RAF Artwork to be banned

[sloegin57]

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.

Spot on Sean, Spot on. it's a mess of our own making.

However. As someone with 25 years in Her Majesties finest, I intend to take a leaf out of the French book when dealing with such puerile rules designed by plebs only interested in gaining their OBE (Other Buggars Efforts). Or because they are so useless they cannot be found gainful employment elsewhere within the Civil Service.

I shall ignore it

"Rules are made for the Guidance of Wise men and the obedience of Fools" - Old Royal Air Force saying.

DR

[Gajman]

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

I really liked :

Do you expect to make a profit from use of copyright images: We consider the Prophet in all our enterprises,

[StephenMG]

The MOD had a go at establishing copyright for it a couple of years ago and apparently failed.

Not quite true. The MoD attempted to register the roundel as a trademark in 2003 in a dispute with a number of clothing maunfacturers. They failed in respect of clothing, but the patent office upheld the registration for other, non-clothing, items. That means, for example, that for a manufacturer to produce a new sheet of decals, they must get permission, and pay the fee, first.

A pathetic state of affairs in my view. I just wish these people would spent our taxes on something more worthwhile.

[Tripehound]

This link may explain what you can and can't do with MOD copyrighted stuff -

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Copyrigh...Information.htm

I say 'may' because despiter several attempts I've never made it past the 1st para without falling asleep at my desk.

[thx6667]

I've been collecting info on the whole MoD trademark thing ever since 2003, long story short, its a mess. And not a put-it-in-a-bag-and-hang-it-from-a-tree type mess (why do dog owners do that?), its a big, uncoordinated, unfathomable, unending ouroboros of a mess that would have Sir Humphrey Appleby smiling at its complexity.

The complete and utter lack of planning or foresight - so unusual with the MoD - has ended up with fractured licensing programme which may or may not even be lawful under wider EU copyright and trademark law.

I think perhaps the most ironic part of the licensing programme is that it hits UK companies the hardest, while leaving overseas producers virtually untouched. If the MoD's watchword is quality, they're going after indigenous products - which tend to be of a higher quality already - while not touching the el cheapo imported stuff that has the potential to flood the market with low quality product with no one paying a penny to the MoD.

Does that make sense?

Yes Minister!

[thx6667]

http://jervismediaevents.com/jem/Historic%20Signing.pdf

[keefr22]

And not a put-it-in-a-bag-and-hang-it-from-a-tree type mess (why do dog owners do that?),

Why do some dog owners do that, if you please! We don't, all our bagfulls are brought home...

I now return you to your regular programming...

Keef

[keefr22]

http://jervismediaevents.com/jem/Historic%20Signing.pdf

What a load of bllox...

K

[Enzo the Magnificent]

But 'big merrycan companies' are private enterprises - the MOD & our armed forces are not.

I believe that an American politician was trying to have all military equipment which had been pai for by public funding deemed to be in the public domain.

[mhaselden]

I believe that an American politician was trying to have all military equipment which had been pai for by public funding deemed to be in the public domain.

That would make life interesting for the "black" programmes.

[pigsty]

I believe that an American politician was trying to have all military equipment which had been pai for by public funding deemed to be in the public domain.

To judge by the continuing presence of licensing notices and TMs on model boxes, this may have failed, but does anyone know for sure? I was dismayed to see a licensing notice on the box of the new Revell 1/35 Boxer - up to then I'd been under the impression that Europe was being more sensible about that sort of thing.

[SPerx]

This is all very interesting, but are they going to sue everybody who makes a model, paints a picture, takes a photograph? I think not. I strongly suspect that they will go for organisations which commercially exploit the allegedly copyright material - so we may see kit manufacturers and decal suppliers being required to license their use of the roundel etc.

However, if I am wrong and they decide to start going after the little people, like modellers and amateur photographers who put their airshow images on Flicker and the like, well, we should stop whining and posting feisty posts on t'internet and go for some civil disobedience. It is the only defence we have against a corrupt and malevolent Executive; correupt and lazy Parliament; and a generally intellectually dishonest judiciary.

[Greg B]

Don't worry, if you have paid the licensing fee you can produce this as a tribute:

Makes you proud doesn't it.

Anyway Gents, keep the politics out and the rants down otherwise it will be locked off.

[thx6667]

Additionally, where does the MoD stand on their equipment sporting copyrighted and trademarked characters?

I refer m'lud to various Viz characters adorning Desert Storm Tornadoes and Jaguars, the trademarked brand logos of various Scot's distilleries on Buccaneer's, newspaper logos, or more recently the Tetley men on a Lynx, 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?

[PhoenixII]

Additionally, where does the MoD stand on their equipment sporting copyrighted and trademarked characters?

I refer m'lud to various Viz characters adorning Desert Storm Tornadoes and Jaguars, the trademarked brand logos of various Scot's distilleries on Buccaneer's, newspaper logos, or more recently the Tetley men on a Lynx, 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?

NOT a hope!

One rule for them and another for everyone else.

SHOULD any of the companies 'go after' MoD, you can bet your bottom dollar / sheckel / pound / et. al.

that THAT would decend upon a poor, unsuspecting individual certainly no higher than LAC, more likely an AC 'plonk'.

The chance of that happening is very slim, as in time of war, most companies get behind the lads at the 'sharp end'.

Pity that the ......................................... (NO, won't say it!)

Paul

[lancfan]

I can think of a few more questions about this rubbish- Are all museum aircraft to have their disgraceful and unlawful roundels painted out? Will it be illegal to display a Spitfire at an airshow in (gasp, shhhh) RAF marking? Is this to be applied in retrospect to all publications and if so will we be compelled to surrender all publications in our possession for public burning? PATHETIC! WILL THE LAST ONE TO LEAVE PLEASE TURN THE LIGHT OUT.

David.

[thx6667]

Presumably private museums cannot sell merchandise featuring their own property if it happens to have RAF markings?

[SkippyBing]

To judge by the continuing presence of licensing notices and TMs on model boxes, this may have failed, but does anyone know for sure? I was dismayed to see a licensing notice on the box of the new Revell 1/35 Boxer - up to then I'd been under the impression that Europe was being more sensible about that sort of thing.

As I understand it, from talking to a friend in the toy business, you have to have permission of some sort to produce a likeness of an object for sale, e.g. toy car/model plane. The original designers invested time and money working on their product and are entitled to protect their intellectual property, after all it obviously has some value or people wouldn't be trying to sell models of it they'd just be selling their own designs. This also allows them some control over how their designs are used e.g. Porsche wouldn't allow their cars to be shown damaged in Gran Turismo, hence they aren't in Gran Turismo*. Similarly shouldn't Eurofighter be allowed to stop the creators of 'Bomb the Orphanage IV' featuring the Typhoon in the game and damaging their reputation.

The follow up issue is that if a company doesn't rigorously enforce it's IP rights it loses them, hence some of the stupider cases you hear about.

In the instance of American military machinery the law isn't as straight forward as you may think, very few items are produced solely with taxpayer funds so where do you set the limit? Also the companies involved still have a right to protect their reputation so they may not be able to charge for a licence but they could still vet the use of their IP.

In the instance of the UK roundel** I do think MoD are being complete ****s, I'm actually surprised they managed to get rights to it 80 odd years after it was first used.

*I think that's the right manufacturer and game, I believe they relented for the sequels.

**It's not really the RAF roundel, it's used by all the services and it pre-dates the RAF.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

http://jervismediaevents.com/jem/Historic%20Signing.pdf

And a few choice quotes from this:

"There is no doubt that if the Royal Air Force does not protect its own brand, someone else will exploit it. It is not just a matter of income –it is many other things."

So - like who? Other airforces? John Lewis? Pound Stretcher? I'm so sorry Mr Terry Jervis, Merchandising Agent for the Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force Museum, but I had naively assumed the RAF to be not a "brand" but part of HM's armed forces and its roundel to be a military recognition marking, rather than a mercantile logo.

"It is often hard for the people doing the job of protecting the country and saving lives to celebrate what they do with the wider public."

Well it is when they are in Afghanistan , but when they come home- in whatever way- I think you'll find they get plenty of positive public recognition be it the noble and sombre repatriations or being given freedom of whichsoever town. ( I make the proviso that this was printed in 2004 here)

"This is why I engaged 4Kids to act on our behalf as they have a very successful track record in the mass consumer market – in particular children and youth. The reaction at the 4Kids stand from the retailers and manufacturers showcase, at the Brand Licensing Show in Earl’s Court, London, was extremely positive."

Whoopee Do!! Now what was the point of this? - to license out the brand and make money? - because - see above, " It is not just a matter of income –it is many other things.", Now if it was to paint the RAF in a better light and encourage recruitment then fair enough, but you know what, I dont think the RAF has much of a shoratge in that area: Guess why Mr Terry Jervis, Merchandising Agent for the Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force Museum?

Dont you know? Then I'll tell you.

The RAF doesnt need copyrighted logos to protect its image, it doesnt need Merchandising Agents or companies with "successful track records in the mass consumer market". The RAF maintains its "image" through its professional nature, the bravery and modesty and approachability of its members and a 94 year old reputation for dedicated service to this country, during times both good and bad, when the supreme sacrifice of its members was often required, and was given freely. If you want to promote the RAF you dont need a TM'ed logo on an action man jet, or on a sheet of decals or on an Airfix box top - you just need to relate the history and deeds of the service, simply without hyperbole. You will be pleasantly surprised at the results.

But actually its about making money isnt it.

I'll stop now as this kind of stuff isnt good for me.

Simply

Jonners

[sloegin57]

The RAF doesnt need copyrighted logos to protect its image, it doesnt need Merchandising Agents or companies with "successful track records in the mass consumer market". The RAF maintains its "image" through its professional nature, the bravery and modesty and approachability of its members and a 94 year old reputation for dedicated service to this country, during times both good and bad, when the supreme sacrifice of its members was often required, and was given freely. If you want to promote the RAF you dont need a TM'ed logo on an action man jet, or on a sheet of decals or on an Airfix box top - you just need to relate the history and deeds of the service, simply without hyperbole. You will be pleasantly surprised at the results.

But actually its about making money isnt it.

Jonners

Thank you Jonners. Well said.

I'm still going to ignore it - at their peril.

DR

[thx6667]

So - like who? Other airforces? John Lewis? Pound Stretcher? I'm so sorry Mr Terry Jervis, Merchandising Agent for the Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force Museum, but I had naively assumed the RAF to be not a "brand" but part of HM's armed forces and its roundel to be a military recognition marking, rather than a mercantile logo.

And that is it in a nutshell. Its like some kind of Chris Morris Brass Eye-esque satire, the idea that your armed forces are now a "brand" that requires licensing. Presumably if Mr Terry Jervis, Merchandising Agent for the Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force Museum, had been around during WWII he would have been writing stiff letters to Herr Hitler for infringing His Majesties War Office's image rights every time the Germans captured something with an RAF roundel on it.

[John Aero]

Talking about artwork. Jon Mock please could you change your Avatar as I personally can't read your posts due to the flashing pictures causing a distraction (seriously)

Cheers

John

Edited March 29, 2012 by John Aero

[thx6667]

Talking about artwork. Jon Mock please could you change your Avatar as I personally can't read your posts due to the flashing pictures causing a distraction (seriously)

Cheers

John

For you John, of course.

For the rest of you - can't get it out of your heads now can you?

[plimsol]

and just looking at the number of members looking at this thread have'nt you got anything better to do? ( e.g. a spot of modelling!)

[John Aero]

Cheers Jon.

John