Warbird Information Exchange

OK, Here's what happened: In a fit of irritation at Lockheed's lawyers, who zealously defend their intellectual property from all threats, real and imagined, and in so doing make my life rather difficult at times, I made the following t-shirt art....



This was sort of a knee jerk reaction to one of Stockheed's lawyers insisting that no one has the right to sell a t-shirt with one of 'their' planes on it. I won't even bother to go into that rant, but the result is that I decided that the only Lockheed product I would ever paint in the future would appear in the most unflattering light possible. If they want to play the corporate bully card, I will play the temperamental artist card. As cards go, it's pretty lame, but it's all I have. Anyway, I figured that there might be some rivalry between hog drivers and viper drivers, in the same way different car or airplane owners rib eachother about their favorite aircraft, so I came up with something I thought hog lovers would enjoy.

I couldn't have been more wrong. I posted a sample on a message board devoted to A-10 fans, and they HATED it. I'm still not sure why, as their comments were not particularly constructive. Anyway, upon further reflection, it now seems unlikely to make a very saleable t-shirt. I thought the art (minus the slogan) could still be a decent cartoon, though, if given a suitable caption.

Any ideas?

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

Would love to play but can't see image.

My caption is "HUH? What?" yo no comprendo

_________________
"WHAT ME WORRY?"

"and they seriously considered THAt as my replacement?"

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

CAS my A$$!

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

LOL

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

Are you saying that EVERYONE who prints a picture of a Lockheed a/c must have written permission from the "suits"?
That's a lot of permission slips 'cause there are thousands upon thousands of shirts out there. I have two belt buckles with P-38s on them. Are they gonna' come after me? (This is the part where I pretend to give a rat's rump. )

Mudge the fearless

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

That is what a LOT of the big Aviation Corporations are doing these days. They have a bunch of lawyers on staff and have to keep them busy. They, in theory, require payment for ANY use of images or facsimiles (toys, models, etc) of THEIR product. But it is NOT just companies, Mr Chuck Yeager, Memphis Belle Assoc, Glacier Girl and others also claim ALL rights to any images, toys, models and such that depict THEIR bit of history...Need to start redacting history books so as to NOT step on anyones toes.

It is a slippery slope!!! So much for freedom of expression GUARANTEED by the Constitution. Just where the line is IS the big question.

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

Penny-ante BS if you ask me.

Mudge the disillusioned

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Hey Fritz, I think it's pretty funny! My original career part was to fly Hawgs but some forces beyond my control ruled that out.

I remember talking to an A-10 pilot in 2000 when I was figuring out how to get my foot in the door, and he was bragging on her and the role it filled. He specifically mentioned how they tried to get F-16s to do CAS roles but were having problems with wings cracking ahead of schedule due to the added weights.

Seems to be in the spirit of fun and satire to me. And you know what to do if someone can't take a joke...

-Brandon

_________________
ATC: "Oscar 2, cleared to engage wildlife at your discretion..."

A lot of that can be pointed @ too many Lawyers with too little to do. Try repoping say a 442 emblem, about 57 bus loads of GM lawyers would stop in front of your house and bury you in processed trees! EVERY manufacturer is scared to death of 'product liability' and so, will sue anyone who doesn't buy license rights and stay within pretty narrow guidelines-

When boat racers started running out of MERLIN pistons back in the late 60's someone expressed interest in making his own, whereupon a team of Saville Row suits from Crewe paid him a visit and showed him the error of his ways as far as R/R PLC. was concerned. If you designed THE ultimate fly swatter and tried to market it as 'The R-R of fly swatters' those same Saville Row suits would visit you and show you the error of your ways too.

Some model makers of airliners either don't pay license fees or disregard them and produce kits identified on the box as '727' or '737' kits because they don't or won't pay the big "B" to put the Boeing tag on the kit.

When I worked @ Locoweed in Palmdale 40 years ago, it could best be described as 'one each Cluster f@&(^ with airplanes' their slogan 'look to Lockheed for Leadership' was right on the money , about every third guy had a clipon tie, an oval badge, and a cheap ceegar in his mouth.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Regarding Lockheed's lawyers:

Trademark law is kinda funny: there are over forty different classes of trademark, for various product categories like apparel, scale models, etc, and they typically only cover the product brand name or logo. You can look them up yourself on the USPTO website. Corporations like Lockheed and Grumman are notorious for trademarking their aircraft names and then trying to extort license fees out of scale model kit makers and, more recently, video game companies, for the use of their trademarks. (This is why you see low budget racing games with familiar looking cars and sports teams with fanciful names...they don't have the pockets deep enough to pay the fees) They have recently expanded their reach to the print-on-demand t-shirt companies like Cafepress and Zazzle, since it is relatively easy to search for their trade name and then slap the company with a DMCA notice, in response to which the company will yank the design and tell the designer about it later.

I have several problems with this.

One is that it involves stretching some generally well-intended laws to their legal limit in an effort to stifle competition in product lines the companies have no serious intention of producing. It is the moral equivalent of patent trolling.

Another is that it is often done indiscriminately, because it is so easy for them to do. I have been DMCA'd by Lockheed five times. Twice for shirts that read "F-16" on them. Once each for the Raptor and Blackbird. And recently for the P-38 Lightning. They do, indeed, have apparel trademarks for the F-16 and F-22 and SR-71, but they do not have one for the Lightning. All they have for the Lightning is the trademark for scale models. You would think a highly paid lawyer would know that. I did. However, I have very little recourse to their actions unless I want to risk meeting them in court. Why step into the crosshairs over a shirt that only nets me a few bucks a year?

In the end, they gain nothing, and I lose money. Hundreds of people continue happily selling shirts with their planes on them. And they always will, because the company really doesn't want to sell t-shirts. They just want to defend their trademarks, so they can say they did (if they don't, they can lose them). So that if anyone DOES happen to start making a lot of money selling t-shirts or model kits, they can dip their fingers in the pie. An investment of a few hundred bucks in trademarks becomes a way to turn their legal department into a revenue generator.

This is made all the more annoying in the knowledge that I PAID FOR THESE PLANES. They were bought with taxpayer money, and built to defend my FREEDOM. Hah! The irony is painful.

One thing I have learned over my years in the art biz is that property laws only protect you when you are victimized by someone in your own economic weight class. Mega-corporations stride the earth like giant paper-shredding robots, shoveling cash into their hungry maws and trampling underfoot anyone impertinent enough to suggest that maybe we should build them with a few failsafes.

So, anyway, I hate Lockheed now.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

vote conservative. That'll fix it.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

BTW, footnote: some companies have begun to take a more progressive stance on this, and have partnered with Cafepress to offer officially sanctioned fan-designed merchandise for sale, in exchange for a cut. I consider this a far wiser way to police a trademark than demanding license fees almost no one can afford to pay. It's more of a win-win.

Someone should tell Lockheed.

Not me, though.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

Muddyboots...you sure you want to go there?

Mudge the poser

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave