Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:56 pm
Speaking of copyrights, there might be some issue with using that name as well....
When someone trademarks a name that doesn't mean that you can not use the name. For instance you cane paint the name Walmart on the side of your car and drive it around all day long. As long as you do not use the name commercially or commit fraud as to misrepresent yourself as Walmart.
Also, any image that is generated using federal government money is considered public domain. The image of the "Memphis Belle" should actually be the intellectual property of George Petty or Esquire magazine so I'm not sure how they could copyright that imagine unless they bought it.
Last edited by rwdfresno on Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:32 pm
So is this setting a precedent on the ownership of nose art then? That should be an interesting can of worms...
Ryan, I was actually trying to make a tongue-in-cheek comment on the other organization that is currently using the name referred to in my quote; from my limited third-party experience with them, they are very protective of their name and artwork. And I agree with your Petty/Esquire/and might as well add Vargas comment.
cheers
greg v.
Ryan, I was actually trying to make a tongue-in-cheek comment on the other organization that is currently using the name referred to in my quote; from my limited third-party experience with them, they are very protective of their name and artwork. And I agree with your Petty/Esquire/and might as well add Vargas comment.
cheers
greg v.
Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:42 pm
Everybody calm down and be civil, don't let this thread get unruly.
Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:50 pm
My $.02.....what matters to me, is that it IS a B-17 that was involved in an accident that resulted in damage to the aircraft...be it the original "Belle" or a suedo "Belle"...There just aren't that many around any more, and to me they are all historic birds. Gary
Re: ????
Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:04 pm
Jack Cook wrote:We should start a campaign to get Tallichet to repaint his has "H*ll's Angel"!!!
Now there is a great idea! I love it when aircraft get repainted. It makes me feel a ton better about taking 400 pictures of it at the next airshow. Sense I have a few thousand of the P-Belle (as in the pseudo Memphis Belle) repainting it would give me another reason to take a few thousand more (like I really need one).
I’m glad to hear that no crew were hurt and that the aircraft is not damaged to badly.
And to the USAF
Tim
Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:32 pm
As a lifetime member of the 91st BG Association and having spent a lot of time talking with the surviving crew members when they were still with us, I can assure you that everyone in the 91st at the time knew all too well that the Belle was not the first B-17 to reach 25 missions. Heck, Wyler's film doesn't really even make mention of that point anyway. It is a sticky issue for vets of other groups, though. I was at a 303rd BG reunion in the 90s, and the subject became pretty heated among them.
But as for the paint job, well, the "Nine O Nine" touring the country isn't the real one, and none of the currently flying B-17s on the airshow circuit ever went into combat and I think most folks are fine with that. How many "Invasion stripe" marked P-51s are out there today? How many of those were in the ETO during WW2?
The 91st vets I know have no issues with another "fake" Belle flying around. I know because I asked several of them at the last reunion I went to! Most-if not all-of them are happy to have as many planes flying around with their markings as can be. I was lucky enough to spend some time with that B-17 right after it got back from England for the movie.
It was pretty obviously a G model without a chin turret then. Here's a decent site about the re-paint. I'm no fan of the guy's "Panel" work, but he did a decent job on a real airplane: http://fightingcolors.com/Companypageim ... e_page.htm
But as for the paint job, well, the "Nine O Nine" touring the country isn't the real one, and none of the currently flying B-17s on the airshow circuit ever went into combat and I think most folks are fine with that. How many "Invasion stripe" marked P-51s are out there today? How many of those were in the ETO during WW2?
The 91st vets I know have no issues with another "fake" Belle flying around. I know because I asked several of them at the last reunion I went to! Most-if not all-of them are happy to have as many planes flying around with their markings as can be. I was lucky enough to spend some time with that B-17 right after it got back from England for the movie.
It was pretty obviously a G model without a chin turret then. Here's a decent site about the re-paint. I'm no fan of the guy's "Panel" work, but he did a decent job on a real airplane: http://fightingcolors.com/Companypageim ... e_page.htm
Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:45 pm
I'm surprised by the controversy...
As enthuiasts I'd expect:
-For "us" to say "Tallichet's Belle" or "Tallicet's plane"
or really
-Know that the real "Belle" isn't flying anywhere unless Wright-Pat get hit by a tornado.
As enthuiasts I'd expect:
-For "us" to say "Tallichet's Belle" or "Tallicet's plane"
or really
-Know that the real "Belle" isn't flying anywhere unless Wright-Pat get hit by a tornado.
Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:53 pm
Let's just be glad it didn't end up with the same fate as B-17G 44-85643 that crashed and burned during the filming of Memphis Belle. A friend of mine, Tony Ritzman, flew the camera aircraft and he said it was a pretty sad sight watching it burn. We may not all like Tallichet and we may all have an opinion of what we would name it if we owned it, but lets just be glad it is still around.
Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:17 pm
I agree with Tim! The main thing is that everyone is ok and the 17 can be fixed. Im always glad to see Tallichets Memphis Belle because its nice and dirty, like a war weary bomber should!
Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:23 am
Dang Elroy, you beat me to exactly what I was gonna say I saw Mr Tallichet's Belle at Dayton this year and thought she looked great, all dirty and greasy. Almost looked war-weary. The P-38 at Udvar-Hazy comes to mind.
As far as things getting way out of hand with this thread Scott, I would like to apologize if I added any fuel to the fire. Being one of the fairly newbies here who has gotten flamed on more than one occasion for asking a "stupid" question of the "experts", I guess I got a bit carried away when I saw an opportunity to fire back. My bad
I have always been one to pull for the little guy. Not that Mr Tallichet is a "little guy", but again, when the Big Bad NMUSAF wants to dictate what someone can paint on their aircraft that they have spent millions of their hard earned dollars on, I say good for you Mr Tallichet! Don't let the bullies push you around! Same goes for the gentleman from Minnesota (Lex Cralley?) who had to endure all of the efforts of the US Navy wanting "their" Brewster Corsair back! UGH!
I have felt the same as JPeters here who is saying that he is leaving the site to never return due to too many "experts" flaming the dummies like me. I am a member here because I want to learn from the real people here who know what they are talking about and not the "experts".
That's my $.02. Have a nice day
I saw Mr Tallichet's Belle at Dayton this year and thought she looked great, all dirty and greasy. Almost looked war-weary. The P-38 at Udvar-Hazy comes to mind.
As far as things getting way out of hand with this thread Scott, I would like to apologize if I added any fuel to the fire. Being one of the fairly newbies here who has gotten flamed on more than one occasion for asking a "stupid" question of the "experts", I guess I got a bit carried away when I saw an opportunity to fire back. My bad
I have always been one to pull for the little guy. Not that Mr Tallichet is a "little guy", but again, when the Big Bad NMUSAF wants to dictate what someone can paint on their aircraft that they have spent millions of their hard earned dollars on, I say good for you Mr Tallichet! Don't let the bullies push you around! Same goes for the gentleman from Minnesota (Lex Cralley?) who had to endure all of the efforts of the US Navy wanting "their" Brewster Corsair back! UGH!
I have felt the same as JPeters here who is saying that he is leaving the site to never return due to too many "experts" flaming the dummies like me. I am a member here because I want to learn from the real people here who know what they are talking about and not the "experts".
That's my $.02. Have a nice day
Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:26 am
My problem with this whole thing is that out of respect for the real aircraft, Tallichet shold repaint the plane. My point is that many times there is no one to explain that this is not the real Belle, and that is not right.
Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:47 am
Which brings us back to the question, how is this any different to any of the hundred-plus P-51s out there which don't carry their original schemes? Just because they carry a well-known ace's markings doesn't mean that they are claiming to actually BE that ace's original aeroplane (in most cases, cough, cough 'Scat'!)
I say all power to Mr Tallichet. It looks good in the 'Belle' scheme, it played that part in the movie so has every right to continue to wear those markings, and if a few people should believe it's the real thing, SO WHAT? Is there any actual harm done to the NMUSAF by this?
I say all power to Mr Tallichet. It looks good in the 'Belle' scheme, it played that part in the movie so has every right to continue to wear those markings, and if a few people should believe it's the real thing, SO WHAT? Is there any actual harm done to the NMUSAF by this?
Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:57 am
I would like to believe that the flying warbirds actually help generate interest in the static museums. There seems to be a longstanding animosity coming from some of the static museums towards the flyers and I, frankly, don't understand it. It's a relatively small community working towards a common goal, preserving historic aircraft, why can't both sides be mutually beneficial to each other.
Tallichet's aircraft brings the Belle's story to many more people than the original Belle did in her hangar at Millington or at the restoration center at Dayton. Maybe seeing and hearing the Belle's story in person will move some folks to actually go to Dayton to see the real thing, doing that they will visit NMUSAF and get the rest of the picture. I think NMUSAF should be spending part of their advertising budget to help keep the movie Belle out there to promote NMUSAF !
Tallichet's aircraft brings the Belle's story to many more people than the original Belle did in her hangar at Millington or at the restoration center at Dayton. Maybe seeing and hearing the Belle's story in person will move some folks to actually go to Dayton to see the real thing, doing that they will visit NMUSAF and get the rest of the picture. I think NMUSAF should be spending part of their advertising budget to help keep the movie Belle out there to promote NMUSAF !
Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:00 am
Yeah it would to me. If you go to the Vegas and see New York newyork, you didn't really see New York City. So I should say I was in Paris, because I was in the Paris Hotel in Vegas? It is the same thing right. There is only one Memphis belle. As for the Mustangs in aces markings, that is different. In most cases, the real aircraft they are painted to represent are not still around. That is my whole point. I think David's B-17 is cool for the most part, but I worked on this aircraft, and saw some of the stuff I am saying first hand.
Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:09 am
RickH wrote:
Tallichet's aircraft brings the Belle's story to many more people than the original Belle did in her hangar at Millington or at the restoration center at Dayton. Maybe seeing and hearing the Belle's story in person will move some folks to actually go to Dayton to see the real thing, doing that they will visit NMUSAF and get the rest of the picture...
Well said! I agree.
