Speaking of the Memphis Belle

[mustangdriver]

Shay, you are correct, but if I was taking it to car shows and promotting it like "Come and see the General Lee form the Dukes of Hazzard", and am getting paid to bring it there, then there would be an issue. Tallichet is bringing his B-17, getting paid for it, and the adds for the airshows all say, Come see the B-17 memphis belle. Just this morning in the tower, a girl I work with saw an add for an airshow and said, Hey I thought you said that the Memohis Belle was in Dayton for restoration here is is on add for an airshow. That is why the USAF is doing what they are doing in my opinion. I was not told a real reason. As for the General Lee cars in California, yes that is a true story. WB had a few cars impounded in the mid 90's.

[mustangdriver]

I KNEW there was a reason I gave up volunteering there. There's just too much politics in that place.

If you don't mind me asking, what happened to make you stop? I have only been a volunteer for a few years, so I am just wondering.

[k5083]

Mustangdriver, you still have given us no information about what the NMUSAF supposedly is doing. Your descriptions thus far just don't make sense, either logically or legally. Just because a "high up" tells a volunteer something doesn't make it a policy that affects the public in any way. Nor is it the public's responsibility to call NMUSAF to find out what its position is. (Probably if you called five times, you'd get six different versions.) Unless I hear something concrete, I'm going to assume that this thread is based on no news or development at all. And if I were Tallichet I would not be getting out my paintbrush.

August

[mustangdriver]

Never mind then man. It was something that was announced at the volunteer meeting that I could not attend because I had to work at my every day job. I thought you all might be interested. I have learned a very valuable lesson out of this. K5083 I worked on David's B-17 for three years. Trust me if anyone needs to get a piant brush out on their B-17, it is him.

[mike furline]

Comparing the Airforce with the General Lee & Nascar is like comparing apples and oranges.
The Airforce's planes & paint were paid for with tax payer money, not so in the other cases.
Thats why the big stink, if there is any at all.

Regards,

[rwdfresno]

Mustangdriver, you still have given us no information about what the NMUSAF supposedly is doing.

Why don't you contact them yourself, get the straight dope and translate all of the legal mumbo-jumbo for us.

[rwdfresno]

The biggest bit of curiosity to me is that the image it's self is already the property of someone (Esquire Magazine or Petty's inherited estate?). There are also several other aircraft in their collection that have other pin-up ladies form various well known artists so it sure seems like unless they got permission for each of those they have some violations themselves. I would just leave well enough alone.

[k5083]

I have learned a very valuable lesson out of this.

I hope so! And I hope it's that, while we all respect your affiliation with the NMUSAF and the real info you often provide, you don't do the museum any favors by posting rumors or hearsay without the real skinny.

K5083 I worked on David's B-17 for three years. Trust me if anyone needs to get a piant brush out on their B-17, it is him.

Touche! Gotta agree 100% there.

August

Last edited by k5083 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[k5083]

Mustangdriver, you still have given us no information about what the NMUSAF supposedly is doing.

Why don't you contact them yourself, get the straight dope and translate all of the legal mumbo-jumbo for us.

The speculation on this thread went so wild that I almost did. But I don't know who speaks for the museum or the USAF on this. (By the way, I did verify that the NMUSAF is part of the USAF, not a separate organization such as a civilian non-profit. In this connection, how many of you were aware that you can use any content from the NMUSAF's website freely and without permission? Says so at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/main/disclaimer.asp.) Based on my experience, calling on the phone would only yield inconsistent gobbledygook from someone with no real authority. If there has been any real change in its position the NMUSAF is perfectly capable of getting the word out in writing. Perhaps, rather than set up a target for lawyers to shoot down, it prefers individually to call warbird owners that annoy it and bluff and posture, as entities seeking to enforce intellectual property rights (real or imagined) often do, but there's no way I can know what they're saying. If owners do get such a call, I hope they contact a good lawyer before they just roll over. But I am not accusing the NMUSAF of doing this because, as I've said, it isn't clear that it is doing anything.

August

[mustangdriver]

K5083 I agree with you about not posting rumors, and before I post stuff, I really try to sort them out. Like any other organization you all can imagine that there is a lot of rumors flying. As for this bit of info, if it had come from another volunteer I would not had said anything at all, but this came from near the top, and was addressed at the meeting. THat is why I put it up there. I really didn't mean to get people this fired up, but more see if you guys had heard of stuff like this before.

[k5083]

Boeing and other companies just lost a similar battle in court with the plactic model makers. Like was said. WE THE PEOPLE already paid for it. IMHO WE THE PEOPLE own the rights to the Belle and similar aircraft.

OD, got any details on this case? I try to keep abreast of this area.

August

[k5083]

K5083 I agree with you about not posting rumors, and before I post stuff, I really try to sort them out. Like any other organization you all can imagine that there is a lot of rumors flying. As for this bit of info, if it had come from another volunteer I would not had said anything at all, but this came from near the top, and was addressed at the meeting. THat is why I put it up there. I really didn't mean to get people this fired up, but more see if you guys had heard of stuff like this before.

Fair enough, no flame intended. I tend to get overexcited about this because it's one of the intersections of two things I love, old airplanes and law. If they put out a memo or anything, I'd love to see it.

August

[mustangdriver]

Roger that. WIll do.

[TimAPNY]

Did not the group that “owed” the Belle have a copy write over the Nose art? I remembered when I visited the Memphis Belle in 96 while at Mud Island the guy at the store saying they had a copy write on the nose art and no one could use it. If you look at the David’s Belle and the Real Belle you will notice differences, I was told those were made so it would not infringement on the copy write (look at the chick’s arm)

So my point is that David's Belle nose art is different so it would not violate the copy write.

Tim

[mustangdriver]

According to what I was told, not just the nose art, but the side codes "DF-A", and the aerial number 124485 are also in on this . I will tell you all if I hear more.