Copyright and what we can do?

[bzn20]

You mean singer, inger,inger.

[clift]

He asked the question because he didn't know, obviously. He hadn't seen other threads. The law is fluid and things change. I'll take your KISS and give you another that's held me in good stead . DONT ASSUME. CHECK!

The last thing we want is people feeling silly (or not asking at all) because they asked an obvious (to some) question. All of us should be able to help and discuss.

Come on, really??? Seriously???

I am not discouraging the asking of a valid question, but I am questioning the validity of THIS specific question as posed in this thread. Really, there just comes a point where common sense should kick in and this thread demonstrates it. Stop micro managing of the hobby, PLEASE!!!

Just as one will burn a music CD without giving it a second thought, this is no different. The music police will not come and kick your door down and haul you off, neither will the plastic enforcers come after you for doing a similar thing when it comes to the hobby - so long as it is for your OWN PERSONAL USE (that's the common sense part for those who may have missed it).

[bzn20]

I didn't say I didn't know.I think you've been at the home brew and getting carried away.If you know the threads give him the link or just tell him to search, not give him,me and the other posters the Gettysburg address. Go away............

Edited October 12, 2013 by bzn20

[Scratchbuilder]

My old man gave me one crucial piece of advice..."Never ask, boy. The xxxxxxxx always tell you no".

That's been my mantra all my 61 years!

Martin

Edited October 13, 2013 by Greg B
Swearing removed

[Work In Progress]

Why not? https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence about 2/3 of the way down the page you'll find Copyright and Intellectual Property Group with email and contact form details.

I've already posted direct links to the MoD trademarks.

[MikeC]

I've already posted direct links to the MoD trademarks.

I know that, thank you.

What I have posted is a link to a contact form, so that should anyone wish to ask specific questions they can (hopefully) get a response straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. Totally different things.

[clift]

I didn't say I didn't know.I think you've been at the home brew and getting carried away.If you know the threads give him the link or just tell him to search, not give him,me and the other posters the Gettysburg address. Go away............

So you and common sense are pretty much strangers, eh?

[Jennings Heilig]

The RAF Roundel is copyright material.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. They may *try* to trademark it (it's not a copyright, it's a trademark), but a three color roundel has existed for as long as humans have been scrawling art. The RAF chose it as their emblem almost a century ago, and haven't had it trademarked nor made any attempt to enforce such a trademark until the past few years. Any court worthy of the name would rule that the emblem is in the public domain and that it can't be trademarked. They'll have to send the RAF police to my house to prevent me from using it as I've always done on decals for model aircraft.

[bzn20]

I can only tell you what a Decal supplier told me why he didn't print full roundels. They have tried BTW. The Ministry of Defence applied to the patent office in 2003. Then this in 2008. I don't know what happened after that.

This is a copy/paste from the Daily Mail site

Five years ago the ministry took on the Arcadia group, the company behind high street brands including Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins, as it tried to get the roundel registered as a trademark for RAF-related clothing.

The Patent Office rejected the MoD application but gave it sole rights to use the roundel on all non-clothing items, such as memorabilia and military equipment and, it was thought, boys' duvet covers.

The comptroller-general of patents, designs and trademarks acknowledged at the time that the roundel was "associated with a group of persons known as mods".

Yesterday the MoD refused to comment on the battle of the bedlinen with Next. A spokesman said: "Legal proceedings are pending and therefore we are unable to comment."

The RAF has its own line of casual clothes and accessories for men, women and children, with part of their sale price going to the RAF Museum Charitable Trust.

Most feature the RAF wings logo, though a £35 bikini features roundels picked out in diamante.

Edited October 13, 2013 by bzn20

[Scratchbuilder]

Over the years, I've done decal artwork that has included, Esso, Castrol, Jaguar, Lynx, Ford, Ferrari, Cooper, Brabham, Lotus, Lola, Cobra, Triumph, Ginetta, Piper, Austin-Healey, Evinrude, AMC, Lister, Kelvin, Gardner, R-N and Gawd knows how many others. Never bothered anyone as they were all sold out long before some saddo in an office would have noticed. And even if he had what could he have done? I've never had a pot to pee in, by their standards, although I've done alright, thanks very much!

Small producer copyright worries? Blah!

Martin

Edited October 13, 2013 by Scratchbuilder

[bzn20]

Confiscation of your pot!

[davidelvy]

I find it hard to swallow any kind of rationale that reproduction of the RAF roundel is restricted by copyright. It might be but it shouldn't be...

It was a national symbol and therefore "owned" by every British man, woman and child. But then of course the RAF was "our" RAF and not run on a "corporate business" model. Might as well demand people pay a "licence" fee for flying the Union flag. Outrageous.

A pox on those who have tried to claim and restrict it. Defy them and be damned.

Nick

Although I find this all a bit sad, another way of looking at it is to ask why shiuld the RAF not try to obtain an income from granting licences for copyright material or any trade marks it can show it owns? After all, if it is able to gain an income in this way maybe the RAF will be better placed to cope cuts in funding from the tax payer. In fact, isn't it arguable that as a publicly funded organisation it is under a duty to do so?

Please note that in posting this comment I am not necessarily agreeing that the RAF should assert that the roundel is a trademark.

[Nick Millman]

Although I find this all a bit sad, another way of looking at it is to ask why shiuld the RAF not try to obtain an income from granting licences for copyright material or any trade marks it can show it owns? After all, if it is able to gain an income in this way maybe the RAF will be better placed to cope cuts in funding from the tax payer. In fact, isn't it arguable that as a publicly funded organisation it is under a duty to do so?

Please note that in posting this comment I am not necessarily agreeing that the RAF should assert that the roundel is a trademark.

What is sad is that everything now seems to be run by bean counters.

Nick

[sloegin57]

[Jennings Heilig]

Although I find this all a bit sad, another way of looking at it is to ask why shiuld the RAF not try to obtain an income from granting licences for copyright material or any trade marks it can show it owns? After all, if it is able to gain an income in this way maybe the RAF will be better placed to cope cuts in funding from the tax payer. In fact, isn't it arguable that as a publicly funded organisation it is under a duty to do so?

Since when is the military force of any country an income-generating, profit-making body?

Answer: never.

[Procopius]

Since when is the military force of any country an income-generating, profit-making body?

Answer: never.

Well, the Revolutionary French Army did sometimes assume that role. And there's always the Prize Courts.

[Caerbannog]

Since when is the military force of any country an income-generating, profit-making body?

Answer: never.

I am sure there were lots of military forces thoughout history which did make a profit...

Aside from that I am sure it will be a big blow to the kit producers - not just the money they need to pay to the forces for using their insignias but also that a lot less parents will buy these "toys" which are directly funding the military (dunno if the money could be kept by the forces or if they would be transfered to the state). Probably we would see less RAF kits and more WWII Axis stuff (expect Japanese...).

[Nick Millman]

My old man gave me one crucial piece of advice..."Never ask, boy. The xxxxxxxx always tell you no".

That's been my mantra all my 61 years!

Martin

There was a similar saying in an organisation I have fond memories of:-

"It's always better to ask for forgiveness than for permission".

Nick

[Edgar]

29-10-1914 H.Q., RFC wrote to Mission Francaise, saying that they intended to use similar markings to the French, but with a red centre, and blue outer.

31-10-1914 Mission Francaise replied "No objection."

Having asked permission of the French to use the roundel, today's MOD would, I suspect, experience a little difficulty in claiming it as their "intellectual property."

Edgar

[bzn20]

They might have asked the French for other reasons. Like, would they be confused? Only a thought. The fact the colours are swapped means the roundel is different. The Paris militia during the storming of the Bastille wore the Cockade (Roundel like) on their head gear. the peasants wore it anywhere! jacket collars etc. (its like a rosette) The original cockade was just red and blue. Lafayette said added the white was an old French colour and that was accepted as the "badge" of one of the army units . Napoleon Bonaparte's hat also had the Cockade. Its probably where the roundel came from with the French. There is a painting at the guillotine where some Royal is about to say goodbye to his head. The Soldier standing by has the French roundel on the front of his hat. The French flag came from the modified ( 3 colour)Cockade.

Edited October 14, 2013 by bzn20

[Edgar]

They might have asked the French for other reasons.

Apart from the need for something more easily recognisable than the original union flag (which could, in certain circumstances, appear like the German cross,) the report makes no mention of any other reasons, so I can't make that assumption. Edited October 14, 2013 by Edgar

[MikeC]

Edited: I've just had second thoughts about a bit of a rant I put up. The thing is, everyone is up in arms about the trademarking of certain emblems, and no-one appears to have given a thought as to why it may have been done in the first place. It was very unlikely to have been done just because some patent lawyer or Air Marshal had a bright idea one day, and I suspect the reason is to protect the RAF roundel from mis-use by people wishing to plaster it over all sorts of things, such as clothes, which have nothing to do with the RAF, and which imo devalues the significance. I am, frankly, surprised that anyone on here can possibly object to that.

The licencing of things like decal sheets is very very unlikely to have been a consideration, and is an unfortunate side-effect. I suspect a coversation with the right person in the MoD IPR area would actually produce a reasonable outcome - just put aside any prejudices about civil servants and be polite and reasonable.

Just my opinion of course ...

Edited October 15, 2013 by MikeC

[davidelvy]

It was very unlikely to have been done just because some patent lawyer or Air Marshal had a bright idea one day, and I suspect the reason is to protect the RAF roundel from mis-use by people wishing to plaster it over all sorts of things, such as clothes, which have nothing to do with the RAF, and which imo devalues the significance. I am, frankly, surprised that anyone on here can possibly object to that.

I can't see the problem with putting national insignia on clothing. It is little different from having the Union Flag/Jack (not getting into that debate) printed on clothing. The RAF did nothing about it in the 1960s when the roundel first became popular on casual clothing, so I think it is more to do with the fact that the RAF is now more aware of a potential souce of income.

[Work In Progress]

Edited: I've just had second thoughts about a bit of a rant I put up. The thing is, everyone is up in arms about the trademarking of certain emblems, and no-one appears to have given a thought as to why it may have been done in the first place. It was very unlikely to have been done just because some patent lawyer or Air Marshal had a bright idea one day, and I suspect the reason is to protect the RAF roundel from mis-use by people wishing to plaster it over all sorts of things, such as clothes, which have nothing to do with the RAF, and which imo devalues the significance. I am, frankly, surprised that anyone on here can possibly object to that.

The licencing of things like decal sheets is very very unlikely to have been a consideration, and is an unfortunate side-effect. I suspect a coversation with the right person in the MoD IPR area would actually produce a reasonable outcome - just put aside any prejudices about civil servants and be polite and reasonable.

Just my opinion of course ...

Well, I certainly thought about it which is why I related the way I used to do that job for another organisation of interest to the modelling world. Protection of the image against being associated with poor quality or undesirable products was my main concern.

I used to come down hard on anyone making unlicensed use, but for anyone who looked as if they would do a quality job that was a win/win for both organisations, I would license them to do so for a purely nominal fee.

[Work In Progress]

I can't see the problem with putting national insignia on clothing. It is little different from having the Union Flag/Jack (not getting into that debate) printed on clothing. The RAF did nothing about it in the 1960s when the roundel first became popular on casual clothing, so I think it is more to do with the fact that the RAF is now more aware of a potential souce of income.

Not the RAF. The MoD. The RAF plays no part in this whatsoever.

(And although you didn't say this, to those talking earlier about "since when are the armed forces there to raise revenue?" the MoD is not a military organisation, it is part of the civil service. Raising revenue for government has been core business for the civil service of every nation since the idea of government was invented.)