Sorry thats copyrighted - The RAF

[Liberator]

Seems the British MOD and RAF are clamping down - no joke - literally on people misusing their precious RAF icons such as roundel and crests. Model owners have been forced to comply with MOD legal directives or face prosecution at the worst...

What is the world coming to?

The Alquadea and communists must be laughing at the western world strange clamp down on such trivial issues.

See some of the debate going on here --- http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=115793

Whats next?

[WallyB]

AIUI the thrust of the MoD's actions is to stop people using RAF insignia for commercial gain.

Some of their staff ('muppets', 'numpties', 'jobsworths', REMFs etc.) may not be able to grasp this concern and try to apply it willy-nilly, but I doubt the roundel police[sic] are going to descend on cottage decal-makers and the like. There may be some ISPs falling over each other in a rush to remove anything remotely related to RAF 'icons' but I would hope most will simply ignore the issue.

First thing, let's **** all the lawyers. WS

[CAPFlyer]

You know, I think a US principle would be good to push here. If it's something Government, then it's Public Property (i.e. no copyright can be taken on it) and thus there's no issue. I don't see why the RAF needs to have something like copyright on anything of its anyway since it's not in the business of making money. It's in the business of protecting the people of the UK and its interests. Its funding comes from the people, just like every other government agency.

[51fixer]

You know, I think a US principle would be good to push here. If it's something Government, then it's Public Property (i.e. no copyright can be taken on it) and thus there's no issue. I don't see why the RAF needs to have something like copyright on anything of its anyway since it's not in the business of making money. It's in the business of protecting the people of the UK and its interests. Its funding comes from the people, just like every other government agency.

In the UK if you want to put a UK military paint job on your aircraft you must get permission of the the MOD to do so. Even if it is a WWII A/C and a WWII paint scheme. The CAA will check that paperwork is submitted that gives approval from the MOD before issuing the airworthiness paperwork.
At least that is what was in the Spitfire paperwork when we received it.

[CDF]

What is the world coming to? Whats next?

Nothing new really, the designation ANZAC (Australian New Zealand Army Corps) was protected in 1916 by the govt of the day

At The Front in TN can't produce reproduction WW2 P41 Utilities with the Eagle Globe & Anchor (EGA) without jumping thru some major hoops

As of 2009 the Marine Corps requires a special licensing agreement to use the eagle/globe/anchor symbol on new production. This is a 30 page application, requiring a 6-9 month wait, demands we purchase a trademark and product insurance policy, install special holographic USMC labels on everything, and submit every product to them for approval.

[CAPFlyer]

I know that fighting something like this can be expensive, but At The Front might consider bringing this up with the US Patent and Trademark Office (who also covers copyright). The USMC can't license something they don't hold exclusive rights to. This was something that was brought up several years ago with the USAF logos and emblems and it was determined that no military organization holds exclusive rights to a Public Property and thus cannot enforce licensing or fees.

[ChrisDNT]

In the UK if you want to put a UK military paint job on your aircraft you must get permission of the the MOD to do so. Even if it is a WWII A/C and a WWII paint scheme. The CAA will check that paperwork is submitted that gives approval from the MOD before issuing the airworthiness paperwork.
At least that is what was in the Spitfire paperwork when we received it.

If it's the reason why British WWII warbirds always look good and right, contrary to most of the US WWII warbirds, in the end, it's not a bad thing.

[fritzthefox]

I just experienced some MOD-related takedowns from my Zazzle-based gift shop. All of my Spitfire and Hurricane t-shirts were removed from my shop. I wrote the Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights of the UK Ministry of Defence and asked for clarification, since the only use of RAF insignia in my artwork was on the planes themselves. I received this response:

"In essence, we agree, and believe that Zazzle has been a little over-officious in following our merchandising agent’s request to remove unlicensed RAF insignia from its listings. This is possibly not entirely Zazzle’s fault, as the use of trade marks on models and pictures has historically been a bit of a grey area, and the position in the US (where I believe Zazzle is based) might well be different from the law here in the UK.

So just to confirm, we have no problem with the reproduction of RAF insignia, where historically accurate, on models and pictures.

The only corollary to this is that we reserve the right to take action in respect of the commercial use of designs less than 50 years old (and particularly those less than 25 years old), as these will still be in copyright. This applies particularly to the livery of the Red Arrows and other display teams, which are some of our more commercial properties and so something we need to police quite strictly where a trader is reproducing the livery in competition to one of our official licensees."

I forwarded their response to Zazzle, and I am currently still waiting a reply.

I would like to add that the MOD responded very promptly and courteously to my inquiry...much more promptly than Zazzle's customer service. My experience with Zazzle is that they tend to err on the side of caution, but are sometimes willing to reverse their position if you can present a valid argument why the takedown was in error. It can be an infuriating process, as they will generally not provide much in the way of details at to where the bullet came. Just be patient, polite and persistent.

As a footnote, the USAF logo (not the stars and bars, but the winged logo) is also trademarked, so don't use it, either.

[WallyB]

So just to confirm, we have no problem with the reproduction of RAF insignia, where historically accurate, on models and pictures.

Excellent response from the MoD; so I withdraw my previous umm... characterizations of their staff.

[fritzthefox]

Just a footnote: I was able to get Zazzle to reverse their decision.

Once again, the Spitfire and Hurricane triumph over tyranny.

[The Inspector]

Well, it's either refreshing, or frightening to see that what I thought was just a U.S. epidemic of hair pulling, girlie slaps, and wedgie giving equally divided between the current crop of politicos and big corporations (you need a license from GM to repop a trim part for your Chevy?) so it's apparent that Three Stooges Fever is now a world wide pandemic.
Does it get any more fun than this??

[muddyboots]

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-02-02/news ... sociation/


Absolutely it gets worse. Read all six pages and if you don't want to hunt the guy down and strangle him I'll eat your hat.

[Skyraider3D]

Just a footnote: I was able to get Zazzle to reverse their decision.

Good stuff, I'm not having as much luck. They stopped answering my questions, uttering stuff like...

Unfortunately, it appears that your products titled, "spitfire mk ix","hell-for-leather (2)", and "vulcan", did not meet Zazzle's Acceptable Content Guidelines. Specifically, your products infringed upon The UK Secretary of State for Defence intellectual property rights of The Royal Air Force. This also includes all logos, insignias, badges, etc.

Zazzle has been contacted by legal and commercial rights representatives of The UK Secretary of State for Defence, and at their request, to remove products that infringe upon their rights from the Zazzle Marketplace.

I showed them this image they removed, commenting that there are no visible logos at all!



Then they answered...

Unfortunately, your products were removed due to infringement upon The UK Secretary of State for Defence intellectual property rights of The Royal Air Force. The designs contained images depicting Royal Air Force planes along with keywords used to describe the products as "raf royal air force". This was an indication the products were referencing The Royal Air Force.

Indeed I put "RAF" and "Royal Air Force" in the search tags, as that would seem logical to me. But if that's not allowed I suggested to re-instate the images but without the "Royal Air Force" keywords. Then...

Unfortunately, due to The UK Secretary of State for Defence intellectual property claim we are unable to carry or produce designs which infringe upon their rights. Your products contained images depicting Royal Air Force planes.

This made little sense and it's clear I wasn't getting anywhere with them, as they don't seem to understand themselves what's going on...

Do a search for Royal Air Force and you get hundreds of results. Do a search for Spitfire and you get thousands. For now...?

Would you mind if I quote the letter above in my next correspondence with Zazzle?

[CAPFlyer]

I had this same fight with my Bank about a year and a half ago over the "personalized" credit card I tried to submit to them. I used 3 images, 1 of them taken by me, one covered under "fair use", and 1 which I have permission to use of a Convair 580. The bank didn't allow the photos not because I used photos not taken by me, but because they depicted aircraft. When I discussed further, they said that because they "might" have logos on them, that they could be in violation of copyright and trademark laws. No amount of referencing to court cases supporting that there was no issue or sending them a copy of the Photographers Rights pamphlet could convince them that the issue's been fought in court already and there's no liability to them.

[fritzthefox]

Yes, feel free to quote that letter. Although, you may be more successful if you contact the MOD yourself (at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Copyr ... etails.htm) and ask them for permission. Perhaps if enough people badger the MOD about it, they may contact Zazzle directly and offer them more precise guidelines.

Sometimes with the POD sites, it is easier to simply re-upload an offending image than it is to argue with them. I've heard of people having their accounts axed when they became too bothersome. Always be polite. Obviously, they have a lot of wage slaves sending form letters who have neither the authority nor the inclination to reason. (I find it amusing how everyone on their content management team is named "Mike") I am half expecting to have the same images removed again by some other well-meaning, gnat-brained drone. I'm thinking of removing the keyword "RAF" from my listings, in an effort to avoid any searches by IP trolls. I'm pretty sure that's all they do...just search for trademark-related keywords and file claims against whatever comes up. For example, I've had a lot of Lockheed aircraft pulled whenever I used their proper names in the artwork or keywords, because Lockheed has trademarked phrases like "F-16 Fighting Falcon". However, I have an F-16 "Viper" shirt that has remained unscathed.

Trademark and copyright fights are becoming very dirty. The intent of IP law is to prevent confusion about a product's source, and give creators a little exclusivity. That's a good idea. But it is increasingly used to harass competitors. The internet has facilitated this by virtue of laws like the DMCA, which invert typical due process by making anyone accused of infringement guilty until proven innocent. Couple that with automated enforcement, and you have built the virtual equivalent of a neutron bomb: a killer robot that destroys ideas but leaves lawyers standing.

The collateral damage cause by the fear of litigation from expressing an idea is even worse than the laws that enable such attacks. Corporate abuse of IP law is rapidly robbing people of freedoms they had only begun to suspect they had. The internet is not unlike the wild west these days: what started with a few intrepid pioneers exploring an undiscovered country has become a gold rush of robber barons trying to stick a flag in every piece of available real estate while the natives look on in dismay.

Ironically, the industry leading this cavalry charge is the one that moved to California because it was fleeing legal harassment from Thomas Edison, who wanted to use patent law to have exclusive control over movie distribution.

Copyright law has come full circle: It began as an effort by government and the church to maintain their monopoly on the flow of information in the face of a new technological threat to their power, the printing press. Inevitably, the printers won, and copyright began to serve the new upstart publishers, to the benefit of us all. But the publishers eventually grew to form monopolies of their own, and now they react to the new technological threat in pretty much the same way. They are doomed to failure, in the long run, but not without a fight.

Never stop fighting.