Dave Fleming Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Read the whole thread, the issue seems to have been with the earch tags used rather than the images per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Does this mean that "Britmodeller" will have to rethink their "Heading design" and that I will have to remove my Avatar. Robin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Does this mean that "Britmodeller" will have to rethink their "Heading design" and that I will have to remove my Avatar. Robin. Just change the colour slightly? If it's not the same, then what could they do? (For the Britmodeller logo) Edited March 29, 2012 by Radleigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-32 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So..................say NAM paint their Lightning in a different scheme to the one it wore when they took delivery, would someone be knocking on their door asking them to remove the markings or pay a fee??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Read the whole thread, the issue seems to have been with the search tags used rather than the images per se. What Dave said... I think this runs the danger of turning into a lynch mob without *actually* knowing what current *real* MOD policy is... Any insight into actual policy - and whether MOD have ever successfully gone after anyone through the courts - from someone that knows for sure - would be appreciated! Just a thought before we continue with the 'skies falling in' type posts and conjecture. Iain Edited March 29, 2012 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Could that be something to do with the College of Heraldry (or whatever it be called)? I seem to recall reading somewhere that official squadron badges have to be approved by, & then registered with, them & then reproduction fees become due...??Keef No, it's not. The College of Arms checks that a design hasn't been used and that it doesn't break arcane rules as to colour placing and general acceptability, then it registers it. In the case of squadron crests there's a prior stage of royal approval as well, but this doesn't substitute for any of what the College does. Copyright is the property of the holder of the design, just as it is with any other registered mark. If this is the problem it's being blown up to be (I can't read the original thread at the moment, but Dave Fleming's comment is interesting) then one partial solution is to use the blazon for a crest. While the result is a copyrightable design, the blazon - a verbal description - isn't, any more than the description of Shell's logo as "a yellow scallop lined with red" is. So we could conceivably end up with instructions spelling out heraldic blazons and all of us investing in very tiny brushes to paint our own! Edited March 29, 2012 by pigsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan the rabbit Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Careful chaps... any more high blood pressure rantings and Mike will have to rename the site DailyMailModeller... But yes... pigging stupid law to introduce and enforce, and what wastage of money on legal fees, that could otherwise be ploughed back into service running costs, training or equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipper Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 As he tagged the images as Royal Air Force then this was the breach so the customer service say. If you use any RAF/Squadron crest(s)/brand for gain/sale without the written permission from the MoD or pay for the copyright use then you can be in trouble. Same for use on anything decals, art work, imagery as I understand it but there is so much stuff out there - unless you are commissioned to produce sed products by the MoD, I think that might work different then. Then again, could be totally wrong, thats just the way I understood it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Shakespeare was right about what to do with Lawyers. Darius As a lawyer I must indeed take issue with most of whats written about the right to prevent others using the roundel. I very much doubt that any action could be taken and in my view any litigation by HMG would be bound to fail. If I was advising a client who got such a letter I'd be very tempted to write the copyright agent and tell them I'd be more than happy to see them at the first hearing in Court. I need a laugh every now and then. When I first saw this last night I didn't read on as I honestly thought it was just a joke/wind up ! As for Shakespeare he was right about lawyers sadly the quote is invariably misunderstood and the context is not known - actually it is intended to be complimentary as within context it is about a power grab by Dick the Butcher who wants to do away with lawyers and judges because they will defend the rights of others and their liberty thereby getting in the tyrants way as a quick Google will confirm see http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20051129.aspx Mind you I like Dick the Butchers manifesto of plentiful beer even if he does seem to want absolute power - might get my vote ! If he extends that to requiring a free models for all and compulsory moulding of all RAF types in all scales then its a deal JohnT What Dave said...I think this runs the danger of turning into a lynch mob without *actually* knowing what current *real* MOD policy is... Any insight into actual policy - and whether MOD have ever successfully gone after anyone through the courts - from someone that knows for sure - would be appreciated! Just a thought before we continue with the 'skies falling in' type posts and conjecture. Iain Hear hear ! see my post on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 No, it's not. The College of Arms checks that a design hasn't been used and that it doesn't break arcane rules as to colour placing and general acceptability, then it registers it. In the case of squadron crests there's a prior stage of royal approval as well, but this doesn't substitute for any of what the College does. Copyright is the property of the holder of the design, just as it is with any other registered mark. Thank you for the clarification Sean. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therollercoaster Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Read the whole thread, the issue seems to have been with the earch tags used rather than the images per se. Actually it seems to be a combination of the search tags "Royal Air Force" and the online selling of images using that tag for searching, though reading the WHOLE thread leads me to believe the hosting company at the heart of the matter have only compounded the problem by telling this chap to stop using the tags, but not other users... I would imagine that any responsible organisation would be wary of its name being linked in such a manner, this chap with his pictures seems to be an honest guy but as I've discovered not everyone selling things on the Internet is so honest! That said, I'm puzzled as to how the MoD think they might be able to apply a copyright or patent to designs that have been in the 'public domain' for the better part of 100 years now, that don't belong to them in the first place, the national insignia is owned by the country, the people pay the taxes that fund these things, they belong to us as a whole, not an individual department of the civil service. Yes the MoD may have commissoned and developed the designs, but our money will have paid for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Just to add - I'm not a lawyer, copyright, or otherwise, but I have worked in the Internet industry since 1997... Internet Service Providers, Social Networking Sites, Public Forums, Web Hosts etc.. will always air on the side of caution with regards to copyright - if they're asked to remove content/links/tags etc. they usually will - without any investigation into the legalities, or not. In my experience they simply do not have the time, or resources, to question. A lot safer safer for them to simply remove and save a lot of potential aggro/cost. It does not necessarily follow that removal = legal exactitude (IYSWIM...) Iain Edited March 29, 2012 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 That said, I'm puzzled as to how the MoD think they might be able to apply a copyright or patent to designs that have been in the 'public domain' for the better part of 100 years now, that don't belong to them in the first place, the national insignia is owned by the country, the people pay the taxes that fund these things, they belong to us as a whole, not an individual department of the civil service. Yes the MoD may have commissoned and developed the designs, but our money will have paid for them. There's no difference in law between the MoD, the Government and the country. The population as a whole can't own anything; all public property is actually owned by the Government. All departments of state are, in law, arms of a single Government. And the fact that we've paid for things doesn't give us an automatic right to use them, or we'd all be queuing up for rides in tanks. (Wheee!) Caveat: please understand that I'm not defending the MoD. Merely explaining the constitutional position. The real question is, given that under current UK law the symbols of publicly-funded organisations can be protected by copyright and sold, should they be? Before you answer that, consider this: if you've ever voted for a Government that offers low taxes and champions free-market capitalism, you've helped to create an environment where Governments look for things that they hold that can be assigned a commercial value, and then exploit them. Now, if you want an exception to be made, you need to explain why, and where the boundary should lie. Then, if you object (which I do - if this is what it appears to be), making your views known to the Government will be a bit more help than commenting on forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wosipunk Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 We need to start "pirate decals bay" website;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heloman1 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 My gast is well and truely flabbered, I too thought this idiotic idea had died a death a while back. Firstly I doubt the MOD can copyright the roundel as it has been in common and open use since WI, so it was in common use. Secondly the RAF/Navy/Army all belong to the tax payer, so remind the Secretary of Defence he is a public servant. 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. I haven't started an aircraft painting yet but watch this space! Colin on the Africa Station Ex FAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripehound Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Isn't this another manifestation of the kind of blinkered letter-of-the law approach that meant The Aviation Workshop had to start referring to 'UK Air Arm' update sets? Not qualified to comment on the legal side of all this, but don't the MOD realise the massive PR damage they will be inflicting on themselves by alienating one of their most supportive communities? I hope the licence fees are worth it... Thinks - are the owners of ex-UK Air Arm (see what I did there?) aircraft going to have to paint out the national markings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I have realised that this is actually an extra line of defence in our war on terror: By copyrighting these symbols we can prevent terrorists from using them to clandestinely gain entrance to sensitive areas or large events. I mean no terrorists would contact the MOD for a licence to brand up a van with such logos would they? - this way the Timothies at the MOD will know that if its not authorised, its being used by "bad people" Consider the following possible exchange: MOD Form 23225:1A Licence to use MOD copyright logos at public event. Please fill in all sections, and provide as much detail as possible to aid in the calculation of licence price Name of applicant: Said Al Tonah Qartridj Organisation: BIG BANG ( Based In Gulf Bringing All Nearer to God Ltd) Logos required: RAF roundel and type logo Usage: Decoration of promotional vehicle at large London international event in August - we intend to "raise the roof" with this spectacle. Do you expect to make a profit from use of copyright images: We consider the Prophet in all our enterprises, but on this occasion seek only to exact a heavy cost from the event. Will the copyright items be used elsewhere afterwards: NO- certainly not, all materials will be disposed of on site Payment method: Visa (the only one we have ever needed in the UK!) Notes from MOD overseeing official: Timothy Luncheon-Voucher "bloody good to see our gulf friends support the RAF like this. Looking forward to the spectacle too ( probably some whirling dervish effort I imagine) - I've got top tickets for the opening ceremony from one of our suppliers too, so should be jolly close. I'm waiving for fee for these fellows, as they seem to be our sort of chaps." APPROVED. So sleep safe all. we are protected! Jonners Edited March 29, 2012 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius at Home Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Having taken the trouble to look up the Shakespeare prose I realised that the impication is that the Lawyers are an impediment to tyranny hence the need to kill them all. This was inconvenient to my point but I posted anyway confident that the BM Lawyers would respond and point this out - my confidence was not misplaced. In this instance, however, the Lawyers would appear to be supporting a form of tyranny. Darius Edited March 29, 2012 by Darius at Home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 From reading the wider issues in this, it would appear in this instance a jittery web site removed said artwork because an MoD lawyer-bot found the words "Royal Air Force" on the description for item for sale and probably automatic fired off a "cease and desist" email. I think what's perhaps even more ironic in all this is that, while mouthing platitudes about the need to protect the integrity of the "RAF roundel", the official RAF web site has this to say about the history of their own marking: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/theroyalairforceroundel.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What Dave said...I think this runs the danger of turning into a lynch mob without *actually* knowing what current *real* MOD policy is... Any insight into actual policy - and whether MOD have ever successfully gone after anyone through the courts - from someone that knows for sure - would be appreciated! Just a thought before we continue with the 'skies falling in' type posts and conjecture. Iain An insight perhaps - if not, one could always try the links on the right ... http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Copyrigh...edQuestions.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Thanks Mike - already read that... Iain Edited March 29, 2012 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phartycr0c Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Blimey tons has been said since my last post but then again ive been busy photo shopping all the roundels out of my Coningsby and Fairford photos! Having read the link from Mike's post, whilst the MOD can cahrge a licence fee for copyrighted material, I think the question here is whether the roundel is or in fact can be copyrighted. The MOD had a go at establishing copyright for it a couple of years ago and apparently failed. Ill try and dig out a link. Edited March 29, 2012 by Phartycr0c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixII Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Sounds more like the looneys are running the asylum. Steve. Steve, be grateful you live where you do. This asylum has been run by idiots for years! To demonstrate, back in he '90s i was running a contract with H.M. Prisons, in conversation with a warder i made a similar comment. The response was, "they already are, home office rules state two officers per landing, we are down to one AND their looking at cutting staff." This was at a Cat A (high security) transit prison. You just couldn't make it up. Does this mean.......that I will have to remove my Avatar. Robin. No Robin it doesn't. To quote an American? "Publish and be damned"! Speaking for myself, should they be so purile as to 'come the heavy hand', i'll put up for your defence, as, i would think, will most of the guys on 'Britmodeller'! There's no difference in law between the MoD, the Government and the country. The population as a whole can't own anything; all public property is actually owned by the Government. All departments of state are, in law, arms of a single Government.............. Understanding the above, where does the fact the Government is only in power by way of the electorate? (Ooops, silly me, they put themselves in, no one party had a majority.) Having gathered that the 'gnomes in Whitehall' have failed to copyright the roundel and fin flash, difficult with:- 1. Time scale. 2. So many countries / air arms using the same design (R.A.F., F.A.A., A.A.C., R.A.A.F.(pre 'Roo), R.N.Z.A.F.(pre Kiwi), R.C.A.F.(pre Maple leaf), R.R.A.F.(pre Assagi), S.R.A.F.) 3. Oh, and a High Court ruling stating this! What i'm struggling with is who owns the copyright to the Squadron badges? My understanding is that each Squadron designed their own, these being forwarded to the College of Heralds for them to 'vet' (you think "what colour is olive drab" is difficult!) then, when all T's are crossed and all I's dotted they are sent to the reigning Monarch for their authorisation. As a high proportion of badges were authorised by King George VI (1936 - 1952) does the time scale issue come into play? Simplistic it may be, but, for me the 'copyright' (if such exists) is owned by the original designer(s) / artist(s) not by the 'civil servants' in Whitehall. Oh me head hurts!!! Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Understanding the above, where does the fact the Government is only in power by way of the electorate? (Ooops, silly me, they put themselves in, no one party had a majority.) In law, the electorate is not the nation, it's the citizens of the nation. As I say, the population can't collectively hold public property; it's held by the Government on our behalf. Individual governments (administrations) come and go but there is always a Government. What i'm struggling with is who owns the copyright to the Squadron badges? My understanding is that each Squadron designed their own, these being forwarded to the College of Heralds for them to 'vet' (you think "what colour is olive drab" is difficult!) then, when all T's are crossed and all I's dotted they are sent to the reigning Monarch for their authorisation. As a high proportion of badges were authorised by King George VI (1936 - 1952) does the time scale issue come into play? Simplistic it may be, but, for me the 'copyright' (if such exists) is owned by the original designer(s) / artist(s) not by the 'civil servants' in Whitehall. The designers of the badges may have been individuals but they were doing the work for their employers, ie the Royal Air Force, Fleet Air Arm, etc. That makes the results the property of the employers, not the designers. And as neither squadrons nor the forces exist as legal entities in their own right, it means that they're actually the property of the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 The real question is, given that under current UK law the symbols of publicly-funded organisations can be protected by copyright and sold, should they be? Before you answer that, consider this: if you've ever voted for a Government that offers low taxes and champions free-market capitalism, you've helped to create an environment where Governments look for things that they hold that can be assigned a commercial value, and then exploit them. Now, if you want an exception to be made, you need to explain why, and where the boundary should lie. Then, if you object (which I do - if this is what it appears to be), making your views known to the Government will be a bit more help than commenting on forums. I certainly object to your blatantly political statement on a modelling forum, especially given that the RAF applied to patent the roundel in 2003. 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