The "uk Air Arm"

[Maverick]

Hi all,

A question.  Is the idea that modellers, model makers and decal printers are somehow infringing on copyright a bit silly?  I mean we're talking about the nation's defence forces here.  Surely they are 'public domain' of sorts?  For my mind this is taking the 'corporate' concept a little too far.

Could someone with a handle on this please let me know?

Regards,

Mav

[Mossie]

I'm not 100% certain Mav but I think all official symbols of the UK Armed Forces are covered under 'Crown Copyright', i.e. (officially at least), they all belong to HM Queen Elizabeth II.  This is different to other countries were these symbols are released into the public domain.  Officially, if you copy these symbols you are committing treason & could potentially be executed!  Very unlikely of course, & no court would take such an extreme action for popping a RAF Roundel on a Tonka, but it's basically to prevent offical symbols being used by uncouths & scoundrels.

Yeah, I think the idea that modellers are infringing copyright is laughable & not particularily enforceable.  I also personally think it's going too far to prevent model & decal manufacturers from using them on their kits, but as far as the law goes, it's the Queens (well governments really) property & if they want to produce them they'll have to pay royalties the same as a company would charge them to use their trademark.  In the end it's all boils down to underfunded & cash strapped Services trying to bring in brass as much as possible.

[Maverick]

Sounds quite plausible.  Bit of a joke really, tho.  Here's the nation's armed forces penny pinching over aircraft markings.  If it's the true state of affairs, it's a pretty sad indicator as to the Government's view of Joe Citizen from a modeller's perspective.  I would have thought that modellers would have been thought of as patriotic not underhanded, but sounds like the bean counters are back from their coffee break again.

Mav

[Maverick]

Another facet of this is the fact that this is the same Government that expects its people to be behind it and its armed forces during operations to that 'not to be mentioned' place amongst others.  Go figure.  Without politicising this thread in any way, Blair has got quite a bit of explaining to do on this subject, Liz too for that matter.

Mav (now moderately peeved, moreso than before)

[Mossie]

Well, on the face of it the county's run by the Queen, but then the Government tells her what to do & there told what to do by accountants.  The older the get the more cynical I get (I was born cynical as well!) & the less this kind of crap surprises me.  This is kind of getting politcal without meaning too, but if things are run by people who value numbers more than anything else then it's pretty inevitable that silly things like this will happen.  

[Maverick]

Nailed it in one!

[Sentinel Chicken]

Hence my choice of avatar!

[Geoff]

Blair has got quite a bit of explaining to do on this subject,

He has quite a bit of explaining to do on a lot of subjects.

(Note to moderators - - sorry! I'll be quiet now. :zzz: )

[GeorgeC]

I happen to know the background to the 'RAF roundel' copyright issue.  About the mid ninties there were a number of companies, including Nike I think, using logos very similar to the UK roundel, while others were selling 'Red Arrow' merchandise.  A lot of it was nasty and tacky, a lot clearly impled the RAF and aviation in their marketing and some companies with turnovers in excess of the UK Defence Budget were making money without any return to the taxpayer.  Legal advice was that there was nothing that could be done even the logo was used to advertise something inappropriate, ie no Crown Copyright, as a roundel is a common heralic device.

To control the use of the 'logo' the MOD then registered as ta rademark the classic 1:2:3 red, white and blue roundel and a few other bits and pieces about the Red Arrows etc.  This can stop the roundel being on anything inappropriate,  eg tobbacco products, alcohol, political advertising etc etc, and also allows a little cash on the side to be made out of marketing, hence the 'RAF casual wear' which has been such a er talking point on PPrune etc.  To my knowledge, it was only the 'classic' roundel that was registered, not the Type A, B, C, D, SEAC, 70s low-vis, low-vis grey scheme etc etc.  

To my knowledge, no one has been approached for any licencing agreement over the use of RAF markings, colour schemes, squadron badges etc etc on a model. There are 2 very good reasons for this. Firstly, in an age where the British military is increasingly marginal to society - there are more people in our prisons than in the RAF and the RN put together - why would anyone interfere with such a popular link to military aviation as modelling?  It would seem to make it all a bit pointless organising all those airshows, flying the Red Arrows and keeping the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight going.  The second major issue would be how much you think could be gained from squeezing the model industry    it wouldnt be worth the stamps and the headed paper (with the nice corporate logo!).

If anyone knows an instance of this happening, please say so or pm me, and I will pop out the office and turn the Corporate PR team on the Acquistion and Commercial Team...  

         

[Brian da Basher]

Here in the U.S. we have legislation pending called the Military Toy Replica Act or something similar (funny how the memory goes as you get close to 40). This was spurred by what's going on with the RAF roundel among other things. The idea behind the legislation is that since U.S. taxpayers originally funded military vehicles and markings, folks shouldn't be charged any sort of license fee for model or toy replicas of them. The last news I heard was that this bill is close to being passed into law.

Brian da Basher

[Maverick]

Brian

i heard bits about that one on the web, at least the US has the right attitude towards this whole deal.  Thank god somebody is making sense out there in politico land.

Mav

[Jennings]

I have no idea of the background of the current silliness, but I can state flatly here and now that the MoD can kiss my skinny little Colonial arse if they think I'm about to start paying money to them for the use of a logo that's been in the public domain for nearly a century in its current guise (as the RFC/RAF/RN roundel), and in widespread use in other contexts since (literally) the beginning of human civilization.

Sorry chaps, you'll just have to blow that one up your stove pipe.

J

[Jennings]

Brian

i heard bits about that one on the web, at least the US has the right attitude towards this whole deal.  Thank god somebody is making sense out there in politico land.

Mav

If you mean that the US Government allegedly doesn't copyright or or register trademarks, think again.  It's already started. The U.S. Coast Guard has registered their "racing stripe", their anchor logo, and the term "U.S. Coast Guard" and (so they say) they require official permission and pre-approval of any use of them.  Licensing fees are the next logical (to their lawyers anyway) step on that road.  It's only a matter of time before some Republican lawyer gets the idea that the government could make money off of little people with licensing fees for stars & bars, the image of the US flag, the name "U.S. Air Force" and "U.S. Navy", the logos of the services (and every other government agency), etc.  Mark my words, it will happen in the US.  We have more lawyers than the rest of the world put together, and a large chunk of them work for the federal government.  It's just a matter of time.

J