Nose art
Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:41 am
I'm mostly a lurker here because I'm not involved with Warbirds, but I have a question you all might be able to help me with. I am an artist that specializes in comic book girly art. I am interested in doing a book with recreated pin-up nose art, specifically the politically incorrect pieces. Is there any potential legal trouble in doing this? All the art would be mine and only inspired by the originals. However, the names and logos would be the same. If it becomes a case of not being able to publish the work, I will post the art on the internet.
Also, I have a limited collection of nose art, so any photos and aircraft info you can provide would be awesome.
Here is a sample of my art.
Also, I have a limited collection of nose art, so any photos and aircraft info you can provide would be awesome.
Here is a sample of my art.
???
Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:46 am
Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am
Excellent! That Thunderbolt is priceless. Any info on that one?
Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:38 am
Hello Matt,
Terrific artwork. I particularly like the Hurricane and the 109.
Mudge the aesthete
Terrific artwork. I particularly like the Hurricane and the 109.
Mudge the aesthete
Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:08 am
Thanks Mudge. I'd like to do more combat illustrations in the future.
Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:37 am
Matt-
To attempt to answer one of your questions, no, you shouldn't have any legal troubles using original WWII nose art in your artwork, which would legally be considered a derivative work (especially if it could be considered parody). Many of the original pinup-style nose artists simply used a Vargas original or other artist's drawings as inspiration. They often modified the pinups, but many are just flat copies. As long as you steer away from the Memphis Belle (and let's not get that started again) you should be fine. If you were painting/ drawing a historical work, where the aircraft were depicted in their historically accurate paint, you would be completely legally entitled to use their nose art. It would be no different than painting a picture of a main street scene, with various corporate logos depicted on the buildings as they truly are. While the logos are protected, your use of them is considered fair.
kevin
To attempt to answer one of your questions, no, you shouldn't have any legal troubles using original WWII nose art in your artwork, which would legally be considered a derivative work (especially if it could be considered parody). Many of the original pinup-style nose artists simply used a Vargas original or other artist's drawings as inspiration. They often modified the pinups, but many are just flat copies. As long as you steer away from the Memphis Belle (and let's not get that started again) you should be fine. If you were painting/ drawing a historical work, where the aircraft were depicted in their historically accurate paint, you would be completely legally entitled to use their nose art. It would be no different than painting a picture of a main street scene, with various corporate logos depicted on the buildings as they truly are. While the logos are protected, your use of them is considered fair.
kevin
Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:57 pm
Nice art Matt.
If I could offer a suggestion, try not to modernize them too much if you are recreating them. They won't look nearly as good if they look too digital, IMO.
If I could offer a suggestion, try not to modernize them too much if you are recreating them. They won't look nearly as good if they look too digital, IMO.
Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:03 pm
Re: ???
Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:11 pm
Jack Cook wrote:
No wonder the Air Force (back in WWII) tried to ban these cuties several times and I'm glad they didn't succeed...
Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:28 pm
Matt Martin wrote:Excellent! That Thunderbolt is priceless. Any info on that one?
Hi Matt. Welcome to WIX. Grab a stool; first round's on me.
The Jug in question actually has dual nose art. Port side had one lass and "2 Big & Too Heavy"; the other side was "Short Snorter" with a different pin-up.
The bird was 488043 of the 333rdFS/318thFG. Her first pilot was Lt. Wayne Duerschmidt and later Lt. John D.K. Bruner.
Here are a few more peeks at her. The squadron carried just the yellow vertical at first--the black and yellow stripes on the entire empennage came later.
http://www.web-birds.com/7th/318/2Big.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/ ... 1271024506
Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:51 pm
WOW! I love your drawings Mind if I use your Supergirl as nose-art on my flight simulator spitfire? Personal use only.
Mind if I use your Supergirl as nose-art on my flight simulator spitfire? Personal use only.
Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:46 pm
tulsaboy - Thanks for your thoughts in the legal department. That sounds about right, but you can never be too careful.
Django - I see your point, but my goal IS to modernize them and add my own style to them so that I can grab the interest of the guys in my generation that enjoy my work and introduce them to some amazing history.
Dan K - Thanks for the info on the Jug. I can't believe I had never seen this plane before!
Fouga23 - Do as you will. I'm glad you like it!
Here's a few I'd like to work on...
Django - I see your point, but my goal IS to modernize them and add my own style to them so that I can grab the interest of the guys in my generation that enjoy my work and introduce them to some amazing history.
Dan K - Thanks for the info on the Jug. I can't believe I had never seen this plane before!
Fouga23 - Do as you will. I'm glad you like it!
Here's a few I'd like to work on...
Re: Nose art
Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:02 pm
Another take on the legal issues.
The pinups were artwork and as tulsaboy says, they vary in their degree of originality. There probably are some people out there (or their heirs) with some rights in them, but most of them don't even realize it and it isn't likely they would enforce them.
Tulsaboy is right about the Belle and also watch out for several bits of nose art which are in the Commemorative Air Force collection and as to which they have registered trademarks. Whether those marks are valid or not, you may desire not to antagonize them.
Also, original artwork applied to warbirds by latter-day restorers and operators is subject to copyright and they might be inclined to enforce their rights to protect their own souvenir sales, so I'd avoid anything that I see on a restored warbird unless it's a faithful copy of a WWII original. I.e. don't do "Ol' 927".
Finally, if the WWII original is a very close copy of, say, a Vargas pinup, then the original nose-art painter might not have much of a right in it, but Vargas's heirs (or Esquire magazine, or whoever) still may. Vargas and Esquire blessed the use of their artwork by wartime servicemen wishing to adorn their aircraft but they wouldn't necessarily bless the copying of it by a modern artist, even if filtered through airplane nose art.
Posting the art in the net may constitute publication and will still be infringement as to any work that you couldn't publish. Many people don't seem to realize this.
Good luck and have fun!
August
The pinups were artwork and as tulsaboy says, they vary in their degree of originality. There probably are some people out there (or their heirs) with some rights in them, but most of them don't even realize it and it isn't likely they would enforce them.
Tulsaboy is right about the Belle and also watch out for several bits of nose art which are in the Commemorative Air Force collection and as to which they have registered trademarks. Whether those marks are valid or not, you may desire not to antagonize them.
Also, original artwork applied to warbirds by latter-day restorers and operators is subject to copyright and they might be inclined to enforce their rights to protect their own souvenir sales, so I'd avoid anything that I see on a restored warbird unless it's a faithful copy of a WWII original. I.e. don't do "Ol' 927".
Finally, if the WWII original is a very close copy of, say, a Vargas pinup, then the original nose-art painter might not have much of a right in it, but Vargas's heirs (or Esquire magazine, or whoever) still may. Vargas and Esquire blessed the use of their artwork by wartime servicemen wishing to adorn their aircraft but they wouldn't necessarily bless the copying of it by a modern artist, even if filtered through airplane nose art.
Matt Martin wrote:If it becomes a case of not being able to publish the work, I will post the art on the internet.
Posting the art in the net may constitute publication and will still be infringement as to any work that you couldn't publish. Many people don't seem to realize this.
Good luck and have fun!
August
Re: Nose art
Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:41 pm
k5083 wrote:Another take on the legal issues.
The pinups were artwork and as tulsaboy says, they vary in their degree of originality. There probably are some people out there (or their heirs) with some rights in them, but most of them don't even realize it and it isn't likely they would enforce them.
I don't believe the creators or even the heirs for that matter have a leg to stand on.
The "Nose Art" was painted on a military aircraft (by military service members). Paid for by the tax payers of the US and thus making the aircraft property of the Taxpayers or in other words "Public Domain". Anything i created while I was in the NAVY at work using governement materials doesn't belong to me
There is no personal copyright on things of public domain. Regarding the "Belle". Same thing, it's owned by the government and equaly by all American citizens.
The possible caveat to this might be the art applied by Disney Artists. But then again the canvas upon which the paint was applied was owned by Uncle Sam.
If I'm wrong and someone has proof i'd love to read it.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:24 pm
Small point to debate with you, Shay...
While I will quickly concede that much of the nose art on WWII aircraft was painted by military personnel on U.S. military aircraft, such a situation does not necessarily dictate that the artist lost any/all copyright in the creation. My understanding is that if an employee of the U.S. government, as part of their job or in the normal course of their job creates a logo, design or other work of art, that piece is property of the U.S. government and comes into the public domain. In WWII, however, few of the artists (any?) were hired by the military to be nose art painters. Many crews got local civilian artists to paint the nose art or hired a squadron member to paint the nose art on his free time. In such situations, though on government property, the copyright on the art itself would not be the property of the U.S. government and thus not in the public domain. When professional artists are hired to create a piece of art for a new government building, monument etc. their contract will have very specific language that will dictate who retains the copyright in the work. As none (that I know of) of the nose artists had contracts with the government that dictated such terms, the assumption would remain that the artist retained the copyright for his/herself.
At the end of the day, however, all of this remains mostly an academic exercise. I agree with K5083 that there is a theoretical interest in the copyright that might be held by Vargas' heirs for noseart inspired/copied from one of his original works, but again the issue is probably academic. With the Belle, anyone can create an original work of art that depicts the Belle in combat, on war tour, in Memphis, at Dayton etc. Such use of the Belle and its nose art is "fair use." What you can't do, however, is put the Belle's nose art on a coffee mug and sell it at the next airshow.
kevin
While I will quickly concede that much of the nose art on WWII aircraft was painted by military personnel on U.S. military aircraft, such a situation does not necessarily dictate that the artist lost any/all copyright in the creation. My understanding is that if an employee of the U.S. government, as part of their job or in the normal course of their job creates a logo, design or other work of art, that piece is property of the U.S. government and comes into the public domain. In WWII, however, few of the artists (any?) were hired by the military to be nose art painters. Many crews got local civilian artists to paint the nose art or hired a squadron member to paint the nose art on his free time. In such situations, though on government property, the copyright on the art itself would not be the property of the U.S. government and thus not in the public domain. When professional artists are hired to create a piece of art for a new government building, monument etc. their contract will have very specific language that will dictate who retains the copyright in the work. As none (that I know of) of the nose artists had contracts with the government that dictated such terms, the assumption would remain that the artist retained the copyright for his/herself.
At the end of the day, however, all of this remains mostly an academic exercise. I agree with K5083 that there is a theoretical interest in the copyright that might be held by Vargas' heirs for noseart inspired/copied from one of his original works, but again the issue is probably academic. With the Belle, anyone can create an original work of art that depicts the Belle in combat, on war tour, in Memphis, at Dayton etc. Such use of the Belle and its nose art is "fair use." What you can't do, however, is put the Belle's nose art on a coffee mug and sell it at the next airshow.
kevin