Article: Yeager re-enacting right stuff 65 years later

Anthony Svihlik · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:23 am

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal - Chuck Yeager will mark the 65th anniversary of breaking the sound barrier with a special re-enactment flight Sunday from Nellis Air Force Base:

Famous pilot Yeager re-enacting right stuff 65 years later

Anthony

Flat 12x2 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:10 am

.
.
....................

Jerry O'Neill · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:06 am

Poor Capt. Vincent.

He won't even be able to mention his involvement in this re-enactment without paying royalties to CY! :lol:

hurk130 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:28 am

I like to build model airplanes and I have some friends in the aftermarket decals industry who had to make their decal sheet read:

"amorous len" then he put a couple of "G"s around the decal sheet. Just to keep from getting in trouble with CY's lawyers.

I have always wondered about a soldier (government employee) who paints something on a piece of government property over 70 years ago being able to copyright it. But I guess you can. I have also wondered how Lockheed-Martin can charge a royalty fee to a model airplane company for the North American P-51. Government funded, taxpayer paid, and again over 70 years old. Yes I know the principle behind intellectual property of the company and the history of who bought whom to get N.A. into the ownership of L-M. That is not the point. I thought "We The People" paid for this stuff already. Another example is the Apollo space program models. Bought and paid for by the American taxpayers. It use to be free advertising for the company but companies like Boeing have really been after every dime they can get. It just kind of takes a little of the magic out of building models.

To each their own.

Oh, and I have met CY 6 times from my time at Edwards and every time the meeting was the same. There will never be a 7th.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Boeing is the owner of North American, not Lockheed. But I understand your point. I think it is pretty silly, but I think they are trying to protect their brand. I really don't know why though! Maybe to keep some attorneys busy?

hurk130 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:55 am

Yes! You are right. Boeing. Thanks for the correction. I had not finished my first cup of Java yet....

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:07 am

Let him celebrate his second place. Here's one to Welch! :drink3:

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:42 am

Fouga23 wrote:

Let him celebrate his second place. Here's one to Welch! :drink3:

Wonder if he'll sue Baumgartner for going supersonic? +1 on Welch!!!!!

cwmc · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:43 am **Posts:** 322

I'd go with Wheaties just to tick off the CY fans.
Chris...

fritzthefox · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:57 pm

Part of the problem with the aircraft companies and model kits (or video games or t-shirts or whatever) is trademark law. Under the letter of the law, if they do not act to defend their trademarks, they can lose them. I think another part of the problem is simply systemic: large corporations act more like badly programmed robots than people...giant, idiot robots motivated by pure avarice that devour resources and crap pollution, smashing everything in their way. If you are violating their trademark, you are in the way.

Robbie Stuart · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:07 pm

Dam! Where is Jack, I know he will be pissed he missed this one!

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:57 pm

fritzthefox wrote:

Part of the problem with the aircraft companies and model kits (or video games or t-shirts or whatever) is trademark law. Under the letter of the law, if they do not act to defend their trademarks, they can lose them. I think another part of the problem is simply systemic: large corporations act more like badly programmed robots than people...giant, idiot robots motivated by pure avarice that devour resources and crap pollution, smashing everything in their way. If you are violating their trademark, you are in the way.

Same deal with repopped restoration badges and trim pieces for classic cars, license fees which is why a reproduced bare cab door for a 40 year old Chev C-10 is $500.00-ambulance chasers

b17engineer · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:05 pm

Just remember, Boeing is also calling the DC3 a Boeing airplane. Imagine that.

RICK

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:22 pm

Boeing refers to a 3 as part of the Boeing heritage program and are quick to correct those who do want to call it a Boeing DC-3, or a Boeing B-25. I don't know if they still do, but every month the 'centerfold' of FRONTIERS the Boeing house magazine prominently featured a heritage aircraft and always refered to them as 'a Douglas/North American/whatever..' and gave readers a concise but pretty good history of the type and the company that built that aircraft.

JohnB · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:08 pm

The Inspector wrote:

Same deal with repopped restoration badges and trim pieces for classic cars, license fees which is why a reproduced bare cab door for a 40 year old Chev C-10 is $500.00-ambulance chasers

Buy a Studebaker...

But i do agree with the silly license fees....the designs should be govt. property. But I'm guessing they have some legal leg to stand on.
I've studied enough copyright law to know I know nothing.

And to the guys who are still grioping about CY..give it a rest.
He's old and grouchy. It happens.
Back in the day, he was the man with more guts than most of the "wannabees" here put together.
He fought in two wars and tested dangerous aircraft in the days when test pilots weren't expected to live too long....and a lot of good guys died.

Warbird Information Exchange

Article: Yeager re-enacting right stuff 65 years later

Who is online