Nose Art Copyright/Trademark laws
Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:21 pm
Hey all,
I didn't want to hijack Second Air Force's CAF Airshow 1984 thread showing the nose art panels but I have a question for those who might know.
What is the rule with nose art trademark rights/copyrights? Are these designs protected by law or does anyone have the right to reproduce them?
I realize it would be a breach of etiquitte to reproduce someone's custom (non-historical) work but what about either historical designs, i.e. "Memphis Belle" or current museum designs, i.e. "Yankee Lady," "Thunderbird," etc?
Another question of your opinions. If there is no trademark/copyright issues would it be frowned upon to do recreation panels of said designs?
...ding ding ding, Round 1.
Regards,
Mark Popejoy
I didn't want to hijack Second Air Force's CAF Airshow 1984 thread showing the nose art panels but I have a question for those who might know.
What is the rule with nose art trademark rights/copyrights? Are these designs protected by law or does anyone have the right to reproduce them?
I realize it would be a breach of etiquitte to reproduce someone's custom (non-historical) work but what about either historical designs, i.e. "Memphis Belle" or current museum designs, i.e. "Yankee Lady," "Thunderbird," etc?
Another question of your opinions. If there is no trademark/copyright issues would it be frowned upon to do recreation panels of said designs?
...ding ding ding, Round 1.
Regards,
Mark Popejoy
Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:32 pm
Mark,
This is in no way aimed at you, but at bomb-throwing that may occur on this thread because of my photo sharing.
Everyone else,
I did NOT post the photos of the CAF nose art collection from '84 as some form of political/legal action on my part. I merely wanted to share pictures we took that week with everyone on WIX, and I still think the panels looked cool displayed in the hangar. I mention this only to let everyone know that I will pull the pictures out of my Photobucket album if people start a slam-fest about the copyrighting issue.
Thanks,
Scott
This is in no way aimed at you, but at bomb-throwing that may occur on this thread because of my photo sharing.
Everyone else,
I did NOT post the photos of the CAF nose art collection from '84 as some form of political/legal action on my part. I merely wanted to share pictures we took that week with everyone on WIX, and I still think the panels looked cool displayed in the hangar. I mention this only to let everyone know that I will pull the pictures out of my Photobucket album if people start a slam-fest about the copyrighting issue.
Thanks,
Scott
No flaming allowed
Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:49 pm
Scott,
I appologize if that is the way it came across. That was not my intention and is the reason I started a new thread instead of hijacking yours. I dont think you should get rid of those pictures. I think they are absolutely awesome.
I posed the question because I am working on a reproduction panel as we speak and I plan on using a certain design from a museum bird for my personal enjoyment.
I would like to do some to sell (depending on how it turns out) but dont want to have a process server knocking on my door for I dont have the time or money to spend in court.
Just trying to get some help on the matter as well as opinions on the reproduction issue.
Regards,
Mark
I appologize if that is the way it came across. That was not my intention and is the reason I started a new thread instead of hijacking yours. I dont think you should get rid of those pictures. I think they are absolutely awesome.
I posed the question because I am working on a reproduction panel as we speak and I plan on using a certain design from a museum bird for my personal enjoyment.
I would like to do some to sell (depending on how it turns out) but dont want to have a process server knocking on my door for I dont have the time or money to spend in court.
Just trying to get some help on the matter as well as opinions on the reproduction issue.
Regards,
Mark
Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:13 pm
Mark,
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Period. You are trying to find out the proper way to keep your "ducks in a row", and I commend you for it.
My disclaimer, for what it was worth, was not aimed at you in any way. We've seen folks get so wrapped up with one side or the other of many issues on the forum and things descend into an argument. That is the only thing I was attempting to head off at the pass.
Sorry!
Scott
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Period. You are trying to find out the proper way to keep your "ducks in a row", and I commend you for it.
My disclaimer, for what it was worth, was not aimed at you in any way. We've seen folks get so wrapped up with one side or the other of many issues on the forum and things descend into an argument. That is the only thing I was attempting to head off at the pass.
Sorry!
Scott
Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:19 pm
Understood,
Thanks
Mark
Thanks
Mark
?????
Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:53 pm
Did I miss something????
The CAF nose webpage is blocked here.
Jack the clueless
The CAF nose webpage is blocked here.
Jack the clueless
Re: ?????
Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:13 pm
Jack Cook wrote:Did I miss something????
The CAF nose webpage is blocked here.
Jack the clueless
Must be porrn filters on your computer, Jack? Worked fine for me.
www.savethegirls.org
???
Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:33 pm
the word naked set the freaking alarms off 
Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:10 pm
Jack and others - that is why the AAHM nose art website has its own domain - www.savethegirls.org - and is not a part of the main museum website.
Randy
Randy
Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:57 pm
Some of the issue may be definitions of 'art'. I think most of us expect to be able to photograph in most museums, but generally you can't take photos in art galleries.
Generally, I don't think there's any issue of someone creating a copy of an artwork for personal amusement etc, certainly by the original method (painting onto a panel, by hand). However most galleries can get tricky if you copy the artwork and resell it - although adapting it seems to be a loophole - moustache on the Mona Lisa on a T shirt etc.
As Randy posted, I don't see how the CAF could claim copyright ownership on 60 year old artwork not created for them. But I'm wary of getting to definitive on the topic!
And just another wrinkle - some nose art isn't 'original' itself, being copies of Vargas paintings etc. On that basis, it's important that th e nose art owner can prove sufficient originality of their work to have rights over re-use or copying.
Just some random thoughts...
Generally, I don't think there's any issue of someone creating a copy of an artwork for personal amusement etc, certainly by the original method (painting onto a panel, by hand). However most galleries can get tricky if you copy the artwork and resell it - although adapting it seems to be a loophole - moustache on the Mona Lisa on a T shirt etc.
Randy Wilson wrote:Steve - no copyrights but what I believe are trademarks. There is a difference. Photographs are not allowed in the Nose Art Gallery but are in the rest of the museum.
If you would like to visit with the museum staff on any of this, just PM me and I'll be happy to help get you in contact.
As Randy posted, I don't see how the CAF could claim copyright ownership on 60 year old artwork not created for them. But I'm wary of getting to definitive on the topic!
And just another wrinkle - some nose art isn't 'original' itself, being copies of Vargas paintings etc. On that basis, it's important that th e nose art owner can prove sufficient originality of their work to have rights over re-use or copying.
Just some random thoughts...
Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:26 pm
I've posted on thsi issue before...........
I was a lawyer for a long time, I didn't do copyright, but I basically understand the general principles....
First CAF CANNOT CLAIM the COPYRIGHT on the noseart that came from the airplane being cut up.
That copyright belongs to the people who did the art. More than likely they were soldiers who did it ON THEIR OWN TIME, (I don't recall any MOS for NOSEARTARTIST). Without getting into these being DERIVATIVE WORKS from Vargas or George Petty (Memphis Belle).
WHAT the CAF has and can claim is the fact that THEY OWN and control the physical paintings. They are not on PUBLIC DISPLAY and are not visible from a public street (they are inside a private CAF building). Hence they can CONTROL if you can take pictures of them or not. To stregnthen their position they have also spent money to actually restore those "paintings". I was there a few months back and NO PICTURES. They had video cameras there watching people to see if they took pics or not......... Current pics are OUT. Take one, publish it or print it and the CAF can take legal action against you.
The 1984 pictures are a DIFFERENT. Back then, I would assume that there were no restrictions on the pictures you could take. Hence you can do anything you want with the pictures that were taken when taking photos and the use of them was NOT RESTRICTED.
If you owned a B-17 or B-24 and wanted to paint it with one of those "images", there is nothing the CAF could do to stop you. If you wanted to create minature nose art wall hangings (as some are doing now) with those images, there is nothing they can do to stop you.
The only way they could stop you is if you sneak a camera in and take a picture of the nose art now (with the no photo restriction) and use that PARTICULAR IMAGE to make your "image". If you worked from a 1984 picture, a 1945 picture, or had the original artist sketch another (or your new artist do one). They can't stop you.
The same goes for NAMES on the planes, they can't do anything if you name your plane the same as a historical one they have original art from.
Something to think about........
Directories. If you want to make a phone book of your own by going door to door or otherwise collecting the information, you can and ATT cannot stop you. The information is out there and you only have to gather it. BUT if you copy an ATT Directory and call it yours, you can't do it. Guess what? Phone books (and maps) have built in errors to protect them against copying. I've seen one error in Pennsylvania and one in Virginia that I know of on maps (towns that DO NOT EXIST).......
"ART" Actual paintings on canvas are works that are copyrighted. JDK IS WRONG and you cannot make a copy for personal enjoyment (known as a derivative work). Art gallaries are off limits to cameras (except for ones that may allow photos of "OLD" works (well outside of copyright expiration generally the creator's life plus 75 years in the USA). Say you have the Mona Lisa hanging in your art gallery, you are not going to allow anyone to take a picture of it. If someone wants one, they can BUY the picture or other image from you to put in a book or magazine, since you own the original you control the use of the image. (bear in mind that there may be a 1930 photo of the Mona Lisa you can use too (not controlled by the gallery since it was made before they had ownerhip of it), but if you want a current one, you need to pay the entity that owns the original.
Me, I've commissioned paintings that I thought up and an artist painted. I own the canvas and the artist stll has the copyright. He can make prints of the images, etc....... I can't (unless I did it as a "work for hire" where I retained the copyright).
Mark H
Mark H
I was a lawyer for a long time, I didn't do copyright, but I basically understand the general principles....
First CAF CANNOT CLAIM the COPYRIGHT on the noseart that came from the airplane being cut up.
That copyright belongs to the people who did the art. More than likely they were soldiers who did it ON THEIR OWN TIME, (I don't recall any MOS for NOSEARTARTIST). Without getting into these being DERIVATIVE WORKS from Vargas or George Petty (Memphis Belle).
WHAT the CAF has and can claim is the fact that THEY OWN and control the physical paintings. They are not on PUBLIC DISPLAY and are not visible from a public street (they are inside a private CAF building). Hence they can CONTROL if you can take pictures of them or not. To stregnthen their position they have also spent money to actually restore those "paintings". I was there a few months back and NO PICTURES. They had video cameras there watching people to see if they took pics or not......... Current pics are OUT. Take one, publish it or print it and the CAF can take legal action against you.
The 1984 pictures are a DIFFERENT. Back then, I would assume that there were no restrictions on the pictures you could take. Hence you can do anything you want with the pictures that were taken when taking photos and the use of them was NOT RESTRICTED.
If you owned a B-17 or B-24 and wanted to paint it with one of those "images", there is nothing the CAF could do to stop you. If you wanted to create minature nose art wall hangings (as some are doing now) with those images, there is nothing they can do to stop you.
The only way they could stop you is if you sneak a camera in and take a picture of the nose art now (with the no photo restriction) and use that PARTICULAR IMAGE to make your "image". If you worked from a 1984 picture, a 1945 picture, or had the original artist sketch another (or your new artist do one). They can't stop you.
The same goes for NAMES on the planes, they can't do anything if you name your plane the same as a historical one they have original art from.
Something to think about........
Directories. If you want to make a phone book of your own by going door to door or otherwise collecting the information, you can and ATT cannot stop you. The information is out there and you only have to gather it. BUT if you copy an ATT Directory and call it yours, you can't do it. Guess what? Phone books (and maps) have built in errors to protect them against copying. I've seen one error in Pennsylvania and one in Virginia that I know of on maps (towns that DO NOT EXIST).......
"ART" Actual paintings on canvas are works that are copyrighted. JDK IS WRONG and you cannot make a copy for personal enjoyment (known as a derivative work). Art gallaries are off limits to cameras (except for ones that may allow photos of "OLD" works (well outside of copyright expiration generally the creator's life plus 75 years in the USA). Say you have the Mona Lisa hanging in your art gallery, you are not going to allow anyone to take a picture of it. If someone wants one, they can BUY the picture or other image from you to put in a book or magazine, since you own the original you control the use of the image. (bear in mind that there may be a 1930 photo of the Mona Lisa you can use too (not controlled by the gallery since it was made before they had ownerhip of it), but if you want a current one, you need to pay the entity that owns the original.
Me, I've commissioned paintings that I thought up and an artist painted. I own the canvas and the artist stll has the copyright. He can make prints of the images, etc....... I can't (unless I did it as a "work for hire" where I retained the copyright).
Mark H
Mark H
Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:33 pm
That is really interesting.
Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:45 pm
Good points, Mark.
I do much prefer to be WRONG than plain old 'wrong'. It sounds so much more CERTAIN.
I wasn't suggesting you turn up and bang off batches of photographs in a gallery.
Actually, most galleries are quite happy for you to take copies of their artworks if you are sketching or painting. This runs back to one of the original purposes of galleries, which was to provide inspiration for copying for training and education, of artists.
Today, most galleries have restrictions stopping painting, but this is to do with issues over paint, easels and long sharp objects in the gallery, not the resultant creation. However, you can, and I have done, make sketches of the artwork. Turning up with a Camera Obscura might be briefly amusing to see how far you can push it. And if you did a batch of drawings and started selling them off outside the gallery, I think you'd have your collar felt. Hence, your own original creations (photography is not original in in this context) for your own educative use. (As I'm working from memory and experience, rather than statute books, I'll check the details with my tame art historian...)
(Perhaps this is where we also mention that copyright law isn't global, and isn't US copyright law. However, the board principles are similar, and worth being aware of.)
The issues over copyright is why many galleries have examples from their permanent collection on website, but travelling exhibitions including loan art from other venues is often not shown, as the copyright is a minefield.
Regards,
P51Mstg wrote:"ART" Actual paintings on canvas are works that are copyrighted. JDK IS WRONG and you cannot make a copy for personal enjoyment (known as a derivative work). Art gallaries are off limits to cameras (except for ones that may allow photos of "OLD" works (well outside of copyright expiration generally the creator's life plus 75 years in the USA).
I do much prefer to be WRONG than plain old 'wrong'. It sounds so much more CERTAIN.
I wasn't suggesting you turn up and bang off batches of photographs in a gallery.
Actually, most galleries are quite happy for you to take copies of their artworks if you are sketching or painting. This runs back to one of the original purposes of galleries, which was to provide inspiration for copying for training and education, of artists.
Today, most galleries have restrictions stopping painting, but this is to do with issues over paint, easels and long sharp objects in the gallery, not the resultant creation. However, you can, and I have done, make sketches of the artwork. Turning up with a Camera Obscura might be briefly amusing to see how far you can push it. And if you did a batch of drawings and started selling them off outside the gallery, I think you'd have your collar felt. Hence, your own original creations (photography is not original in in this context) for your own educative use. (As I'm working from memory and experience, rather than statute books, I'll check the details with my tame art historian...)
(Perhaps this is where we also mention that copyright law isn't global, and isn't US copyright law. However, the board principles are similar, and worth being aware of.)
The issues over copyright is why many galleries have examples from their permanent collection on website, but travelling exhibitions including loan art from other venues is often not shown, as the copyright is a minefield.
Regards,
Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:49 pm
P51Mstg wrote:Me, I've commissioned paintings that I thought up and an artist painted. I own the canvas and the artist stll has the copyright. He can make prints of the images, etc....... I can't (unless I did it as a "work for hire" where I retained the copyright).
IIRC, if you commission a specific painting, and unless you agree the artists retains the copyright, I understood it's work for hire. If you buy one 'off the shelf' or he offers it to you, then they retain copyright. Happy to be corrected on that!
All very confusing as there's overlaps between copyright, intellectual property (something copyright is intended to protect but is different to) and reproduction rights.
Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:10 pm
OK - lets all chill a bit. First, the CAF doesn't claim anything, as the nose art collection now belongs to the American Airpower Heritage Museum (AAHM) which is not the CAF. Second, there are no copyrights involved to my knowledge but rather trademarks, I think - I'm not an expert.
I have already mentioned to others that I will try and get a document or explanation that I can share here about the nose art trademarks, etc. from the museum staff.
Randy
I have already mentioned to others that I will try and get a document or explanation that I can share here about the nose art trademarks, etc. from the museum staff.
Randy