What's wrong with this picture?

[fritzthefox]

This is an original digital painting depicting Chuck Yeager ejecting from a spinning NF-104, an aircraft designed to fly to the edge of space. It took me at least a couple hundred hours to create, largely due to the formidable amount of research involved in assuring every aspect of the picture was historically accurate.

And I can never sell it.

Why? Because during the course of researching the aircraft, I contacted Chuck Yeager in order to verify the authenticity of the art. I was not able to contact him directly, but his controversial wife, Victoria, relayed his approval for me, suggesting a minor change and, oh yes, mentioned that any prints I happened to sell of the work would entitle the Yeager's to 10 percent of my proceeds. Whaaat?

Yes, despite the painting being an accurate portrayal of an historic event, and the absence of Chuck's visage anywhere on the art, his wife still felt like I owed a piece of my income to their foundation. However, when negotiations over the details of any sales arrangements broke down, I simply shelved the art in disgust. Everything I'd learned about the Yeager's and their dealings with others since embarking on the project had disillusioned me of Yeager's public hero status. I no longer felt like immortalizing Chuck's dubious accomplishment of discovering his limitations as an astronaut.

Every once in a while, I drag the picture out of the mothballs and wonder what else I can do with it. Sadly, even if I ignored Yeager's ridiculous claim on my work, I would still have to face the even more formidable legal guns over at Lockheed, especially if I were unwise enough to actually name the picture something descriptive like "Lockheed Starfighter" and then attempt to sell the image in a calendar or on a t-shirt. It seems Lockheed has recently taken the position that any likeness of their aircraft is their sole property and may only be sold under license. Whaaat?

Yes, as various, now bankrupt, model companies have learned the hard way, Lockheed expects to get a piece of the pie from anyone who wants to recreate the likenesses of "their" aircraft. Never mind that that "their" aircraft are actually a collection of parts manufactured by a dozen other corporations under contract to the U.S. Government, who assigned the plane its designation and financed it with public money. They have hired an entire corporation of trademark lawyers to manage and license their property, (And, by their property, I mean our property, since we paid for it) and they have been doing so with a zeal that is as frightening as it is indiscriminate.

I know this personally, as Cafepress just recently asked me to remove an image of an F-16 because Lockheed's lawyers claimed it infringed on their Intellectual Property (and by "asked", I mean that I was simply informed that the image had already been removed...thankyou, DMCA). A quick search of the USPTO's database assured me that Lockheed had, indeed, been granted trademarks on almost every conceivable variation of the names and designations of their products in almost every applicable category of trademark. There are over 40 categories, because it is not likely that someone would confuse F-16, the airplane with F-16, the soda pop, so it is possible for manufacturers of different products using the same name to coexist peacefully. Unless, of course, a very rich corporation decides to buy up all the trademarks in every available category.

Anyone trying to depict an F-16 on any saleable product can live in fear of the wrath of one of the largest defense contractors in the world. Their licensing FAQ graciously grants painters and photographers a "free license" to portray their work on canvas or film (but not in any medium they might want to reproduce it in, like a book or poster), provided it meets minimum professional standards and portrays their plane in a positive light. So I guess a badly drawn Falcon suffering a flame out would get you twenty lashes. They haven't explicitly trademarked the Starfighter in any category but scale models yet, but then, what's another 300 dollar trademark application fee to Lockheed? To me, it's a car payment, but to them, it's just another arrow in the quiver. I can pay or live in fear of an arrow in the back.

So where do I go from here? Is there any way I can somehow justify the hundreds of man hours I spend creating images of airplanes? More importantly, what is the point in investing a lot of time and energy creating aviation-related artwork so that some corporate lawyer can come along later and stick a flag in it?

Grumman aircraft has also taken Lockheed’s aggressive I.P. approach, and I have to wonder just how long it will be before every aircraft manufacturer starts smelling blood in the water? It is difficult to make money as an illustrator now, as the digital revolution has made the ready availability of all images ubiquitous...one of the few promising revenue streams for illustrators left is merchandising, but for an aviation illustrator, this obviously means reproducing the likenesses of aircraft. If companies like Lockheed can threaten that revenue stream by asserting control over the mere likenesses of their products, then I might as well take up house painting.

So my question to you is: Why bother? Does a legal battle await every aviation artist who attempts to put his art on a t-shirt? Can Lockheed (or any other aircraft manufacturer) assert these same controls over the mere likeness of their planes everywhere? Will I eventually need to defensively trademark everything I illustrate to be safe from corporate IP lawyers? So far, one or two aerospace companies, typically overseas, have resisted the urge to trademark every word in the company catalog, but I wonder how long it will be before it becomes a free for all?

After years of enthusiastically devoting my time and energy to aviation in many capacities, I am seriously contemplating walking away from it all. I’ve no desire to spend my autumn years building a castle made of sand if it looks like the tide is coming in. I am completely sickened by the growing number of corporations intent on using their legal firepower to assert control over freedom of expression by taking ownership of every conceivable outlet for it. This country has been running from the ugly specter of communism so fast that it has stumbled unwittingly into the arms of corporatism. Either way, we own nothing.

In recognition of this uncomfortable revelation, I am making this image, at high resolution, available to anyone who wants it. You can download the high-rez version from http://www.fritzthefox.com/images/Icarus_by_Barry_Munden.jpg and do whatever you want with it. I don't care. If I can't claim ownership to my own work, then it really doesn't matter to me what happens to it. My only hope now is that it can serve as some sort of beacon to warn others of the perils of surrendering too much control of their lives to powerful corporate entitites that don't give a hoot about anything other than money.

And Stockheed is welcome to a mouthfull of fox fanny fur.

Last edited by fritzthefox on Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Zachary]

I know it won't cheer you up at all, but that is some really neat artwork! I wish I had a smidgeon of your talent...

Zack

[k5083]

Fritz

Nice painting.

I am genuinely sorry for the frustration you feel. This can be an exasperating area to work in.

You misunderstand the law in some respects. It is not as bad as you think in some ways, even worse in others. If you get an attorney, you might be surprised at what you can do.

I'm not going to kid you though, it could be costly. Possibly not as costly as you think, though. In your work, you will face the same issues again and again. If you learn what your rights are and how to stand up for them, you shouldn't have to pay for the same legal work over and over again.

Good luck. I hope you work it out.

August

[Ztex]

This kinda stuff makes me farrgin crazy mad.

If it really comes down to it I think Lockheed owes me a percentage for every image they sell...I paid for it! for 60 years we've been paying for Lockheed warplanes....I "might" see their point if there were a big demand for L-1011 shirts...

Dammit. And the terrible part is, I don't know what can be done with out a serious run in the courts ( $$$$$$ ).
I'm sorry it has come to this. Your talent is clearly worth some cash...I guess you could paint flowers...


I hope Boeing does not come after me for my window sticker!
(It was made for me without any compensation above materials cost)

[bipe215]

Yeager wants 10% of a work of art that depicts a screw up that was 100% his fault? Oh, I forgot, he blamed the chief pilot, Robert Smith.
Anyway, you did a great job. I'd hate to see you quit over this.

Steve G

[mike furline]

I remember hearing a story several years ago, maybe as many as ten years now.

I'm not sure how accurate it is or isn't,

In North or South Carolina there was a guy whose last name was Virgin and he owned a business, Virgin Plumbing. It had been around for years.

Well Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines went after him for trademark violations and won. Seems like there is no justice.

So what did the plumber do? He trademarked the name "Richard Branson"!!!

Regards,
Mike

[A2C]

This might be bad advice, so take it with a grain of salt:

I would possibly Form an LLC created specificly to deal with greedy folks or entities. Set the LLC value at $1. Let them sue away!

[Jack Cook]

3 points..................
1. Opions of Yeager may vary but mine remain constant
2. I'm understanding that a P-51 was repainted from CY's markings because he wanted $$$ from the owner.
3. Up in Portland the new mayor (and longtime city councilman) is Sam Adams. When the he started his campaign, ads and a webpage proclaimed "Sam Adams for Mayor" and immediately after he got threatening calls and letters to cease and desist immediately or be sued from Samuel Adams Brewery who had a copywrite on the slogan. He told them to pound sand!

Last edited by Jack Cook on Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[spookythecat]

I haven't had a very high opinion of Yeager for many years now for my own reasons but once all this wanting a percentage of others use of paint schemes, etc started happening I lost a ton of respect for him.

[ktst97]

Greed is a fat demon with a small mouth and whatever you feed it is never enough.

(Janwillem van de Wetering)

[A2C]

A member of my family was in the Air Force, and worked with him near Edwards, he thought he had an ego. As for me, I think he's ok. He's confident and he set his sights very high. I'm not too pleased with him saying he would charge 10% for the creation of an image.

With that said, I don't think it's enforceable. To me drawing a picture or making a painting of some Air Force plane, and a situation known to be unique to Yeager in this case is perfectly legal for the author to take 100%.

The reason is this:

If I take a picture of Joe Schmoe driving his car, it doesn't matter, it's in the public domain. Joe gets 0%..

[Holedigger]

Option 2: Start a petition to remove a certain name and all images of said person from all Air Force, NASA and US Government history files, books (and retirement checks!). If he thinks he OWNS history then he can have it ALL. Delete it from elsewhere.....self censorship at it's best! They can't use his name on a check without having to pay for it?

Can I copyright the name Washington? Sounds catchy don't it!

[mustanglover]

3 points..................
2. I'm understanding that a P-51 was repainted from CY's markings because he wanted $$$ from the owner.

I know the current owner of a P-51 with CYs markings does not pay anything to CY or his wife for use of the markings. And CY's wife has insisted on certain things over the years and current owner of the P-51 has done what he wants when he wants.

I don't think it is all CY in this type of situation, more of his current wife and whatever comes with that.

[Jack Cook]

Different a/c I'm referring.
The one your referring was subject of a long and interesting CY thread on aafo.com

[Bill Greenwood]

When Yeager made these flights he was a public employee, a member of the military. It doesn't seem like he should have any claim on fees from use of an image. Could the soldiers in the famous photo of the flag raising on IWO receive a %? Don't know if it makes any difference that it is a drawing rather than an actual photo. I would guess that the law on this type of thing should be well established, and someone may be able to research as to whether Yeager has filed any action of this type and what the ruling was in the case if there has been one.