratings could be seen as "their territory". Something they "own". So, if the Hawks "gave away" something that the U$hPa effectively charge for, through membership dollars, then that could be seen as stealing their property. But the U$hPa may NOT act as a monopoly in that kind of way.

UShPa doesn't own the sole right to define a person as one skill type or other of hang glider pilot. They don't own the sole right to teach or educate people about hang gliding. And they don't own the system(s) and/or procedure(s) for teaching/educating people on how to fly hang gliders. The authority that the U$hPa claims is authority that it has created for itself. The FAA is the bigger dog here and it has no regulations that prevent the US Hawks from doing many of the things that the U$hPa does. We don't want to do a lot of the things that they do!

Connected with Bob's quote below, if the US Hawks aren't charging then how are we benefiting? And since the U$hPa does not indeed have a monopoly, then any real or imagined "detriment" is what business competition is all about. Thinking along the lines that we are taking something we don't own, is the same kind of thinking that gets you to the conclusion that U$hPa site insurance IS really necessary at every hang gliding flying site across the country. It plays into the U$hPa's hands.

About paying royalties to the U$hPa, . . . We won't give away any of their booklets. As a USHPA certified Instructor for about 5 years even I - or any other USHGA instructor I knew of - never handed a student any kind of USHGA Student Rating Booklet or Manual. All I ever did is present a student with tasks to complete and then a 1-3 page test to take and pass. And as an instructor all I was required to do is study and know the rating System and Procedures as described in the USHGA's SOPs. The book that Peter Cheney put together and got published certainly deals with learning to hang glide, but it is not the property of the U$hPa. And we're not looking to copy and publish Peter Cheney's book, now are we?

And, again, here is a little insight. Peter Cheney's book "Hang Gliding For Beginner Pilots" is copyrighted. But, if you have a copy, compare it's contents to the text of the U$hPa's Rating System/Procedures. Cheney's book involves actual, real, and unquestionable creativity as well as artistic expression. What we are talking about does not.

I want to add one very important thing, and that is -

To whatever degree Bob K could again become a target of the U$hPa then he has an obligation to protect his interests. I don't think there's any real liability here, but that's not my call, it's Bob's. Bob would be more protected (legally) if the US Hawks HGA incorporated. But we're not quite there yet. So that gives Bob the right to make certain decisions along those lines.

Those ratings might not require any teaching since the person might already possess all the skills they'd need. Furthermore, those ratings have value (even if we give them away), and USHPA could claim that we were using their work product to our benefit and their detriment. That's what the copyright law is meant to prohibit.

I think Bob is right but probably for different reasons. Why? I don't know. Maybe some one can help me out. Because How would the US HAWKS have a value benefit?
Is the USHPA a business or a non-profit? How would a rating from the US Hawks benefit anyone but an individual pilot?
Do the ratings have value to a business or a non-profit whose goal is to advance, "free flight?."
How did the scuba divers split into two businesses that honor each others ratings?
Were the ratings set up for all instructor businesses or for recreational pilots?
Should we pay a royalty to USHPA when giving away one of their printed booklets?
These are questions that aren't clear in my mind. Can anyone answer all these questions or would it take a lawyer?

[Bill Cummings]

Thanks for your thoughts.
Bob may have knowledge about the scuba question
since he has used that analogy in the past.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for your thoughts.
Bob may have knowledge about the scuba question
since he has used that analogy in the past.

I was SCUBA certified by both NAUI and PADI. As far as I know, neither was ever required at any site where I ever dove. They were, however, required to get your tanks filled at almost all dive shops. There was a time when some dive shops might have had a preference, but eventually both (and others) were almost universally accepted. I believe that's how it is today.

With regard to the topic, anyone who is absolutely certain that it's alright to publish USHPA's rating system is welcome to do so on any other site. There are many places where you can set up a free web site, and the rating system documents can be found with a little searching (I won't say where because I don't want to cause them any trouble ).

If anyone is willing to openly establish that USHPA's rating system documents are in the public domain, that would be great.

[Bob Kuczewski]

A google search will turn up many copies of USHPA's pilot proficiency system, and I've sent some examples to our Board members in a private email. We could simply refer to those sites, but I suspect making such a public reference would get them shut down by USHPA very quickly.

USHPA's pilot proficiency system is known as "SOP 12-02", and it's contained in a document that carries a copyright notice. That's how USHPA operates, and that's part of the problem. As I've said before, if anyone wants to mount a legal challenge to that copyright status, I'd be happy to cheer them on. But other than that, I think we should start writing our own rating system. Unfortunately, no matter what we write, and no matter how well-founded it is, USHPA will be able to claim it's not as good as theirs. That's the uphill road we face. We might as well get started.

I don't think writing a new rating system is something that needs to be discussed in private, so we can start a new topic in the "Building the US Hawks" forum and let everyone join in the discussion.

[Bill Cummings]

Assuming analysis paralysis has not taken root.