User:Cstevencampbell

I usually write on topics relating to diecast miniature cars and their brands. I have 40 years of collecting experience. My interests are diverse, but my general focus is on American promotional models, 1950s and 1960s Matchboxes and European 1:43 scale diecast. Occasionally, I also write about the automobile industry. I teach a course on the Automobile at the university level - and do research on the global automobile industry.

I have created or made large additions to about 70 different articles. Ninety percent of my editing to Wikipedia is for content in editing and writing articles. I consider myself a creator and not a wiki-policeman.

My day job is university professor. I am trained in the history and philosophy of geography, cultural geography, the geography of religion (particularly American new religious movements and Latter Day Saints), and general and thematic cartography. I also teach World Geography, Human Geography, the Geography of Europe, the Geography of South America, the Geography of the United States, and taught for many years a Research Capstone course in geography. ...But I don't teach them all at the same time ! Having said that, well, Wikipedia is a hobby, I don't usually bring work into it.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I've just run into a couple of the articles you've written on diecast toy manufacturers and see that you've written quite a few. They are a joy to read and a great part of the encyclopedia. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 20:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Enjoy a cup of coffee in a well deserved pause; I've been browsing your contributions and believe that they add value to Wikipedia readers. Thanks for your efforts! Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My Entries

The following are entries which I've created, contributed a majority of information to, added pictures to, or added crucial facts. I continually monitor them and consider them 'adopted'.

General Diecast Information

1:18 scale diecast, 1:43 scale, Die-cast toy, List of model car brands, Model car

Companies of the United States

Aluminum Model Toys, Auburn Rubber Company, Aurora Plastics Corporation, Automodello, Barclay Manufacturing Company, Franklin Mint Precision Models, Hubley Manufacturing Company, Jo-Han, Louis Marx and Company, Model Products Corporation, Monogram models, Product Miniature Company, Remco, Revell, Tootsietoy, Winross Models

Companies of Latin America

Muky (Argentina),

Companies of the British Isles

Britains (toy brand) (England), Brooklin Models (England), Budgie Toys (Morestone)(England), Dinky Toys (England), Husky Toys (Wales), Lledo (England), Lone Star Toys (England), Spot-On Models (Northern Ireland), Western Models (England)

Companies of Germany

Conrad Models, Cursor Models, Gama Toys, Gescha Toys, Minichamps, NZG Models, Revell, Schabak Modell, Schuco Modell, Siku Toys, Wiking Modellbau, Ziss Modell

Companies of Scandinavia

Laerdal (Norway), Galanite (Sweden), Stahlberg Models (Finland and Estonia), Tekno (Denmark)

Companies of Benelux

Efsi Toys (the Netherlands), Sablon (Belgium)

Companies of France and Switzerland

Eligor Models (Switzerland and France), Jouef (France), Majorette (France), Minialuxe (France), Norev (France), RAMI by J.M.K. (France), Safir (models) (France), Solido (France)

Companies of Italy

Bburago, Brumm, Dugu Miniautotoys, Martoys, Mebetoys, Mercury (toy manufacturer), Polistil, Progetto K, Rio Models,

Companies of Spain

Auto Pilen,

Companies of Portugal

Metosul (needs work), Trofeu, Vitesse Models,

Models of Eastern Europe

Kaden models (Czechoslovakia / Czech Republic),

Companies of Asia

AUTOart (Hong Kong), Funmate (Japan), Gamda Koor Sabra (Israel), Maisto (Hong Kong / Thailand), Playart (Hong Kong), Rosso Corporation (Japan), Tomica (Japan),

Companies of Australia & New Zealand

Fun Ho! Toys (New Zealand), Trax Models (Australian cars made in China). _____________________________________________________________________________________________

The following are entries which I refer to often and have contributed significantly to, but not a majority of info.: Corgi Toys, Corgi International Limited, Model commercial vehicle,

The following are important sites to me - which I use for reference, but that I have not as yet contributed much to: Marklin, Tri-ang, UT Models, Yonezawa, and see Diapet

The following are pages that need creation: Brookfield Collector's Guild, Buby, Dubray, Igra Models, Kellerman CKO, Lion Car, Miniature Supercar Technica, Mira Toys, Universal Hobbies, and Eagle's Race.

References

I generally use the APA style of citations and references, though without in-line number citations, which Wikipedia supports. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources.

I really dislike in-line numbered citations, though they may be appropriate for longer articles with many many citations. They are difficult to set up and a nightmare to alter. When editing it is difficult to read the article and separated text from citation.

In line citations

I just wanted to note here that, as an academic researcher in my day job, I generally don't like in-line numbered citations. Most professional journals these days use parenthetical referencing, which Wikipedia supports (See: Wikipedia:Citing sources). It is easier for the editor to have the citations right near where the information is quoted and their references down at the end of the article. In Wikipedia, in-line citations are difficult to set up and a nightmare to alter. Additionally, when I am editing a page, I like to see the references all together at the end of the article, not the maddening 'reflist' with references scattered everywhere. I think such citations are generally passed over (even though they appear when rolled over with the mouse (hey, what are those little numbers, there?). But I do admit that parenthetical references imply the reader knows that you 'follow up' down at the bottom. I guess no system is perfect, but parenthetical references are sure easier to set up by the editor. Nevertheless, I submit in some cases like when articles are very very long with, say, more than twenty or thirty references.

See below for reflist template:

Inconsistancies in Model Photo Uploads

I don't know the law that well. I know that Wikipedia Commons has oodles of toy and model car pictures and there, in the past, action to remove pictures of models is only taken when a blatant show of a logo or trademark is evident. So why is local Wikipedia so biased against model car pics? I understand action figures that are copyrighted, but toy cars seem in a different realm. If you can put a picture of a real Chevy Vega (because it is say yours and not the company's) on without problems, then why can't you put a picture of a model Chevy Vega (where Chevy owns the rights to the design - but not the image)? If I were producing a model then that would entail requesting copyright permissions from GM. But, no, I'm just showing a picture of the model. And the Hautier Taxi is a car that hasn't been made in over 110 years.

Now the model company is called RAMI by J.M.K., the name of the article where this picture is used. The article discusses the company and how it produced miniature vehicles, like scores of other Wikipedia articles that discuss toy and model companies with scores of Wikipedia Commons photos of the models. And they have not been deleted. I guess it seems nobody knows the official rules to pictures of model cars themselves, so each picture is handled on a case by case basis - some are accepted and left alone and others of the same basic qualities and presentation are immediately deleted. There is not consistency and, for me, that makes trying to explain and show how model companies worked - a frustrating process.

RAMI by J.M.K. was a small company that made models that existed in a museum in eastern France. When the entity ceased production in 1969, that was, apparently, IT. I don't know who owns the rights to the name or the logo, but they are not shown here, and there are plenty of pictures of the extremely popular Dinky Toys and Corgi Toys and Matchbox and Hot Wheels on Wikipedia that no one deletes.

If there is copyright infringement by just showing the model itself - then model companies are not paying much attention or care overall - it's free advertising for them, I suppose, but I doubt there is any legal issue. Also, then there is the issue of fair use. Usually pictures of the models are discussed in the article and photo caption in some detail. They are crucial to understanding how the models were made compared to other companies and the approach of the company discussed. A few pictures in one article must be fair use - IF there is infringement in the first place.

Finding Categories

Search: Special:Categories

My Photos

Following is a list of all the pictures I've uploaded to the Commons: My Pictures

Guidelines to non-free content. Wikipedia:Non-free content

Aids in Publishing

Fair use Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline

Winross

My article on Winross was deleted. This makes me think many of the articles on miniatures mentioned in my talk page are probably in danger of being deleted as well, so I think Wikipedia is not the best place for my contributions.

Leaving Wikipedia

I Have decided that Wikipedia is not the place for the discussion of toy brands and their packaging since the packaging is so important to understanding how the companies presented themselves and competed with one another. Pictures of the models without packaging just doesn't portray enough information about the companies marketing audiences and goals. Also, it seems the deletion of pictures in doubt was done so capriciously - when no one really knew if they were in copyright violation or not, including myself. So, in my opinion, the proper place for this venue and its discussion is in publishing books or articles in professionally edited outlets where copyrights can be appropriately pursued. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons any longer, as it is counterproductive to what needs to be shown in complete encyclopedia entries that could give exceptionally good ideas as to what the companies and their products were really like. That simply cannot be done here in a professional presentation.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm Back

Well, six months have gone by without much change in my entries, so that gives me confidence that they are pretty good. I've started editing and adding entries once again. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Fair Use

The following are the four basic criteria for fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (that the work is critically educational or Transformative vs. Derivative).

2. The nature of the copyrighted work (use already available, social use or public interest trumps copyright)

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (a small amount of the greater work balanced with critical usage in free speech.)

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (that such use will not affect market value, and, in fact, may enhance it). According to the four principles of fair use I think that the image should be kept.

More on fair use

The following are the four basic criteria for fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (the item is critically discussed as an example of a genre and as such has a transformative educational use, and is not merely a derivative copy of a product. That is, the item is discussed as a subject worthy of general knowledge which the public has a right to).

2. The public nature of the copyrighted work (the social and public interest of this work is an example of the genre portraying its value to the general public or a portion of the public interested in the genre. That is, the public has the right to visualize the work as a part of the greater cultural good).

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (this is just one representative example, or a portion of an example, of many known products of the company in question. That is, discussion of one toy is argued fair use because it does not impact the whole toy line or company).

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work (this educational use of the model aims at general knowledge and will not cause any loss of market value, or profit. That is, in fact the recognition here of product enhances visibility of the company and the company name, and enhances value or profit).

See Fair use

My Rationale for Models not Copyright Applicable

Model and miniature cars should not fall under copyright protection. Here are my reasons:

1. They are utilitarian. Toy cars produced in miniature, as extensions of the real cars they copy, are essentially utilitarian. Though they do not function like real machines, they normally exist as playthings, usually for children, which is a utilitarian function, just perhaps not an adult one. They also usually serve a promotional function as children playing with, for example, Chevrolets, are then encouraged to grow up and buy Chevrolets, a promotion of the automobile industry. An inherent truth in the business of toy cars, as seen in the fact that in many cases the real manufacturers would make in-house toy models for play to be distributed or sold to children (Hudson, Citroen, Alfa Romeo). This is a traditional purpose for toys which has existed at least since about 1930.

2. Replication of the real thing. Most toy and model makers in replicating real cars are not seeking the uniqueness of artistic representation. In fact, quite the opposite is true. When Matchbox makes a Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan, its goal is the same as when Corgi Toys makes a C-Class sedan – to make, within the craftsman’s skills, the most accurate representation possible. The goal is normally the most accurate portrayal possible of the real car in miniature, not a unique artistic expression. In other words, the fact that one maker chooses to paint on rear lights while another manufacturer chooses tinted plastic lenses is not an effort to produce an artistic rendering - it is an attempt to replicate the real car as closely as possible – so adults and children will buy the ‘car of their dreams’, etc. Local choices in manufacturing serve only to transmit the idea of utilitarian function to the smaller replicated object. The goal is to recreate the real car, not artistically diverge from it. Over time, as manufacturing processes have become more precise, model manufacturers replicate the real car with greater and greater accuracy, thus emphasizing the real, usable, actual purpose of the object. The concept, of course, does not apply to Hot Rods, Customs or other fantastical creations (for instance by Mattel Hot Wheels) which do not replicate any real vehicle. These would be covered by copyright law. Attempts to recreate the real vehicle would not.

3. Licensing backs the idea of utilitarian function. Until the late 1980s, toy producers could recreate any vehicle they liked without paying royalties. After this, GM, Chrysler, Ford and other manufacturers required royalties of the toy manufacturers. This process resulted in two things. Fewer manufacturers who could afford the licensing and more precision replication in the toy or model as firms had closer contacts with blueprints and plans. This enhances the theme of utilitarian function in models. Auto companies want to maximize profits and protect their creations. Model manufacturers strive to make the most accurate representations of models possible – as much as possible, to recreate utilitarian and promotional function of the vehicles in miniature, thus the idea that different toy makers strive for uniqueness or artistic representation in their product is, at best, an imprecise argument.

4. Commercial exploitation generally does not apply. After the above, one might say, “Well there is always the possibility that images of these toys and models may be sold or used without due remuneration to the owners” - and this is a possibility, I suppose. Many, many books, from well-known publishers, though, discuss models of many kinds, from many companies and many different countries without direct permission from manufacturers. Most photos in a Wikipedia environment are examples, and, in any event, show only portions of vehicle or a car from one angle. To steal a design to develop a real car, one needs more sophisticated plans or blueprints than can be obtained from a picture or two.