Skyraider3D Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I see it kicked up a whole discussion over here too! Read the whole thread, the issue seems to have been with the earch tags used rather than the images per se.Even so, the webstore won't allow me to restore these images with the "Royal Air Force" search tag removed, because...Unfortunately, due to The UK Secretary of State for Defence intellectual property claim we are unable to carry or produce designs which infringe upon their rights. Your products contained images depicting Royal Air Force planes. That even includes my Vulcan photo, which looks like this. How the hell is this in breach of anything at all? Good luck finding some roundels there... Down here in South Africa we don't pay an entrance fee to airshows for that precise reason it's the peoples defence force. The tax payer paid for the whole show.Same in the Netherlands. I was quite surprised to have to pay entrance fees (quite high too!) to RAF/RN air shows when I moved to Britain. It's part of the recruitment budget... makes sense, no?One big question that hasn't been addressed is: what's next? Fonts of serial codes? Camouflage schemes? Paint names? I can already imagine the specially MoD-licensed Dark Earth and Dark Green paints by Humbrol at triple the price of their old soon-to-be-banned colours, and what not... Edited March 29, 2012 by Skyraider3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Good luck finding some roundels there... Well, I know they're there! Great photo!! But more importantly, does this mean I have to buy a new crash hat for the bike? So what's next? Ban all those Minis from adorning themselves with the Union Jack because that too is Crown Copyright? Edited March 29, 2012 by Busdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyraider3D Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well, I know they're there! Great photo!!But more importantly, does this mean I have to buy a new crash hat for the bike? Thanks!I don't see a roundel on your helmet, just a pac-man. You're safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightningboy2000 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I see it kicked up a whole discussion over here too! Even so, the webstore won't allow me to restore these images with the "Royal Air Force" search tag removed, because... That even includes my Vulcan photo, which looks like this. How the hell is this in breach of anything at all? Good luck finding some roundels there... Same in the Netherlands. I was quite surprised to have to pay entrance fees (quite high too!) to RAF/RN air shows when I moved to Britain. It's part of the recruitment budget... makes sense, no? One big question that hasn't been addressed is: what's next? Fonts of serial codes? Camouflage schemes? Paint names? I can already imagine the specially MoD-licensed Dark Earth and Dark Green paints by Humbrol at triple the price of their old soon-to-be-banned colours, and what not... In what way do they mean intellectual rights to "these designs"? It's a photo of an aircraft "designed" & built by Avro who were contracted by the MOD paid by "the tax payer". Do the MoD have intellectual rights to an aircraft. I always thought it was the manufacturer who held licence for that, or whoever owns the name of that defunct company. I thought the issue was over use of a trade logo designed for by a design firm for the RAF/MoD for the official sale of goods. This is a rhetorical question but how can a photo of an aircraft which can be taken by any-one, be infringing on intellectual property. Even if the photographer who took the photo, who was contracted out to take the photo, he would have the rights to the image, not the MoD. I can take a photo of an aircraft and use it in marketing, packaging for my own business & register copyright for that photo, but I wouldn't have thought that the MoD can then say that I can't use that photo for marketing etc. Would The Aircraft Restoration Company have to get permission from the MoD to add authentic markings to a Spitfire restoration, as they or the eventual owner would then receive revenue from airshow bookings. Does that happen? As to original rights to the photographer of the aircraft photo, then sound like the MoD should know better - unless a member of the MoD took the photograph! If the MoD are using the roundel within a set design parameter, much in the same way that Ford stipulates with the use of their logo, for MoD marketing purposes, then yes, within that they do have intellectual rights. If any-one uses that same logo in the same way for the use of gaining an income, then they will be infringing on copyright licencing. That should be obvious, but like people are saying, if for instance that crash helmet with the roundel on, that is different because the roundel isn't exactly the same. A red white & blue roundel could be designed in thousands of different ways, & the designer of that can claim that version of the roundel as of his own design. It's still a roundel, but not the same as the roundel used in MoD marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mxyzptlk Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Do all Aircraft Magazines pay a license fee when they feature a photograph of a restored "British Air Force" plane, not owned by the MOD, or do they have to do this on a photo by photo basis as they may not know to0 far in advance what pohotgraphs they will be publishing? Incidentally Gran Turismo never officially featured Porsche. Recently that was more down to EA having an exclusive contract, though that has apparently expired and the Xbox 360 game Forza 4 will get a pack of Porsche cars later this year. The latest Gran Turismo game does feature damage and also includes manaufacturers that have not previously (again officially) been in the games. The EA thing brings up an interesting point. What if a model manufacturer made the MOD an offer they couldn't refuse in monetary terms and they got an exclusive contract. Would this be possible? Where would that leave the modelling populace? The EA contract upset a lot of gamers (a not exactly small precentage of the populace I suspect). If anythng I would say that Porsche were not that popular for their decision and of course EA probably didn't benefit as much as they hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAM Updater Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Quote from VTTS website - "Vulcan is a registered trademark of BAE Systems plc. Vulcan to the Sky and XH558 are trademarks of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust." I believe that the Vulcan planeform is also regsitered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lothian man Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 In what way do they mean intellectual rights to "these designs"? It's a photo of an aircraft "designed" & built by Avro who were contracted by the MOD paid by "the tax payer". Do the MoD have intellectual rights to an aircraft. I always thought it was the manufacturer who held licence for that, or whoever owns the name of that defunct company. I thought the issue was over use of a trade logo designed for by a design firm for the RAF/MoD for the official sale of goods. This is a rhetorical question but how can a photo of an aircraft which can be taken by any-one, be infringing on intellectual property. Even if the photographer who took the photo, who was contracted out to take the photo, he would have the rights to the image, not the MoD. I can take a photo of an aircraft and use it in marketing, packaging for my own business & register copyright for that photo, but I wouldn't have thought that the MoD can then say that I can't use that photo for marketing etc. The trouble here (as I found some years ago in the day job) is that if you take a photo of a "work of art" (in the broad sense, i.e. something in which you can legitimately have copyright) then okay, you have copyright in your own photo. BUT your copyright is trumped, so to speak, by the original copyright of the work of art. So one can't publish a photo of a painting or sculpture without the artist's permission (assuming the artist still holds the ©), just because one took the photo. Copyright is not, of course, the same thing as design/patent rights, or the same thing as trade mark rights. One must be careful not to mix these three up, but I suspect there's been a fair bit of muddling going on at times, not to mention 'trying it on', by those supposedly controlling the Government rights and those panicked by lawyers' letters, like the ISPs. Incidentally as I understand matters, it's not the British or rather UK people but the Crown who hold under the doctrine of Crown Sovereignty, under which the British or at least English and Welsh people are merely 'subjects', not citizens, under what passes for constitutional law. (Scots constitutional law is completely different in this respect, but the MoD is in London ...!). So it's no good arguing that we 'own' the rights. More generally, I can't see the London regime being at all keen to treat the kit and aviation art industry as a special exception from its general programme of closing down or privatising as much of the public service as possible (not a political opinion, just a factual statement). What they surely see is people making money out of selling 1/72 replicas of RAF roundels and things labelled 'Royal Air Force' - how can it be otherwise? And of course they immediately want a cut of those profits, or all of them, either for the MoD - not that it would go far to pay for the Nimrod 4s or F-35Bs (Cs? Bs?) - or for its associates, commercial or otherwise, to which they sell off the monopoly. Just think London Olympics. I'm not at all optimistic, but hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocksAway Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Confused? I know I am (but it doesn't take much). Ignoring the original article, and continuing with the theme, if you feel like ignoring the model making for a while longer, this site is worth a quick browse ... Intellectual Property Office. Under "latest news", you will see this headline that sums it all up ... "Copyright licensing is not yet fully fit for purpose for the digital age - the UK could do better still" - the law allows me to quote that as I referenced the source! And Lothian Man was right to point out the significant opportunities for confusion between the various laws. Based on a very quick skim, it looks to me as if the MoD should have gone for trademarks of logos and names and leave the copyright to photos, works of art and other such items. Back to the modelling ... a Harrier GR5 awaits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSTON Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Copied and pasted from another forum, sheer madness!http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=115793 Madness Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XF442 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 This is bizarre. In Germany the law requries to cover every swastika on a model kit when showing it to the public. It never entered my mind that one day I even might be forced to do the same thing with the roundels on my RAF-models ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripehound Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 A quote from the JervisMedia PR puff that for me sums up why modern life is so utterly, utterly, rubbish - '...Director of Defence Publicity (who promote the image and core values of the RAF through advertising and corporate communications)' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 A quote from the JervisMedia PR puff that for me sums up why modern life is so utterly, utterly, rubbish -'...Director of Defence Publicity (who promote the image and core values of the RAF through advertising and corporate communications)' Being completely fair, this does include recruitment, and press notices. I'm slightly happier if press contact is done properly, rather than journalists ringing up a squadron and worming something out of a hapless crew member so that it can be deliberately misquoted later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 ... assorted Disney characters... Presumably the MoD got permission to reproduce said trademarked characters and every time the MoD either published of sold photos or journals featuring said equipment, the copyright holders were reimbursed? I believe 27 Squadron obtained permission from Mr. Disney to use Dumbo on the tails of their Vulcans instead of the usual Heffalump. But if MoD think I'm going to ask their permission to do a painting of one of said Vulcans they can go whistle....!! Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyraider3D Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I believe 27 Squadron obtained permission from Mr. Disney to use Dumbo on the tails of their Vulcans instead of the usual Heffalump. But if MoD think I'm going to ask their permission to do a painting of one of said Vulcans they can go whistle....!! Another interesting thing... if a painter paints a historic aircraft which had a Disney character as nose art, would he need to ask permission from Disney (as well as the MoD)?Reminds me of that UKIP incident with the Polish Spitfire. Not only did they violate the copyright of the 3D artist that made the Spitfire (a friend of mine, by the way), who clearly states his 3D model is not to be used without permission, but also that of the MoD and Disney. Anyway, forget I brought this up, before we derail into more politics here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Reminds me of that UKIP incident with the Polish Spitfire. Can I just point out that it was the BNP, not UKIP, who used the Polish Spitfire image? They are not the same thing. End of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 So BAE own the Vulcan title. I think the Roman god of Fire might be Piddling on his own forge after this disclosure. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Any firm conclusions yet anyone? Or are we likely to see an 'innovative new range of water-slide clothing embellishments' in the shape of RAF Roundels in the near future? Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Another interesting thing... if a painter paints a historic aircraft which had a Disney character as nose art, would he need to ask permission from Disney (as well as the MoD)? I did think of that - but decided it'll be easier to ignore it....!! K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike H Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) I was going to combine my computing & printing skills to print some R.A.F. 'Red Arrows' T-shirts but have decided, after reading about all this copyright cobblers, to make some 'Black Arrows' T-shirts instead. That way I'll have something suitable to wear when they throw me in jail! Mike. Edited March 30, 2012 by Mike H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I was digging through my notes this evening after something else jogged my memory - namely a company that has tried to retrospectively trademark "Keep Calm and Carry On". The latter is in a grey area because the original "Keep Calm" poster probably qualifies as Crown Copyright artwork which, in general, expires after 50 years - in fact on of the complainants in the dispute has said that the IWM confirmed copyright had expired, hence it is now public domain. The owners of Keep Calm and Carry On Ltd think different and registered the slogan via the Uk but not, crucially, in the UK. It rumbles on. The question then is two fold; Do markings on RAF aircraft constitute artwork? If the EU can overrule UK copyright with regard to CC&CO, then can they equally override the MoD and Jervis that military insignia cannot be trademarked? One thing is for sure - the RAF roundel is older than 50 yearsQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Additionally one of the interesting this that Trade Mark Direct have unearthed regarding the CC&CO dispute is this: The ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ phrase was in widespread use by many companies when the Trade Mark registration was granted and it does not in our view meet the requirements of trade mark law. That Mark Coop failed to register it several years earlier as a UK trademark (2007) shows the UK Intellectual Property Office almost certainly shared our opinion. One could argue that through the production of kits, decal sheets, books, artworks, toys etc... over the last 50+ plus years, that the RAF roundel and associated markings were in widespread use within the model, publishing and toy industry long before Geoff Hoon decided it would be a whiz bang idea to get it trademarked. Indeed under the trademark act itself: 3. - (1) The following shall not be registered - <snip> (d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clave Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 *sigh* And the big ol clusterf*uck goes on... Just to add my last couple of years experiences into the mix. T shirts. Last year: The RAAF took down some of my shirts because I was using the name R.A.A.F. and their roundel. Lockheed did the same on the shirts with drawings of F-16s, F-117s, F-22s and T-33s - so my artwork was in breach of their copyright... Yesterday: Another T Shirt site took down 18 designs - all RAF aircraft. The annoying thing, the really annoying thing is that these t-shirt places (I use three different one) have no appeal, feedback, or rights of any kind it seems - they just inform you that you *may* be in breach of someone's copyright, and then they remove your items. It's like they are run by the most weak-willed people in the world.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonD Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 So BAE own the Vulcan title. I think the Roman god of Fire might be Piddling on his own forge after this disclosure. Not to mention Mr. Spock. Of course Paramount (makers of Star Trek) are far from innocent in this as they have allegedly trademarked the name 'USS Enterprise' - I wonder what the US Navy thinks about that. And our very own BBC quietly took out the copyright on the shape of the TARDIS - the Metropolitan Police only noticed this a couple of years later when it was too late to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) The annoying thing, the really annoying thing is that these t-shirt places (I use three different one) have no appeal, feedback, or rights of any kind it seems - they just inform you that you *may* be in breach of someone's copyright, and then they remove your items. It's like they are run by the most weak-willed people in the world.... Big business, teams of lawyers. Look at the opposition to SOPA and the recent extradition case of the British student living in the UK who broke no British laws, but now faces shipping out to the USA to stand trial of breaching US copyright! Small "p" point but bear with me, when art starts to be censored in such a way, it's an attack on freedom of expression and one of our most basic rights is being eroded - and that threat is isnt coming from guys in deserts but from behind the doors of big corporations. Edited April 1, 2012 by Jonathan Mock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Small "p" point but bear with me, when art starts to be censored in such a way, it's an attack on freedom of expression and one of our most basic rights is being eroded - and that threat is isnt coming from guys in deserts but from behind the doors of big corporations. .......and that leads on inevitably to torch light parades, the burning of books and the already present Police State. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". George Santayana 1863 - 1952 DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now