JDK wrote:
Andrew (et al) It's got nothing to do with being government or state owned, but to do with the flying B-17 being mis-represented (by omission) as something it isn't. There's been plenty of airworthy replicas of the Spirit of St Louis out there, but no attempt to lead people to believe they're the one Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in. If there were, that's where the issue starts.
Well, to you it may simply be about the misrepresentation, but I take issue with the premise of the trademark as well. While I agree misrepresentation is an issue worth noting if it is true however, there are already laws regarding fraud and if it is truly misrepresented that issue should be dealt with directly as opposed to creating a legal precedence for removing/changing the markings and it being represented as "it is trademarked by the NMUSAF and there was an preexisting agreement in place," which is what is being done in this thread.
JDK wrote:
rwdfresno wrote:
... there are plenty of unethical legal presidents out there. ...
Well,
that's made the thread worth having, if nothing else has!
One of the perils of posting from the iPhone. You never are quite sure exactly what you will say. I meant to say "precedent." ..or perhaps a Freudian slip but, the world will never know the truth
bombadier29 wrote:
I think the word you mean is PRECEDENT not president.
Ditto. Yes, obviously that is what was meant. Seriously though, I think you meant "bombardier29?."
...and PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT look up "bombadier" on urbandictionary.com like I just did.
mustangdriver wrote:
As for Tallichet he said in our hangar that, "As long as that paint job makes me money it will stay painted that way.". I worked on with the Belle for a few years other WIX members worked with me at this time. They saw and heard with their own ears some folks mid represent it. Then they started selling pics not of filming but of the real plane. Many times they would not misrepresent it, but just not say anything at all. Leaving folks to assume it was the real deal.
That's fine, as I alluded to, I have never had any love for Tallichet. I have to say though, while I agree a deliberate misrepresentation is unethical, but it isn't the duty of a private citizen to educate someone simply because you and I think they should. I own a 1970s M151A2 and when people see it 75% of them say "hey nice Willy's" or "that's a nice WWII jeep." In the past I've tried to educate folks that this is actually a Vietnam or later era vehicle, but quite honestly I've stopped correcting them because they either look at me with a bewildered look, or argue with me that their dad drove a jeep just like this across France in WWII. It isn't my legal or even ethical duty to educate these people. Am I misrepresenting it? Maybe to some I am, but the fact is that I don't have an obligation to do so.
Cherrybomber13 wrote:
Once an asset was sold by the federal guvmunt, say a b-17 with nose art or portion there of, wouldn't art work attached become property of the purchaser or public domain?
I'm no lawyer but, I do stay at Holiday Inn Express occasionally though so I think that might qualify me to guess. My understanding would be no. I can sell you an original George Petty sketch, that doesn't mean you then own any of the licensing rights as far as I am aware.
mustangdriver wrote:
So ethics only come into play for the NMUSAF. Which by the way only trademarked it to stop them from presenting their aircraft as the real one(which was being done) THe parties flying the airplane have no responsibility to honor ethics. Meaning If you are going to fly the plane, it is cool to screw others over.
Actually, my statement above was that I don;t really care for the business practices of those on either end of the debate. Meaning I don't really like the business practices of either. My point is 100% around the question if the the government ethically and(or) legally (the ethics and legalities could be different) can trademark, copyright, patent, etc. anything at all to protect a private citizen from utilizing that intellectual property. My point would be that any agreement between Tallichet and anyone proclaiming to own trademark to "Memphis Belle" should be and should always have been null and void.
Similarly (but slightly different) if I went to you to enter an agreement to paint my Dodge Challenger like the "General Lee" and you granted it to me for a period of a year, then I realized you didn't own the trademark to begin with and went to the trademark owner who then granted permanent permission, I don't think you can sue me after a year because I haven't removed my markings. The reason is that you don't own the trademark and our agreement isn't worth the paper it was printed on. Now the situation is slightly different because according to you NMUSAF or Mud Island folks or whomever apparently do "legally" own the trademark. As I said, ethics and law isn't always in alignment. However, I think that there is not only a question of ethics but maybe even a legal argument to be made that "Memphis Belle" should not actually be something that can be trademarked by the NMUSAF. Just because something is trademarked or patented or whatever it doesn't mean that it is inarguable. It means it made it through the bureaucratic process of being trademarked or patented. Much like I could steal a car and "get it titled" but that doesn't mean that it is irrefutable evidence that I own this car legally.There are many lawsuits that have occurred and continue to occur to argue if something was in fact unique intellectual property that was legally entered into patent and trademark protection.
Ryan
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
and be done wiff da confusion.........the NMUSAF will have to butt out of the paint scheme thing with the Memphis Belle impostor ....should they want to interject, then the Collins Foundation could naturally be required through some arm twisting litigation, to remove all that beautiful paint from 909 as it represents a real B-17 that was shot down during actual armed conflict and someone is "offended" because its like a ghost or something and they are haunted by the fact that 909 was actually shot down....but here it is on a ramp staring at them, daring them to pay money to fly in her......don't see it happening. 
