Warbird Information Exchange

Mark's post about copyrights is correct except in one respect. Owning the original of an artwork does not give you the right to control use of that image. This means that if, somehow, you evaded the security cameras and got photos of the AAHM's nose art, or of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, the AAHM or Louvre would not have any copyright in those images and would not be able to stop you from using them for any purpose that you choose, as far as copyright is concerned. This is why they take such measures to prevent the photography. However, they do have one form of recourse available. When you entered their facility you probably agreed (through the fine print on your entry ticket) not to take photos. This is a contract between you and the museum, and if you take pictures and use them, you have breached that contract and they may be able to sue you for any resulting damages.

We have discussed the AAHM's asserted rights in its nose art collection before. The bottom line is that the AAHM has registered trademarks in several, though not all, of its nose art panels. Trademark registrations are searchable for free on a public internet database. If you would like to see a sample, for the nose art "Surprise Attack", click here:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regs ... y=76149869

Trademarks are very different from copyrights and are much less well understood by artists and photographers. Their purpose is not to protect the creative effort that went into their design, but to designate the origin of products or services used in commerce. Very broadly, if the AAHM's trademarks in the nose art are valid (on which I express no view), they have the right to stop anyone else from using them in association with the particular products listed in the trademark registration ("Printed matter, namely, newsletters, brochures, books in the field of aviation history, postcards, greeting cards, posters, and stationary, in the field of aviation history") in a manner that could cause consumer confusion as to whether those products come from AAHM. This is a much more limited realm of control than what would come with copyright.

August

Copyright is a form of intellectual property. Reproduction rights are part of copyright. The other major form of intellectual property is patents. There are some minor forms, like the right of publicity. Trademarks are sometimes treated as intellectual property although, as described in my post above, technically they are not.

Trust me, none of this is as "confusing" or as much a "minefield" as keeping an R-2800 running or figuring out the true identity of a newly restored P-51. Like those things, it just takes effort and a little know-how.

August

I probably wasn't super clear since I was listening to music and typing at the same time......

FIRST: August is a REAL expert on this area of law......... If he says it, it is really correct.......

SECOND: I didn't mean to imply that owning the original gives you control over that image. I MEANT to say that OWNING the ORIGINAL gives you the right to CONTROL new images being made using the original as the source.... If you own the Mona Lisa and lock it in your basement, then nobody can take new pictures and publish them. However, someone can find and use an existing image of the Mona Lisa as allowed by law. IF someone wants to make a NEW high resolution image of the Mona Lisa and you want to charge $100,000, then thats the price.

August hit it good on "the ticket creates a contract" that allows the owner to sue you for damages if you take a picture.

THIRD: For my friend JDK. Commissioning a painting doesn't mean you get any rights. "Work for hire" is an issue that needs to be negogiated, when an artist or photographer gives up the copyright, then the price goes up a LOT (assuming the artist has a clue about what he is giving up).

JDK, going to your "galleries will let you make sketches or copies for personal use, etc (however you put it)". Think about this. I've never read your magazine or saw a copy to the best of my knowledge... (compilimentary subscriptons accepted too).

But suppose when I get my copy I paid for every month, I scan all the pictures into my computer and write a summary of every article (I don't do the advertising or editorals). Then I post them on my website..... The pictures are different sized and the articles have the same content, but the wording is different. They are available to anyone on the web for free (and up within 24 hours of publication). I look at it as my personal version of it and I happen to store it on the web, however other may look at it (I mean I leave the magazine in my waiting room and many people can read it??). Would you consider that a copyright violation? (I sure as heck would)

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

I think you are missing my point. As an art student or art historian, I go into a public gallery, and sketch details of a drawing or painting that I'm interested in. This is for personal interest, education or training. It is also creating an original work, because it's a sketch made by me, not using a camera to make a 'mechanical' copy.

So, I expect to, and have, been able to wander into a public gallery and make sketches of some of the artwork. I don't expect to do the same in a privately owned gallery, such as the AAHM, but I might ask and the desk, and I'd not be surprised to get permission to "Go right ahead, sir". If it wasn't OK, no problem. That's it.

Scanning or photography (when simply taking a copy of an existing work, rather than a manipulating or original photograph) is regarded as mechanical, electronic etc... copying - and is one of the items covered expressly in the front of any book in the copyright disclaimer.

BTW, I don't own any magazine, I write for Aeroplane in the UK and Flightpath in Australia. (All nicely linked in my autosig, below.) I wrote for Warbird Digest and Warbirds Worldwide. Feel free to summarise any of my articles, without profiting from them. (I'm sure you are familiar with the concepts of 'fair use' and quotation and originality of work.) Copy them or profit from them, we'll talk.

However I do appreciate the clarifications and corrections, and as ever, it's interesting to discuss.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

August summed it up very nicely. The laws are pretty clear, just not widely understood. It's only confusing when people start talking about it. Language is one of the biggest barriers to communication that I know of.

That's why I prefer art. If people are going to believe whatever they want, anyway, there is no sense in being explicit.

The simplest rule of thumb regarding any IP is that you can either be nice and ask first or simply go ahead and hope it will be forgiven, forgotten or overlooked. Either way, you're normally only a target if you are making money.

Which is another reason I like art. It keeps me penniless and out of the crosshairs

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

You can take photos of the Mona Lisa. Actually it looks like a feeding frenzy at the zoo if you have ever been there and you just stand back and watch.

Bill.

Or you can just go to a village in china and buy one:


http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/18/60-of-worlds-paintin.html

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

The Fox, him speak much sense...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

So what you are saying is that if I wanted to make a "Memphis Belle" panel and sell it for profit, if I didnt get the proper permissions, I would be expecting a knock on the door or a wonderfully phrased letter in the mail?

No, I have no idea what you could expect. What I do know is that the NMUSAF owns 6 registered trademarks associated with the Memphis Belle, assigned from the Memphis Belle Memoral Association. They are for the phrase "Memphis Belle" itself, not for the nose art. They cover the use of the phrase on specific products, generally of the souvenir kind. Not every use of this phrase would necessarily be infringing. You would have to consider whether the NMUSAF's trademarks are valid and whether your use would infringe. And, whatever those answers turn out to be, you would have to consider whether the NMUSAF would be inclined to make your life miserable whether it is within its rights or not.

August

That is kind of what I was thinking.
Thank you everyone for your input.
Regards,
Mark Popejoy

Gary Velasco makes and sells a "Memphis Belle" nose art panel.

http://fightingcolors.com/velasco.htm

Mike

A short follow up on my earlier note. Talking to our AAHM director, she said that only a dozen or so of the nose art pieces were trademarked - I gather these are the more "interesting" ones. She has told me that I can share her email address with anyone who has specific questions and she will be happy to reply. PM me if you want to go that route.

Randy