Question on Volunteering for CAF

[Paul Krumrei]

paul@bt-13.org

Try paul@warbird-central.com

BT seems to be burping a bit lately.

Paul

[Young Shep]

Just to be clear, were you using the pictures in a calendar you were selling?

[Ztex]

I thought the whole idea of the stamp was to brand the airplanes in such a way that when they show up in a publication, calendar, website etc. everyone would say "Hey! that's a CAF airplane!" The CAF gets the credit for all the hard work that goes into putting the airplane in the air.

They do not have any claim on your photography. If they choose to display the aircraft in public, they take the chance that someone will photograph the thing and possibly make a buck on the photo.

Now if they claim some sort of copyright infringement of the logo and the whole original intention was to stick a large copyrighted logo out there so they could claim infringement if some one made a buck with out their say so ( ie money to the CAF) the shame on them....

They need to rethink their PR angle if that is the case.
It seems to me that they need to rethink it anyway because they have already gave Paul the what for.

In my opinion that makes a huge case against me every speaking well of the CAF as a whole...much less enticing me to spend money at their shows or px's or tour etc...

If they adopt this kind of attitude they can indeed...pound sand.

Last edited by Ztex on Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Paul Krumrei]

Just to be clear, were you using the pictures in a calendar you were selling?

Yes, I was selling my photos, I took, in a calendar.

[warbird1]

I would like to hear August's interpretation of this. He is our resident lawyer who specializes in copyright law. He can steer you straight and give you the correct information.

[Jack Cook]

Just to be clear, were you using the pictures in a calendar you were selling?

Why would that matter

[CAPFlyer]

Because, depending on the interpretation of the law, use of copyrighted or trademarked material for profit without a license is illegal.

This is something that's come up in other venues, mainly Flight Simulation and Model Railroading. In both cases, it was held that although the paint scheme of a railroad is not protected, their name and logos are and thus anything sold for profit using their logos or names would require a license. With model trains, it's pretty clear, but with the Flight Simulation, you're selling an "intangible" element much like a photograph where you're selling a representation, not anything tangible. However, that's where the people get paid the big bucks in Copyright & Trademark Law.

[Jack Cook]

Your your saying they purposely branded their a/c with their big ugly decals to claim some sort of half-*ssed copywrite

[tulsaboy]

I could be wrong, but this sounds very much to me like a whole host of well-known cases involving artists like Andy Warhol. As with his use of the clearly trademarked Campbell's Soup cans, the question was whether or not the appearance of the trademark in the work was just an element of a larger artistic work, or if the trademark was essentially the work. The other element is whether or not the CAF has the word/s "Red Tail" copyrighted. I would argue that the repeated use of that term to describe an entire squadron of P-51s would negate the CAF's ability to claim exclusive use of that phrase for marketing purposes, but I digress. If the CAF puts their airplane out where others can see it, and someone takes a photo and sells the photo, the CAF has little claim. Otherwise, someone taking a photo of Yankee Stadium and selling it would need the permission of Addias, Coca-Cola, and the other companies whose trademarked logos appear at the stadium and in photos of the stadium before selling that photo. Any photographer who has work in a publication, whether it be a newspaper, magazine or other print medium has most likely been paid for their work. It is artistic in nature, and is generally given fairly broad protection by the courts. I'd think that you'd have a pretty good case for looking at the CAF and (nicely) declining their request.

I can't see how you taking that photo and putting it on a calender and selling the calenders is any different than any other photographer taking a photo of a CAF airplane and having it published.

kevin

[ZRX61]

In my opinion that makes a huge case against me every speaking well of the CAF as a whole...much less enticing me to spend money at their shows or px's or tour etc....

I never speak well of them, they killed 2 of my friends.

Don't they actually charge people to volunteer for them?

[TonyM]

I thought the whole idea of the stamp was to brand the airplanes in such a way that when they show up in a publication, calendar, website etc. everyone would say "Hey! that's a CAF airplane!".

Ztex,

Here is the exact quote written by SB in the July 2008 Dispatch:

"Here are the objectives:

*The winged logo and words Commemorative Air Force be recognizable and readable in an air to air photo shoot--how many magazines or calendars have our aircraft in them? A lot."

Man, I hate the stupid wing logo decals.

Here is the quote that really blows my mind:

"As people strolled by the first line of aircraft, furthest from the tent, you could see that they couldn't tell if it was a CAF aircraft or not."

Wow, SB was able to read people's minds from several hundred feet away. The fact that he was able to ascertain from a distance that airshow patrons were confused about whose airplanes they were looking at is truly amazing. Maybe the airshow crowd were giving the airplanes The Look of Uniformity and SB was able to pick up on that. By the way, the airplanes in question did have the words "Commemorative Air Force" printed on them on the tail.

Back to the topic: From what I understand, if you shoot the photo, the copyright of the photo is yours. Maybe the CAF should be paying you for the exposure.

TM

[Young Shep]

Just to be clear, were you using the pictures in a calendar you were selling?

Why would that matter

Just trying to make sure I understood the circumstance. Wouldn't want to go off half-cocked.

[CAPFlyer]

First, I think volunteering is the wrong word with the CAF. Joining makes you a member and puts you in a position to be able to work around and/or possibly on the airplanes. The biggest reason for only allowing members work on the airplanes is liability, but there are others.

Also, we're only getting one (very limited) side of the story. I've still not seen anything to tell what exactly the conversation was or what the reasoning behind it was, only that Paul was asked to take down the pictures and stop selling calendars with the images due to "copyright laws". We do not know if this request came from Doug and/or the Sponsor Group or CAF HQ (it was never stated by Paul in his posts, others injected that), and we do not know if the sponsor group for the Red Tail P-51C has not entered into some sort of agreement with a merchandiser where Paul's pictures put the unit, sponsor group, and CAF at risk of being in breech of the contract. While they cannot force Paul to stop selling his images, they can ask in an attempt to ensure that the agreement is not jeopardized.

Last edited by CAPFlyer on Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Paul Krumrei]

I think it is just the big rich bully trying to stomp on me for coming up with the idea and selling it, the money doesnt go to them, so I am sure some big d i ck behind a desk was pissed off.

[Paul Krumrei]

First, I think volunteering is the wrong word with the CAF. Joining makes you a member and puts you in a position to be able to work around and/or possibly on the airplanes. The biggest reason for only allowing members work on the airplanes is liability, but there are others.

Also, we're only getting one (very limited) side of the story. I've still not seen anything to tell what exactly the conversation was or what the reasoning behind it was, only that Paul was asked to take down the pictures and stop selling calendars with the images due to "copyright laws". We do not know if this request came from Doug and/or the Sponsor Group or CAF HQ (it was never stated by Paul in his posts, others injected that), and we do not know if the sponsor group for the Red Tail P-51C has not entered into some sort of agreement with a merchandiser where Paul's pictures put the unit, sponsor group, and CAF at risk of being in breech of the contract. While they cannot force Paul to stop selling his images, they can ask in an attempt to ensure that the agreement is not jeopardized.

I was first e-mailed by Doug Rosendall via facebook to call him, with his number attached.

I attempted to call, left message.

He called me back and said specifically, people saw my posting of the calendar on Facebook and specifically the SMWCAF Facebook page of selling my calendar of the photos that I took at the return of that redtail P-51C.

He asked me if it was possible before anyone else called me or sent me a letter to take the calenders off sale because the CAF people on the project were very upset about protecting the "Red Tail" project.

He also stated that he would see what he could do to allow me to obtain permission to display my calendar in an agreement with the CAF and Red Tail project.

He wanted to call me personally before I got a letter from an attorney about it.

He was EXTREMELY nice about it, I won't lie about that. Doug I feel is a very respectful person for calling me personally.

Now, the fact is I am upset that they were mad at me and why would they tell me to take it down, I never used their logo from the redtail.org site or anything related to the project other than the photos of the plane it'sself.