RAF Artwork to be banned

[thx6667]

Art recording history goes back even since man learned to daub on cave walls. So now if someone wants to do a painting of an historical event - say the Black Buck raid of 1982 - they have to get a licensing agreement from BAE Systems to use the Vulcan image rights, another from the MoD to use the RAF roundel, and no doubt MacDonald's who own the "Operation Corporate"™ brand range and happy meal rights?

[lancfan]

Then the model industry should take the only route open to them when faced with such smothering corruption- stop selling "RAF" roundels and produce and sell sets of coloured dots, in that way we can make up whatever colour combinations we wish to and TO HELL WITH THEM ALL!!!!

David.

[sloegin57]

Then the model industry should take the only route open to them when faced with such smothering corruption- stop selling "RAF" roundels and produce and sell sets of coloured dots, in that way we can make up whatever colour combinations we wish to and TO HELL WITH THEM ALL!!!!

David.

Fantasy Printshop already do a series of solid colours, stars, checks and fine lines and have been since 1999 (first detailed in SMI October/November 1999). FP products are good. They are the boys to do it - and get it right. Hasegawa decals did a similar series of block colours and lines as well, in FS colours, as their normal aircraft decals in 72nd quite a few years ago but they are probably out of production now.

DR

[lancfan]

In the 1960s Plasty (the German arm of Airfix) produced books of decals- whole sheets of bi-colour roundels with matching dots, a different colour to each sheet and from these it was (still is if you have them in the stash) possible to make up whatever you need.

David.

[Paul Wagner]

As far as rondels go, there's a much easier way out - just claim you are NOT using RAF rondels, but RAAF rondels, so the RAF can bugger off. That will cover everything in WWI, WWII, Korea, and up to the relatively modern lo-vis 2-tone ones

Seriously, though, I can't see this kind of crap having any legal legs at all. I know a Copyright lawyer, and they live on a completely different planet to the rest of us, and rely on bluff and bluster most of the time. Copyright acts have "fair use" provisions to cover this kinda thing, and any court would laugh at it.

I do, however, like the idea of making a big public stink through, say, James May and the school-kids Spitfire to get some kind of political directive sent down to the lawyers to stop being such bottoms. Bound to be a tabloid interested somewhere....

Paul

[Clave]

The Australian Air Force are just as bad as the MOD...

[chaddy]

So that'll be no more Shepherd Neame "Spitfire" and Thawaites "Lancaster" Bomber" ale then!

Cheers!

Edited April 1, 2012 by chaddy

[Julien]

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?

I wonder if this is why xtradecals RAF Update decals seem to vanish from the Hannants web site? will we see them back as UK Air Arm update.

The whole thing seem total bonkers to me!

Julien

[Clave]

I suspect that things will go underground to some extent.

I am pretty sure that it is not a breach of copyright to draw an RAF roundel, only to sell it?

I am going to look at some new options soon I think, and that my include such things t-shirts with squadron badges, and roundels, as well as aircraft of all sorts - but they will be *not for sale* just advertised on wherever, and then a private link system to the product... I am considering my options, and most of all my keywords because there seems to be a definite jumping on things like 'squadron' and 'RAF'...

For me personally, it is extra galling the the people I gave 12 years of my life to for pretty much nothing are causing me such grief 20 years after I left. I feel nothing for the RAF now, except rage and the need to get some financial payback.

For decals and stuff, I should think that everything RAF could be by email application only and payments to a 3rd party paypal account under the name of Hannants Russian Decals or something...?

It's sad that a hobby that brings in/pays out only a few quid a year is now in the realm of the corporate bloodsuckers lawyers.

[lancfan]

As this NOW means that we cannot display any RAF roundels then by extension this must also mean that all future model shows MUST be "members only" and that the public MUST be totally excluded and that we CANNOT NOW post online images of built models displaying this now exclusive trademark device. In the spirit of all this junk I have changed my signature to one befitting what I believe this once proud and free nation is fast becoming.

David.

Edited April 1, 2012 by lancfan

[Mike]

Guys... I think you're missing the point that it's NOT the roundel that's in question here, but that awful RAF "logo" and the squadron badges, although I can't see how they could enforce the latter, as they've been in common usage for decades now. Personally, I can live without that clumsy logo on any British subject I build.

Also - can we keep away from the political aspect too please

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Guys... I think you're missing the point that it's NOT the roundel that's in question here, but that awful RAF "logo" and the squadron badges, although I can't see how they could enforce the latter, as they've been in common usage for decades now. Personally, I can live without that clumsy logo on any British subject I build.

Also - can we keep away from the political aspect too please

Possible the worst bit of typographic design I've ever seen, oh the 2012 'lympic logo excepted.

I was under the impression that the problem seems to be using the words RAF - that seems to be where the blood sucking undead foul spawn of the devil who feast on the souls of innocent children uuhm lawyers are starting to get involved?

Jonners

[pigsty]

As this NOW means that we cannot display any RAF roundels then by extension this must also mean that all future model shows MUST be "members only" and that the public MUST be totally excluded and that we CANNOT NOW post online images of built models displaying this now exclusive trademark device. In the spirit of all this junk I have changed my signature to one befitting what I believe this once proud and free nation is fast becoming.

David.

Don't worry, no need to over-react. If you use commercially available decals whose makers have already paid for the licence, you aren't expected to license them separately in your own right. If you're displaying at a show you're not doing it commercially so, again, no need for a licence of your own. Even if the show charges entry, it's unlikely they're doing it commercially (more like trying to defray the cost of the venue), so, again, no need for a separate licence, and no need to exclude the public.

Same goes for posting the results here or elsewhere. No commercial intent, no need for a licence. And that goes for photographers as well as modellers. Sites that ask you to take down pictures that show RAF imagery or say "RAF" are over-reacting, because they don't know whether or not you're posting with any commercial intent.

[JohnT]

the blood sucking undead foul spawn of the devil who feast on the souls of innocent children uuhm lawyers

Jonners

That'll be me then !

seriously chaps please don't get too ventilated on this one or you will all be reaching for the paper bags to breathe in !

I very much doubt this has legal legs. If there is a villain of the piece its the clot who thought it would be a good idea in the first place. I doubt he was of my profession.

Anyway - must fly as its dark now and have to get a hard nights vampiring in before sun up

Edited April 1, 2012 by JohnT

[lancfan]

Guys,

I think that that this is just the problem-if we don't over react and kick them where it hurts then they will assume that they have got away with this crap again and the next time it will be worse for the next poor wretch these clowns (and their brethren) target.

David.

[Julien]

Guys... I think you're missing the point that it's NOT the roundel that's in question here, but that awful RAF "logo" and the squadron badges, although I can't see how they could enforce the latter, as they've been in common usage for decades now. Personally, I can live without that clumsy logo on any British subject I build.

That Logo is horrible!

It seems strange that the Navy have never gone this way with their Logo, and that one is a proper logo to boot!

Julien

[thx6667]

Guys... I think you're missing the point that it's NOT the roundel that's in question here, but that awful RAF "logo" and the squadron badges, although I can't see how they could enforce the latter, as they've been in common usage for decades now. Personally, I can live without that clumsy logo on any British subject I build.

Also - can we keep away from the political aspect too please

But it is the roundel as evidence by the fact that even stuff pre-Jervis agreement is now being targeted, on top of other RAF markings including the squadron badges, crests and even titling.

What is deeply ironic in all this is that the MoD came up with this whizzo plan to "protect the integrity" of the roundel and what it stands for, then get someone (agency probably) to write a work of fiction on their own website about the history of the marking! I doubt if you were to ask Jervis and co what the proportions and colours are to the RAF roundel they could tell you without having to look it up, and yet that should be de rigueur because its fundamental to, what we've been told, this is all about.

That we've arrived at HM Armed Forces being described as "brands" is just farcical and far from protecting the high standards they aspire to and the people who wear and die in the uniform, it cheapens them in the name of a fast buck.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[keefr22]

That Logo is horrible!

Maybe deliberately so as it makes it easier to spot in 'copyright infingements'....

K

[Paul J]

I might have missed similar comments to mine that follows and apologies if it has already been said.... but ....all I can say and add is more fools the RAF and HMG are for being such suckers and mugs by being conned by unscrupulous advertising agencies!

Basically it seems this company have sold to the MOD their own Identity!! And the smooth talking that goes with it sound typical gobbledegook even sucked in MPs!!

They'd sell you your own grandmother!

I reckon its the agency who are going to make a killing and not the MOd.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Paul J

[chaddy]

That we've arrived at HM Armed Forces being described as "brands" is just farcical and far from protecting the high standards they aspire to and the people who wear and die in the uniform, it cheapens them in the name of a fast buck.

Quite so, and to be deeply regretted. However, isn't this symptomatic of so much of public life these days. Whilst the PBI are slogging it out at the sharp end we've got a bunch of time-servers sitting in their offices, surrounded by solicitors, media specialists, special advisors and all the other hangers on, all worrying about their "brand image" and public relations. It makes on want to weep.

Cheers (I think I need a double).

[thx6667]

I might have missed similar comments to mine that follows and apologies if it has already been said.... but ....all I can say and add is more fools the RAF and HMG are for being such suckers and mugs by being conned by unscrupulous advertising agencies!

Basically it seems this company have sold to the MOD their own Identity!! And the smooth talking that goes with it sound typical gobbledegook even sucked in MPs!!

They'd sell you your own grandmother!

I reckon its the agency who are going to make a killing and not the MOd.

Quite. Licensing companies are not going to be doing it for free, so the more they can rake in, the more they can earn which is why I think there has been a blurring of their purview to the point now where stuff that clearly isn't infringing any trademarks of copyright but is art, is now getting take down notices.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[Darius at Home]

Sounds like they need the services of PR Head of Brand, Siobhan, from Twenty Twelve:-

BBC4 Twenty Twelve

Darius

[sloegin57]

Quite. Licensing companies are not going to be doing it for free, so the more they can rake in, the more they can earn which is why I think there has been a blurring of their purview to the point now where stuff that clearly isn't infringing any trademarks of copyright but is art, is now getting take down notices.

Exactly right.

Licensing Companies are in Business and to take all of this to it's ridiculous, but logical, conclusion, it would not surprise me to find the MoD quoted on the Stock market in order to raise funds (for a 2nd hand carrier maybe ? - for "Down South" maybe ?) and as we all know where the money is these days, we could end up with the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force owned by the Chinese.

DR

[Paul J]

And we'll be going to war by appointment only.. ',,,,,,,,,,sharp intake of breath.........sorry can't make it until a week next Thursday, but its going to cost ya!

[deadahead]

I have to admit i'm confused. Are we or are we not talking about the RAF roundel here or just the ugly logo and crests? If it is the roundel then when is a roundel a roundel?. Given most modern roundel decals are two part with centre circle a separate item surely it doesn't actually become the roundel until both are applied to the model. As i understand it as a roundel isn't being sold just the facility to create one and that is the purchasers choice I don't see any requirement to be licienced. The MOD would need to trademark blue and white concentric circles and red circles as separate items which I cant see any court agreeing to.