What's wrong with this picture?

[Nathan]

This guy has always been my top hero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Welch_(pilot)

[Bill Greenwood]

Ken Taylor was the other P-40 pilot with George Welch at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. I believe it was he that I met at the at the Wings Over The North show at Eden Prarie, Minn a few years back. He was rather modest and reserved.

This show excels in the number and variety of vets they have and how easy it is to talk to them. One man was a sailor on the destroyer Ward at Pearl Harbor. He told me about shelling and sinking the Japanese midget sub( how brave/crazy were those crew?). At that time, about 2004? they were still searching for the sub, with only reports that it had even sunk. This man was clear and concise, he said they had put a shell right through the conning tower, and that it sunk just outside the entrance to Pearl Harbor, not farther out where the search was going on. About a year later the searchers found the mini sub just where this man said and with one big hole in the conning tower.

[RyanShort1]

Ken Taylor was the other P-40 pilot with George Welch at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. I believe it was he that I met at the at the Wings Over The North show at Eden Prarie, Minn a few years back. He was rather modest and reserved.

True indeed. I met him at the 50th anniversary commemoration in Fredericksburg, TX. In with all of the other vets, not making a big deal. I did get him to sign one of my Pearl Harbor books! A memory to treasure.

Ryan

[k5083]

Gents, you think this is a tough one? Try a picture of Dale Earnhardt, Sr. and you'll be in the courts forever. NASCAR is the founder of image rights and the like. I'm with Bill on this one. Care to fight the fight of public domain? When I had this great limited edition racing print brain fart, they wanted to start at 40% and negotiate from there.

Some of these guys are really out to lunch when it comes to the image and likeness rights, but wanna fight them?

Funny you should ask that. I'm sure we all have sleepless nights thinking about where our jobs/careers are going. Some of the ones I have are thinking about answering "yes" to your question and carving out a solo practice representing individuals and small businesses affiliated with aviation (artists, photographers, non-profit museums, publishers, model manufacturers [which are mostly small businesses these days]) in IP and related matters. Most of them are confused (or certain, but mistaken) about their rights, as is exhibited in threads like this on Wix, on fencecheck, and on the modeling boards. They need a lawyer who is as smart, tough and well-trained as anyone at Lockheed or NASCAR, understands and sympathizes with their business, and who can protect their interests both defensively (as discussed in this thread) and offensively (as IP creators, you guys have to worry about being infringed yourselves). On defense, it is likely that if someone stands up to the copyright and TM owners, knows his rights and the boundaries of theirs, and is willing to stand up, they will cave at least to the point of being rational. It is likely to be expensive for the first few guys, but eventually they will get the message that if a party is represented by lawyer X, he knows his rights and they should cut a reasonable deal.

The only difficulty is that I am very fond of my current job in big law. Although I have one or two artist IP clients, most of the people who ask me for advice on this subject want it for free or nearly so. I haven't yet come up with a business model under which I can meet that price point and still put my kids through college. I reckon that if someone signed up 100 or so Fritzes, half a dozen museums, and a few model companies, each of whom understood that when you are in an IP-centered business, a few grand per year for legal advice is simply a cost of doing business, then it might be viable. I'm not close to deciding to try that yet, but probably the next time my large law firm falls apart around me the way mine did last month, I'll start thinking about it seriously. (BTW for those of you who know where I now work, this firm is doing just fine! )

By the way, some of you may be scratching your heads at warbird1's post about "Happy Birthday To You," because you still hear that song being sung in restaurants quite often. To clarify, he is quite correct that the song is copyrighted and that being sung by restaurant waitstaff technically is a public performance subject to royalties. However, it is still commonly done, because it is hardly worth enforcing that right for occasional uses. It would not surprise me if the major restaurant chains, which conceivably could be gone after for real money if the song is sung in their establishments hundreds of times each day, have sent out the word not to do it. But if you never hear "Happy Birthday To You" sung in restaurants any more, you've got to get out of Denny's or Olive Garden and patronize some independent joints for a change! You'll hear it plenty there, and if you're not careful you might also get some good food.

August

[Bill Greenwood]

August, could not anyone legally sing Happy Birthday anytime, if it is for free, not a paid performance? And would the issue be if the singing is a critical part of the waiters job that he is paid for?

Good thing Yeager did not write that song.

[k5083]

Bill,

With copyright, it almost never matters whether the use of the copyrighted material is for free or for pay. This is a common myth. Just as giving away pirated DVDs is every bit as illegal as selling them, singing a copyrighted song in public for free is just as illegal as doing it for money. It is the public nature of the performance and the money that the copyright holder COULD have earned (theoretically) for that performance that matters.

August

[Jesse C.]

He did it on the public dime and he even broke our airplane! HE should be paying us!

Don't get me started on NASCRAP!

I went to buy some black paints and they informed that they had a new color, Dale Earnhardt Black! Yes! And it was trademarked!!!

Reminds me of when Lex Luthor managed to get a patent on the Alphabet and would not let anyone write unless they paid him! So the newspapers came up with a picture only newspaper that would not need words, but, Lex Luthor asked them, What will you call it?

Catch 22, eh?

[RyanShort1]

...Thinks to self that we need to come up with a new tune that's somewhat simple, catchy, and copyright free - so we can stop using the copyright version and boycott this nonsense... Catch me singing it again? Probably, but I'll always have a sour taste in my mouth doing so.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

Of course being all civil minded adults here, we would never go and bash someone on an open forum. It would also be just an outrage to give 10% of proceeds to a group like the CYF. I mean here is what they are going to do with it.... flies Young Eagles and Make-A-Wish Foundation children, participates in fundraisers for Down Syndrome and Autistic Folks in Abilene, Texas, schools; conservation; Women in Aviation International, Paralyzed American Veterans, Disabled Veterans, and other programs.

Man what a waste of money

For the record, if you were making it just to make it for yourself, or a museum, that would be different, but if you intend on selling a painting I can see the person depicted having something to say about it. If someone painted my first solo and was selling it, I may feel the same way.

Besides I heard it was actually George Welch that was flying it.

Go have fun guys enjoy yet another thread bashing Yeager.

It was not my goal to start a round of Yeager bashing with this thread. I really just wanted to vent my frustration and alert everyone to current issues in IP law because the battles we fight now will have a big impact on the freedoms we enjoy in future.

Public figures have what is known as a "Right of Publicity" when it comes to the use of their image. If I painted a portrait of Chuck, I would need his permission to sell it. But the depiction of historical events is protected under fair use (this has been tested in court repeatedly). In any event, I didn't have a problem with giving to his foundation...I had a problem with being told I had to. Negotiations broke down over unrelated issues.

And, for the record, 100% of my income goes to support Autism. My son is autistic.

I don't have a problem with spreading the wealth to those who actually contribute to my paintings...I gave free prints to everyone who contributed their time to helping me research it. My beef with both Yeager and Lockheed is the sense of entitlement both of them seem to feel towards the fruits of my efforts, and the authority they seem to feel they have over what I choose to do with my own work.

My response really wasn't aimed much at you. I know you enough to know that you are doing it out of the love of aviation.

[mustangdriver]

Oh well, what's the big deal. Some a-h*le being famous for something he was't the first to do anyway. I'd say stuff him! Now how about making a digital painting of George Welch going true the sound barrier in the XF-86?

That would be great. We can call it almost first.

[Nathan]

The USAF covered up the fact that Welch was first. And Welch broke the Barrier twice! Just because it was not recorded doesn't mean it did not happen. Besides ground crew heard a sonic boom. What was that from? Since it was unofficial it was never made to be truth. The USAF wanted Yeager to get it cause Yeager had fame.

[mustangdriver]

No Nthan here is why it is not Welch that did it first. I will go over this one more time. The Bell X-1 was ready for months to have a run at the sound barrier (something no one on here seems to want to recognize). The rules stated that NACA had the only equipment that could be officially used to measure an aircraft breaking the sound barrier, and if any attempts were made it would not count. So the X-1 team made several flights preparing for the sound barrier flight but never broke it until the NACA equipment would be there. They had to wait for NACA to stop stalling. Once again stated by NACA if we aren't there it doesn't count. George Welch's flight did not involve this equipment, or equipment of any type, just some folks, many of them not pilots who stated that they are sure he did it. Some guys in a bar does not equal the NACA recording equipment so sorry no cookie. The equipment was on hand for Yeager's flight in the X-1. You know the real first sound barrier flight. Don't get pissed at Yeager, go get pissed at NACA. It was their rule that the USAF and US Navy agreed on. Where did my info come from? Talking face to face with Yeager, Hoover, and Anderson.

[Holedigger]

So I'm probably in trouble for even showing this for FREE on the internet?! Let alone selling prints (yeah right!) Let me do the math for last month. $300 in ink, $120 in media stock, $50 gross sales, subract 7% sales tax.....Oh yeah, artists are rolling in cash!!!

[RyanShort1]

No Nthan here is why it is not Welch that did it first. I will go over this one more time. The Bell X-1 was ready for months to have a run at the sound barrier (something no one on here seems to want to recognize). The rules stated that NACA had the only equipment that could be officially used to measure an aircraft breaking the sound barrier, and if any attempts were made it would not count. So the X-1 team made several flights preparing for the sound barrier flight but never broke it until the NACA equipment would be there. They had to wait for NACA to stop stalling. Once again stated by NACA if we aren't there it doesn't count.

I don't want to get into this argument again, but if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around, it still makes a noise. NACA or not!

Ryan

[Nathan]

The Bell X-1 was ready for months to have a run at the sound barrier

Hi Buddy,

It was ready? A plane capable of the sound barrier is different then actually doing it. Maybe I miss read something. Probably did. Sadly George Welch did not live long enough to explain his experiances. Unless there is reading I have not seen yet about it. Which is probably the case. BTW...Welch was credited with more kills then Yeager. Sorry I had to man.