Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:43 am
yeah, but then I would have to get a model release of copyright and a release for the PT-22. LOL!!! 
Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:32 am
Paul Krumrei wrote:yeah, but then I would have to get a model release of copyright and a release for the PT-22. LOL!!!
Finding a model is the easy part. There are plenty of hotties around who are either pilots or in aviation related jobs who are not professional models. Here is an example of what you can find:
http://www.fbo-hotties.com/latest.aspx
If they were willing to have their provocative pictures plastered all over the internet, they probably wouldn't have a problem making a calendar shoot. The hard part will be finding an owner who is willing to let you shoot their aircraft and not wanting all of the profits!
Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:47 am
Did I say "CAF"? I didn't think so. Altho, I bet if he offered them a royalty, they'd shut up.
Young Shep wrote:famvburg wrote:Now, it's "hey, this guy's putting our airplane on his calender, I wonder how much we can charge him! It's a sad state of affairs. I think I'd at least make them spend money on a lawyer before I gave in, tho. KMA!
Who said that? No where have a read that he CAF is trying to charge him.
Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:54 am
Do like sellers of copies of copyrighted materials on eBay do. "I'm not charging for the item itself, but I'm charging for the cost of materials & time to make the copies. I AM NOT SELLING THE CONTENT!" Or something like that. 
Paul Krumrei wrote:I think this has gone way to far in what my original questions were.
1. I never bashed the CAF or any members, including Doug R. whom I have a the highest respect for.
2. I never meant to get people so F'n wound up to where personal attacks were taking place and bashing the CAF.
3. I obvisouly made a bad choice in venting my frustration, because 1. I am jobless, 2. I am trying to make a couple of bucks with some photos I took.
4. I decided to end this with nothing but the highest reguards to all those who keep the aircraft, CAF and NON CAF warbirds flying, it is a hellava job and I am glad you folks do it.
I dont want to be seen as a lone individual trying to piss on anyones head about anything.
So please guys, the CAF bashing can stop each of has an opinion and I ask that this stop to save face.
Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:31 am
To Ryan Keough...
Fantastic post. Agree 100%.
Also, from what I see around me, I think a lot of non-profits are trying to find ways to just maintain their existence right now.
Ryan S.
Fantastic post. Agree 100%.
Also, from what I see around me, I think a lot of non-profits are trying to find ways to just maintain their existence right now.
Ryan S.
Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:01 am
To me the cover looks like it represents the CAF and Red Tail Project and not really a personal calendar. I think people who purchase the calendar may think that the proceeds are going to the Red Tail Project or sponsored by the Red Tail Project.
Eric
Eric
Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:28 am
Paul Krumrei wrote:yeah, but then I would have to get a model release of copyright and a release for the PT-22. LOL!!!
there's a PT-22 in that picture??????
Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:01 pm
I know for a fact that the owner of the P51 featured in the Breitling watch adverts didn't get a penny. Of course they chose a pic that doesn't show the N# etc.
Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:05 pm
Except for a bit of bashing 
Overall quite an entertaining thread to read.
The interesting part is that no one has "A" definitive answer.
And I am sure we all fell no one is really right or wrong. We just each have our own perspectives based on our point in time interests.
The difficult part is seeing & understanding ( & respecting ) others point of view on certain "aspect" of what we fell is acceptable or not. Even legal or not.
Dad always told me there are 3 faces to a coin: heads...tail....and the thickness side. Which can give us the needed perspective to at least try to understand the other side point of view which we call wrong directly from the get go.
Now that was funny Ryan
You really did get a written approval from MUDGE Inc. 2009 ?
Sorry for the bad choice of limited / repetitive words...English not being the native one.
Overall quite an entertaining thread to read.
The interesting part is that no one has "A" definitive answer.
And I am sure we all fell no one is really right or wrong. We just each have our own perspectives based on our point in time interests.
The difficult part is seeing & understanding ( & respecting ) others point of view on certain "aspect" of what we fell is acceptable or not. Even legal or not.
Dad always told me there are 3 faces to a coin: heads...tail....and the thickness side. Which can give us the needed perspective to at least try to understand the other side point of view which we call wrong directly from the get go.
Ryan the Obesely Verbose
(copyright MUDGE Inc. 2009. All Rights Reserved.)
Now that was funny Ryan
You really did get a written approval from MUDGE Inc. 2009 ?
Sorry for the bad choice of limited / repetitive words...English not being the native one.
Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:52 pm
copyright law is very vague and due largely to interpretation.., it all depends on the judge you get!
Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:05 pm
I have been flying non-stop since this $hitstorm started.... I got an email about it, but did not have a chance to come here and see for myself.
It is with great trepidation that I reply..... But I want to clarify a couple things.... First off Paul has bent over backward to say that I was polite to him.... Thank you....
Paul did however use the word "mad" I don't recall using that word.... if I did it was in error... no one was mad..... We had a very polite conversation and I thought this would be resolved without any hassles.
I won't belabor the reasons why The CAF needs to protect its trademarks, others have made that point effectively. Any professional artist should understand and be sensitive to the protection of intellectual property.
In closing, to those of you who spend your idle hours bashing the CAF and other museums who make the tough descisions needed to restore and fly warbirds in this economy, I reply...
This mess is exactly why I spend my spare time, donate money, and fly for museums like the CAF, the Fargo Air Museum, Lonestar, and the Collings foundation, rather than sorting through the mountains of BS to find the few nuggets of wisdom that might be found here....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
It is with great trepidation that I reply..... But I want to clarify a couple things.... First off Paul has bent over backward to say that I was polite to him.... Thank you....
Paul did however use the word "mad" I don't recall using that word.... if I did it was in error... no one was mad..... We had a very polite conversation and I thought this would be resolved without any hassles.
I won't belabor the reasons why The CAF needs to protect its trademarks, others have made that point effectively. Any professional artist should understand and be sensitive to the protection of intellectual property.
In closing, to those of you who spend your idle hours bashing the CAF and other museums who make the tough descisions needed to restore and fly warbirds in this economy, I reply...
This mess is exactly why I spend my spare time, donate money, and fly for museums like the CAF, the Fargo Air Museum, Lonestar, and the Collings foundation, rather than sorting through the mountains of BS to find the few nuggets of wisdom that might be found here....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal