This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Speaking of the Memphis Belle

Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:25 pm

The NMUSAF just announced that the Memphis Belle, the nose art, and markings are property of the USAF. The museum stated that no aircraft should be painted as the Belle unless they have consulted the museum. I am wondering what Tallichet thinks of that.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:42 pm

Did they purchase the rights? It was an original George Petty from Esquire so I assume that someone actually has copyright to the original artwork.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:43 pm

Hmmm... that's interesting....

So... MAPS is working on a display about the Memphis Belle, do we need to get "Express Written Consent" from the Air Force Museum. :?: :?

Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:00 pm

I am not sure, but thte way it sounds, as long as you are not making money from it, like selling T-shirts or things of that nature. Selling a model kit, or something like that is fine. So are displays with the aircraft. Now the pin up girl her self is not owned by the USAF, but the pin up with the memphis Belle lettering with it is.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:05 pm

I really feel that the main event of all of this is that there is another aircraft on the airshow circuit with the Belle's markings on it, and there is not a lot of effort to inform people that this is not the real Belle.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:12 pm

How does the Airforce claim ownership of a name painted on an a/c 65 years ago?

"The noseart was painted on the Belle by Cpl. Tony Starcer. The famous logo was designed by the famous artist George Petty, who created a series of pin-up girls for Esquire Magazine know as the "Petty Girls"?

The plane was christened after Capt. Robert Morgan's girlfriend (Ms. Margaret Polk) at the time. Do Morgan or Polk get any rights or royalties?

Did the Airforce buy the rights from Cpl. Starcer?

Whats next, they own the right to camouflage & bare metal airplanes?

Regards,
Mike
Last edited by mike furline on Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:57 pm

I thought that artwork, photographs etc that were developed with federal tax dollars was public domain.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:14 pm

For those of you who might be interested, the name "Thunderbirds" and "Blue Angels" are, I believe, public domain and no royalties are given to the military for ANYONE who makes up a T-shirts, pins, hats etc. for sale.
I'm almost 99% sure, but is there any one out there to confirm this?

The Belle claim sounds like a lot of crap.
Jerry

The Belle

Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:27 pm

I smell a lawyer. This is getting really bad in this country. Its funny how tallichet has had N3703G in the belle paint for over 16 years now and the airforce comes along and declares they have the rights. Lawyers sheesh. :roll:

Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:36 pm

This sounds awful fishy to me... :evil:

It reminds me of a recent story in the Model Rail Road world. Seems the Union Pacific RxR came along and declared that no toy train manufacturers were allowed to use its logo's or markings. The UP has been a subject of toy train companies since its inception MANY years ago, and all of a sudden they got upset and demanded royalties...

Fortunetly one of the leading toy train companies stood up to the UP, and managed to change their minds, and let the toy manufacturers continue using their markings and logos...Seems the UP realized how much free marketing they had been getting for all of these years...

Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:59 pm

This has happened in the diecast model aircraft scene as well, where certain paint schemes can not be done because the family of the pilot will not allow it. I am not sure if it is true or not, but I can see the museum's point of the B-17 owned by David. He is happy to have people assume that it is the real aircraft. I have seen it first hand. As for the liscense stuff, that is what was in the meeting, so that is all I know. I can only go by what I was told from the member that was there.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:08 pm

Something else I just noticed is that the Franklin Mint model of the Memphis Belle does say that it is officially liscensed by the USAF.

Re: Speaking of the Memphis Belle

Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:12 pm

mustangdriver wrote:The NMUSAF just announced that the Memphis Belle, the nose art, and markings are property of the USAF. The museum stated that no aircraft should be painted as the Belle unless they have consulted the museum. I am wondering what Tallichet thinks of that.


Where is the official statement from the NMUSAF? Lets not get all worked up until we see that.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:36 pm

Sheesh - not them, too! Is this madness ever going to stop?!

I want to sit in the courtroom when the first case of "copyright violation" comes up. If I had a B-17, I'd paint a facsimile of the Memphis Belle (TM) right up front just to tweak the AFM. It's simply a ploy to raise money on the AFM's part.

(Starcer, BTW, was on gummit time, and everything he saw, did, created, painted, thought, or contemplated belongs to Uncle. As a GI, his art was "Work for Hire". His heirs would lose that case if they chose to pursue a "rights" claim.)

I'm sure the AFM's Friends Association lawyers and/or bean counters (Gen. Metcalf, the director and a federal employee, nor his boss at AMC, IIRC, has the authority to claim jack-squat in terms of legal rights on behalf of the government. Only SecDef's office can do that.) are trying to piggy-back on the recently successful "licen$ing" of right$ by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, et al, for the production of F-16, etc., plastic model kits that are representations of said "intellectual property". There is legislation pending that will prohibit such licensing of items by the vendor which are the result of federal contracts. Correspondence to the House and Senate conferees as part of that proposed legislation points out that the rights to license such property belongs to SecDef; nowhere are companies like LM and Boeing mentioned as having the authority to profit from their govt-contract designs. Personally, I think a major class-action may be able to recoup the licensing costs paid so far ... hmmm, wish I were a lawyer - I think the affected companies may have a case.

Similarly, there has been a flurry of activity recently on some of the artist's boards about an independent aviation artist who was asked by Lockheed Martin's marketing folks to remove his F-16 print from CafePress, insisting that the artist should have cleared his project with them first ... the "licensing" fever has reached into all manner of toys, R/C planes, and basically anything that produces a "likeness" of a "real thing".

It's apples and oranges in a way, but maybe NA$CAR fever has reached further into the business world ... try to do a painting or a model kit or anything NASCAR-related without coughing up major licensing bucks first. You think a B-2 packs a whallop? Wait till you see what NASCAR drops on you if they discover your product for sale on eBay isn't "officially licensed"! You'll then know what "shock and awe" really means! :lol:

In that vein, guess how many years it's gonna be before I do an F-16? :wink: :wink:

Wade
Last edited by Chicoartist on Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:51 pm

I too would like to see the official announcement. I can't find anything on NMUSAF's site or on Google News. The story as we have it so far doesn't quite add up for me yet.

August
Post a reply