Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:58 pm
I KNEW there was a reason I gave up volunteering there. There's just too much politics in that place.
Well I can see .......
Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:32 pm
No disrepect to Mike Furline's comments:
How does the Airforce claim ownership of a name painted on an a/c 65 years ago by,
"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"?
Did the Airforce buy the rights from Cpl. Starcer?
Whats next, they own the right to camouflage & bare metal planes?
Regards,
Mike:
You raise some interesting points. First, I DONT THINK the USAF has ANYRIGHT to copyright an airplane's markings such as the Memphis Belle. The USAF is the government; the government belongs to the people (well it it used to be that way at least); Hence all those markings belong to the people. In the Copyright class I took, we learned that the Federal Govt can not copyright things. You and I can BOTH paint our B-17s as the Belle and sell prints and models of it.
HOWEVER: The USAF MUSEUM FOUNDATION (if one exists) which is a civilian organization could copyright things and donate the income to the USAF or USAFMuseum as they see fit. If they were to come up with a "NEW B-17 NOSEART" they could definately copyright it. BUT, trying NOW, 65 years later to copyright the Memphis Belle would not be successful. I mean they could file an application and it might well be approved, but trying to defend it in court may well be impossible. (a court fight may well settle this issue and lay it to rest.)
NEXT Cpl. Starcer was an employee of the AAF (forerunner of the USAF) and if he painted the Belle's nose art on company time, then the art would belong to his employer (currently USAF; assuming for a minute that they could copyright it). HOWEVER (always a however) he technically stole it from George Petty (which you all need to look at his work, VARGAS is nothing compared to him). While George Petty (or his estate) might have minded helping the war effort by having that artwork on the nose of a B-17, they may very well have minded having it STOLEN by the current USAF and sold and the income from it sent to someplace other than the Petty Estate.
At best, if the USAF had any claim at all, it may have a claim to the name "MEMPHIS BELLE" without the artwork of George Petty.
Personally I don't think the USAF has a claim to anything, but in this day and age the opinion of one man doesn't matter.
Mark H
How does the Airforce claim ownership of a name painted on an a/c 65 years ago by,
"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"?
Did the Airforce buy the rights from Cpl. Starcer?
Whats next, they own the right to camouflage & bare metal planes?
Regards,
Mike:
You raise some interesting points. First, I DONT THINK the USAF has ANYRIGHT to copyright an airplane's markings such as the Memphis Belle. The USAF is the government; the government belongs to the people (well it it used to be that way at least); Hence all those markings belong to the people. In the Copyright class I took, we learned that the Federal Govt can not copyright things. You and I can BOTH paint our B-17s as the Belle and sell prints and models of it.
HOWEVER: The USAF MUSEUM FOUNDATION (if one exists) which is a civilian organization could copyright things and donate the income to the USAF or USAFMuseum as they see fit. If they were to come up with a "NEW B-17 NOSEART" they could definately copyright it. BUT, trying NOW, 65 years later to copyright the Memphis Belle would not be successful. I mean they could file an application and it might well be approved, but trying to defend it in court may well be impossible. (a court fight may well settle this issue and lay it to rest.)
NEXT Cpl. Starcer was an employee of the AAF (forerunner of the USAF) and if he painted the Belle's nose art on company time, then the art would belong to his employer (currently USAF; assuming for a minute that they could copyright it). HOWEVER (always a however) he technically stole it from George Petty (which you all need to look at his work, VARGAS is nothing compared to him). While George Petty (or his estate) might have minded helping the war effort by having that artwork on the nose of a B-17, they may very well have minded having it STOLEN by the current USAF and sold and the income from it sent to someplace other than the Petty Estate.
At best, if the USAF had any claim at all, it may have a claim to the name "MEMPHIS BELLE" without the artwork of George Petty.
Personally I don't think the USAF has a claim to anything, but in this day and age the opinion of one man doesn't matter.
Mark H
Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:51 pm
Seems to me that the name MEMPHIS BELLE would belong to the guy who came up with it, Bob Morgan ? But wait, he was on govt time just like Starcer.
ie: it's all public domain, NMUSAF can go whistle in the wind, just more heavy handed intimidation. Somebody is getting all full of themselves !
ie: it's all public domain, NMUSAF can go whistle in the wind, just more heavy handed intimidation. Somebody is getting all full of themselves !
Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:10 am
I should have added this in my first post.
The plane was christened after Capt. Robert Morgan's girlfriend at the time(Ms. Margaret Polk). Since Ms. Polk was the inspiration for the name, can see ask to have it removed? Do Morgan or Polk have/get any rights or royalties?
Can the Airforce or anyone for that matter claim a copyright in 2007 after forgetting to do so for 65yrs? After forgetting for 65yrs, would 1943 or 2007 copyright laws apply?
Regards,
Mike
The plane was christened after Capt. Robert Morgan's girlfriend at the time(Ms. Margaret Polk). Since Ms. Polk was the inspiration for the name, can see ask to have it removed? Do Morgan or Polk have/get any rights or royalties?
Can the Airforce or anyone for that matter claim a copyright in 2007 after forgetting to do so for 65yrs? After forgetting for 65yrs, would 1943 or 2007 copyright laws apply?
Regards,
Mike
Well I think
Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:44 am
Since I never did copyright my opinion should be taken lightly.
Mrs. Polk as "inspiration". A face may launch a thousand ships, but Mrs. Polk doesn't get credit for inspiring the name. No rights or royalties
NOW: Bob Morgan (rest in peace sir) for coming up with the NAME Memphis Bell would have a copyright on that one since he came up with it. I'm not sure how the Govt employee part works in, but more than likely the name would belong tot he govt (IF they could have it).
I'm not sure which law 1943 or 2007 would apply. I'm guessing the 3007 since thats when the copyright issue came up.
If we were talking about a B17 flight manual, the potential problem is that ANYONE CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT on a govt work, but basically nobody can defend it since it is a govt work. The only real claim of copyright on something like that is: I found the manual in the basement of the National Archives. I can print copys and sell them as COPYRIGHTED. IF you want to sell a copy that you are printing, YOU NEED TO FIND YOUR OWN COPY. I did the work locating that one, you cannot copy it and sell it. You go dig in the NA and find one to copy. If it was something like a copy of the B-70 flight manual and I have the ONLY copy in the world. That one is mine and you are not going to be able to copy it.
Now on the Public domain issue, IF you do not protect your copyright, the item goes into the public domain and ANYONE can copy it. So far in 65 years nobody has copyrighted it. More than likely it would be in the public domain on that alone.
BUT just to make it even more complex (forget the public domain nobody protected it for 65 years argument), If it was a "newly discovered" B-17 one that has not had a lot of publicity, models, prints, paintings, etc (for argument try the SWOOSE and assume the same people are involved).
The USAF says you have to license the "SWOOSE" to make a model kit of it.
In steps Bob Morgan "I ordered the name applied to the B-17, I've always had the copyright"; Ms, Polk "I thoguht up the name SWOOSE, I've always had the copyright"; Sgt Solcum " I painted the lady and name SWOOSE (painted in a distinctive font he selected (like NASCAR numbers which are copyrighted because of the font of presentation) I've always had the copyright"; George Petty " I drew her first and I let Slocum paint it ONE time on one airplane, I've always had the copyright";. They all Claim they all thought they all INDIVIDUALLY HAD THE COPYRIGHT THINKING THAT NONE OF THE OTHERS HAVE A CLAIM ON IT. That would make a nice fight in court.
I do agree it is an 800 pound gorilla (USAF) in the fight. They may argue that SOMEONE NEEDS the Copyright to preserve the dignity of a war relic that men fought and died in (of course nobody got hurt in the Belle); but they would argue it represents ALL B-17s.
Giving the USAF a break that it could copyright anything. Maybe the most it could copyright specific to the BELLE would be the CODE A DF on the sides. Lets not even get into the OD green paint (which might be copyrightable as "camo" but I'd say bare metal wouldn't be). Maybe my agshade of OD green is different than theirs and would be copyrightable.
Dave Talichet -> I'd tell the USAF to pound salt since MY B-17 was painted like that since the Belle Movie of (10 or 15 years ago). Long before the USAF wanted to claim a copyright.
Next one is they will claim fighter paint jobs as copyrighted. On that note, tell them to do their own dammmm heritiage flight with their OWN P-51s( there is a nice one here at the USS Alabama which could fly with $2mill of civilain restoration or maybe $10mill of govt restoration.
Mark H
Mrs. Polk as "inspiration". A face may launch a thousand ships, but Mrs. Polk doesn't get credit for inspiring the name. No rights or royalties
NOW: Bob Morgan (rest in peace sir) for coming up with the NAME Memphis Bell would have a copyright on that one since he came up with it. I'm not sure how the Govt employee part works in, but more than likely the name would belong tot he govt (IF they could have it).
I'm not sure which law 1943 or 2007 would apply. I'm guessing the 3007 since thats when the copyright issue came up.
If we were talking about a B17 flight manual, the potential problem is that ANYONE CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT on a govt work, but basically nobody can defend it since it is a govt work. The only real claim of copyright on something like that is: I found the manual in the basement of the National Archives. I can print copys and sell them as COPYRIGHTED. IF you want to sell a copy that you are printing, YOU NEED TO FIND YOUR OWN COPY. I did the work locating that one, you cannot copy it and sell it. You go dig in the NA and find one to copy. If it was something like a copy of the B-70 flight manual and I have the ONLY copy in the world. That one is mine and you are not going to be able to copy it.
Now on the Public domain issue, IF you do not protect your copyright, the item goes into the public domain and ANYONE can copy it. So far in 65 years nobody has copyrighted it. More than likely it would be in the public domain on that alone.
BUT just to make it even more complex (forget the public domain nobody protected it for 65 years argument), If it was a "newly discovered" B-17 one that has not had a lot of publicity, models, prints, paintings, etc (for argument try the SWOOSE and assume the same people are involved).
The USAF says you have to license the "SWOOSE" to make a model kit of it.
In steps Bob Morgan "I ordered the name applied to the B-17, I've always had the copyright"; Ms, Polk "I thoguht up the name SWOOSE, I've always had the copyright"; Sgt Solcum " I painted the lady and name SWOOSE (painted in a distinctive font he selected (like NASCAR numbers which are copyrighted because of the font of presentation) I've always had the copyright"; George Petty " I drew her first and I let Slocum paint it ONE time on one airplane, I've always had the copyright";. They all Claim they all thought they all INDIVIDUALLY HAD THE COPYRIGHT THINKING THAT NONE OF THE OTHERS HAVE A CLAIM ON IT. That would make a nice fight in court.
I do agree it is an 800 pound gorilla (USAF) in the fight. They may argue that SOMEONE NEEDS the Copyright to preserve the dignity of a war relic that men fought and died in (of course nobody got hurt in the Belle); but they would argue it represents ALL B-17s.
Giving the USAF a break that it could copyright anything. Maybe the most it could copyright specific to the BELLE would be the CODE A DF on the sides. Lets not even get into the OD green paint (which might be copyrightable as "camo" but I'd say bare metal wouldn't be). Maybe my agshade of OD green is different than theirs and would be copyrightable.
Dave Talichet -> I'd tell the USAF to pound salt since MY B-17 was painted like that since the Belle Movie of (10 or 15 years ago). Long before the USAF wanted to claim a copyright.
Next one is they will claim fighter paint jobs as copyrighted. On that note, tell them to do their own dammmm heritiage flight with their OWN P-51s( there is a nice one here at the USS Alabama which could fly with $2mill of civilain restoration or maybe $10mill of govt restoration.
Mark H
Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:04 am
The difference here between the US Government and say NASCAR as a comparison, is that the US Government works for me and you and it paid for by us.
I want my cut of the royalties....and in fact I think I want the Belle too
I want my cut of the royalties....and in fact I think I want the Belle too
Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:54 am
Dan, I agree that the US Govt is paid for by us. As to working for us,... I don't know, recent dealings might suggest otherwise.
Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:06 am
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.
Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:24 am
My goodness. So many opinions, so little information.
I actually know my way around this area and have some ideas about what might be going on, but I want more facts and anyway, a lot of folks here have no use for lawyers, so perhaps I'd better keep my views to myself and just post some more airplane pictures.
I will provide one hint. The NMUSAF cannot copyright things, but it can own trademarks. In fact it is currently the owner of at least six trademarks related to "Memphis Belle" (all originally registered by the Belle's previous caretakers in Memphis). Trademark, not copyright, is the device resorted to by the CAF to assert ownership of its own nose art collection.
August
I actually know my way around this area and have some ideas about what might be going on, but I want more facts and anyway, a lot of folks here have no use for lawyers, so perhaps I'd better keep my views to myself and just post some more airplane pictures.
I will provide one hint. The NMUSAF cannot copyright things, but it can own trademarks. In fact it is currently the owner of at least six trademarks related to "Memphis Belle" (all originally registered by the Belle's previous caretakers in Memphis). Trademark, not copyright, is the device resorted to by the CAF to assert ownership of its own nose art collection.
August
Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:24 am
mustangdriver wrote: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,
Precisely.
I think the motivation behind this effort may simply be to "De-robe" 44-83546 of her "Memphis Belle" markings.
Kind of a coincidence that this is happening (if it is) and the "Memphis Belle" (G) is coming to the Dayton Air Show this July.
Hmmmm wouldn't you say?
http://www.usats.org/pages/02_perfomers/staticAircraft.html#
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:54 am
Hi,
I think that before some folks get all upset and combative maybe someone should e-mail the museum and get the info from an official source not the he said she said crap that can boil over in a heart beat. the National Museum of the United States Air Force is not ran by the Air Force it is a total seperate organization. They get alot of support and donations from the Air Force but are not under their control.
The museum has made some major expansions over the last few years but you hardly hear any praise about that. What I do hear is how anytime they put their foot down or make a stand on something emotions flair up and opinions run wild. It's much better to find out the facts before you fill in the blanks. If they want to protect their interests they have every right to, and again they are a non profit organization not ran by the Air Force or U.S. government. Alot of emotions were expresed over Swamp Ghost and how General Metcalf should use his big brother powers to seize it the truth is they have to negotiate for everything that they get. They won't come to your home and arrest you and take what they want like some other groups have done in the past.
I have found the staff to be very proffesional and supportive to work with not some heavy handed power freaks. It's very easy to make opinions on how the world should be but in reality few if any other museums have made as much progress as they have under the current leadership of the last few years.
Thanks Mike
I think that before some folks get all upset and combative maybe someone should e-mail the museum and get the info from an official source not the he said she said crap that can boil over in a heart beat. the National Museum of the United States Air Force is not ran by the Air Force it is a total seperate organization. They get alot of support and donations from the Air Force but are not under their control.
The museum has made some major expansions over the last few years but you hardly hear any praise about that. What I do hear is how anytime they put their foot down or make a stand on something emotions flair up and opinions run wild. It's much better to find out the facts before you fill in the blanks. If they want to protect their interests they have every right to, and again they are a non profit organization not ran by the Air Force or U.S. government. Alot of emotions were expresed over Swamp Ghost and how General Metcalf should use his big brother powers to seize it the truth is they have to negotiate for everything that they get. They won't come to your home and arrest you and take what they want like some other groups have done in the past.
I have found the staff to be very proffesional and supportive to work with not some heavy handed power freaks. It's very easy to make opinions on how the world should be but in reality few if any other museums have made as much progress as they have under the current leadership of the last few years.
Thanks Mike
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:03 am
I agree with you Mike; however I don't think you are correct about the relationship between the NMUSAF and the USAF. The Foundation is more what you describe, but it is not the museum, merely a fundraising body that supports the museum. This however does raise the question: who, if anyone, is doing the talking here?
So far we have nothing but an unsubstantiated rumor that ANYTHING has happened.
August
So far we have nothing but an unsubstantiated rumor that ANYTHING has happened.
August
Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:36 pm
This can't be aimed at just Tallichet, remember that Sally-B has her starboard side painted as Belle as well.
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:35 pm
Guys, guys, guys. This is what I was told from a person high up at the museum. Now, the museum is not claiming rights to the aircraft nose art, it is the USAF that is. I don't know if it will be on a website, but call and ask. The person I know called me right after the meeting to tell me that. This happens all the time. Look at Marine's Dream. It doesn't carry the correct side numbers because of a similar event. How about Glamorous Glennis, which had a name change for an event like this. I am not saying that the USAF is right, but let's face it if you would paint your car like richard petty's old car, I bet you might get in trouble. I know of several cases where cars got inpounded in CA for being painted like the General Lee from the Dukes of hazzard, I actually got permission to paint my charger like that from WB before I did it. A paint scheme can be copy righted. The museum doesn't really have much to do with this other tan it is our aircraft. To be honest, we don't care, just so the plane gets restored. I just thought you all might find this interesting.
Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:51 am
mustangdriver wrote:but let's face it if you would paint your car like richard petty's old car, I bet you might get in trouble. I know of several cases where cars got inpounded in CA for being painted like the General Lee from the Dukes of hazzard, I actually got permission to paint my charger like that from WB before I did it. A paint scheme can be copy righted.
Sorry MD,
I think I'm gonna have to through the BullShit flag on the play.
I'm not saying you didn't ask permission. but I don't think they are impounding peoples cars. Is the scheme copyrighted? Sure I bet it is.
But I don't think WB cares if you or any other Joe Schmo paints their Charger like the "General". As long as it is for personal use but if you're doing it to for some sort of financial gain then that's a horse of a different color.
No one is gonna tell me how i can and cannot paint my car or airplane.
Not in this country.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Last edited by Shay on Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.