Field Armorer Gew-98 PE Build

[Raupleminze]

Please delete....

Please delete.....

 

[nirvana]

Somebody turned up an RC gun a few years back that had plugged holes on the side that looked like they were from a PU. Anyone have a link?

 

[Absolut]

Great picture of a 98b rifle which I've never seen before. Must have been extremely early, because they used a 98b rifle. Where do you have that picture from?

I would vote bent bolt handle, since they would not use a mismatching bolt. It anyway required a gunsmith to do this conversion. Does the PE base (the round one) even fit to the 98 receiver?

 

[Dave Roberts]

Somebody turned up an RC gun a few years back that had plugged holes on the side that looked like they were from a PU. Anyone have a link?

I maybe new own this Rifle in which You speak of . A member at GunBoard bought it his user name was Snowman . He restored the Rifle to PEM Sniper but unfortunately it was not what it was originally .

Originally it had a PU Scope & Mount attached . It was not as he thought . This was ultimately determined from measuring original Base Mounting holes . The Rifle was an S/42 1936 R/C

 

[nirvana]

Wow. I don't know what to say to that. An original German PU conversion, "restored" to a different type of gun. Well. I guess he owned it, and could do whatever he wanted.

 

[Dave Roberts]

Wow. I don't know what to say to that. An original German PU conversion, "restored" to a different type of gun. Well. I guess he owned it, and could do whatever he wanted.

I believe he and gunsmith just made a bad mistake or made it work regardless . He never took time enough to determine if it was a PEM or PU originally . I was able to determine this from help of the GB Russian collectors . The original PEM Base I was going to use did not line up center to center with original holes in receiver and one of these holes still had more than half of the screw used to plug the original holes still in it . Thankfully , I was able to have this Screw Up corrected .

 

[Amberg]

Great picture of a 98b rifle which I've never seen before. Must have been extremely early, because they used a 98b rifle. Where do you have that picture from?

Hello,

it's a G98M, not a K98b!

This photo is from my personal collection and I'm somewhat surprised to see it here.

Thanks

 

[Amberg]

Absolut,
I was sent the picture by my smith and he states that he saw it used for an online auction so he saved it.

Hello,
you should think about changing your smith, because he is a liar!
I expect the Mods to delete that photo immediately from that thread.
Thanks

 

[Absolut]

I might out myself as stupid, but Wolfgang how do I tell if this is a K98b or a G98M? By the fact that this rifle has finger grooves in the stock? Congratulations to owning this picture, a really cool thing to see!

One hint: go to google, click "pictures", now drag&drop the file from your computer to the search field. It will look for similar pictures. You'll see that tthis picture already on the net, so the way it made it's way already prior to this post. But I'm not able to tell how and where. Look yourself at http://aukro.cz/montaz-pem-k98-mosin-puskohled-sniper-i5555548779.html

 

[Amberg]

sling attachment!

 

[Amberg]

Sorry, but: Yes, I'm upset.
Your smith copied a photo from Robert's book. I can tell from the lower left corner of "your" photo. Robert had my permission to publish this photo. Does this give you or your smith the permission to copy, forward and publish my photo where ever you want?
I've spent a lot of money for this photo. Please leave it up to me to decide where I want to see this photo.
Thanks

 

[Amberg]

Hello,
but since it is to late to complain anyway, I'll post a better scan asap.
Thanks

 

[Raupleminze]

Amberg,

You becoming upset was never a desired outcome from my posting of this picture. I was just asking what people's thoughts were as far as my build goes. I wasn't selling the picture or looking to profit in any way. I figured I was among collectors and didn't mean for anyone to get upset. I will pull the thread shortly.

-Brian

 

[Amberg]

Brian,
no need to pull that thread.
I decided to post a better scan of the photo. Everything is fine.

I'm far from being a friend of "sniper builds", but it is your decision to do whatever you want to do with your rifle.

Thanks
Wolfgang

 

[GunKraut]

I've spent a lot of money for this photo. Please leave it up to me to decide where I want to see this photo.

Just because you spent a lot of money on this photograph doesn't automatically mean you own the copyrights. Did you buy it from the original photographer or from someone legally representing his estate? Or from someone who transferred copyrights in your name? If not, you're just an owner of a picture found in the public domain. As another poster stated, your particular photograph or one just like it has been offered for sale on eBay, where the other poster got it from. Do you know with 100% certainty that the previous owner of your photograph didn't make reproductions from your photograph and didn't sell it on the open market? Is your photograph even a confirmed original? This is not a Polaroid, so someone may still have the original negative and may still reproduce this picture on old photographic paper to sell it for a lot of money to guys like you and the other poster. Not trying to be an a-hole, but I can see where you guys may have been taken.

 

[mike radford]

Well, it is very sad that collectors fear to share with each other due to copyright and fakery concerns. I understand the concerns but it is the world in which we live. I have seen that photo several years ago, posted somewhere. Once on the net, any protection is just gonna be a legal battle and too expensive to pursue in most cases. At one time the Fair Use Doctrine would shoot an educational use, or many not for profit uses in the foot. Apparently some teeth have been added to the doctrine in recent cases but I am not up to date on them. Hambone is almost certainly well informed on this. This is not to even include the fact international law is involved.

My first impulse was to suggest that Brian be notified directly and he would likely pull the photo. I see I was right. Good gesture there Brian. I also see the Amberg has elected to share his photo. Another fine gesture IMO.

We are collectors here. If we do not share information we will be the target of fakery. Yes, the fakers will be helped but information is where our strength lies.

My view on reproductions and replicas is unchanged. How the heck can anyone afford or even find a rifle like the one posted by the OP/Brain? You make one, or restore one like a PEM, or do without an example. If they are for personal use and never misrepresented by the guy that puts them together, the risk to the collecting community is small, especially when the example will be widely posted on the net. Adding a reproduction mark is a wonderful idea, and many do exactly that. On some rifles it is so obvious the gun is a replica, reproduction or restoration that making should not be needed. On others, do it to be on the safe side IMO.

 

[Amberg]

Hello,

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: The pictures posted are the sole property of the K98k Forum Member who posted them. Any use of these photographs other than reference here without the express permission of the K98k Forum Member will be treated as a violation of U.S. Copyright law."

Please let me know the difference to a photo from my collection posted in this forum or published in a book?
Only because it is published in a book it is no violation of U.S. law?

I'm not eager for legal matters. But it is disrespectful at least.

thanks

PS: I provided photos from my collection to Bob Ball (MMROTW), Robert Spielauer, Darin Weaver (K43 and last Ditch), Bruce and Mike and some others.
Books like theirs need new/so far unpublished photos.

 

[Amberg]

Just because you spent a lot of money on this photograph doesn't automatically mean you own the copyrights. Did you buy it from the original photographer or from someone legally representing his estate? Or from someone who transferred copyrights in your name? If not, you're just an owner of a picture found in the public domain. As another poster stated, your particular photograph or one just like it has been offered for sale on eBay, where the other poster got it from. Do you know with 100% certainty that the previous owner of your photograph didn't make reproductions from your photograph and didn't sell it on the open market? Is your photograph even a confirmed original? This is not a Polaroid, so someone may still have the original negative and may still reproduce this picture on old photographic paper to sell it for a lot of money to guys like you and the other poster. Not trying to be an a-hole, but I can see where you guys may have been taken.

Well,
you might be right, I forgot to ask Brian if he (or his smith) owns a copy of this photo (real or repro). But it dare to doubt this. Otherwise Brian had told us.
On the other hand it is no problem for me at all. No more photos from my collection for any authors or forums.
Next time I find a photo from my collection in a forum, I'll have the OP nailed for Copyright violation.
That's what you want?
Thanks

 

[GunKraut]

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: The pictures posted are the sole property of the K98k Forum Member who posted them. Any use of these photographs other than reference here without the express permission of the K98k Forum Member will be treated as a violation of U.S. Copyright law."

I'm sorry if this come across kind of harsh, but you don't understand copyright.

You only have copyright to something you created or to something where you bought the copyright from the original creator.
If you take a picture of your rifle -or even my rifle- you own the copyrights to that particular picture. If you pay me a lot of money for a photo I took of your rifle, the copyright still belongs to me. All you own is a piece of photographic paper with an image on it, that's all. I, to the contrary, can sell the photo of your rifle to anybody and can post it anywhere I please.

Unless you bought the copyright to the picture you're upset about from the old man who took the picture back in the day, you don't possess the copyrights. Just because you post someone else work here in this forum does not make it your copyrighted photo. You are NOT the creator of the photo. If you're posting on ww2weaponsforum a photo you personally took of your scoped rifle and I copy it and post it here on k98kforum, would you still insist the quoted sentence above is applicable?

https://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720
http://info.legalzoom.com/owns-copyright-wedding-pictures-20832.html
http://www.photoattorney.com/qa-who-owns-the-copyright/

Actually, I see a problem with you providing a photographic image that you didn't create and you don't own the copyrights to, for the purpose of being published in a book that the publisher makes money off without paying the creator/copyright owner of the photographic image or his estate any royalties for using the image.

It is not my intention to make you mad at me. I didn't make those laws, I'm just trying to explain them in layman's terms.

 

[mike radford]

Well, anyone can pursue any legal avenue they like. The lawyers love it. I have discovered some of my photos posted by others, and I took them and own them. One of St. Basil's at night is post card quality, among others. It is now someone's avitar. What have I done-- nothing. Too expensive and I was stupid enough to post it. Anyone who wants to have exclusive rights, it will be complex and protecting it these days, extremely burdensome.

With gun collector pics, I prefer to share freely. Others have a right to do otherwise. Just prepare to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect something worth a few hundred or so. JMO.