General Discussion

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:14 pm

I disagree with you podolski things around here were not relaxed when you get threats of legal action for copyright theft in a couple of threads in a couple of months then it is not relaxed and I am afraid that this needed to be brought out into the open before any real damage was done. Atleast this way things can be fixed without anyone getting into trouble and the hobby can continue after everyone makes sure that they are doing the right thing for their own peace of mind

Bomn · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:18 pm

Try this.

"Insert Individual of your choice" holds copyright to a design and licences "Insert company of your choice" to use that design today. When does the copyright expire?

Alltrains · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:25 pm

Individual= 70 years after death
Company= 70 years after design is completed

Hack · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:31 am

I found many articles related to shape and design use on the Yahoo Licensing discussion group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Licen/

Specifically, the following thread - relevant for the discussion of shape design. Note too that a company must apply for a patent for a shape, which is much different than simply creating a logo and having it copyrighted:

> I would bet that a patent on the aircraft's shape helps Boeing's case, but
> the 747 dates back before the 1976 start date of the USPTO searchable
> patent database.

Patents only last 20 yrs. Assuming the 747 was built prior to 1984, patent law wouldn't seem to apply.

> If you go to the trademark search and key in Boeing and select "owner",
> you will get a long list of aircraft names that they want to license for model
> and toy use:

I note that Boeing has registered "B-17 Flying Fortress" but not just "B-17" unless I missed something. OTOH, I note that some aircraft have been registered with just the number...707, for example.

These trademarks are food for thought. Obviously, the word "Mustang", part of the registered "P-51 Mustang" is possibly registered by Ford. At least it was copyrighted and probably continues to be. Add to that, it is patented every few yrs. And, of course, the term "Mustang" has been around for some time and might have even been used in commerce at some time by someone associated with ranching. This does point out the significance of the term "...on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;". The same thing applies to P-38 aircraft and P-38 pistols.

As with the UP and railroads...anyone other than Boeing trying to apply a registered Boeing trademark to a real airplane would have serious problems. Anyone using the Boeing name selling blankets or models would also have a problem. The issue of whether or not Monogram [ I use the name Monogram as an example only...I have no idea if they ever built models of Boeing aircraft ] can sell, under its own name, a model of a B-17 including the name of "B-17 Flying Fortress" is a different matter. Certainly neither patent nor copyright applies. I think, if I were Monogram, I would state in VERY bold letters on the container...just as I would if I were Athearn in the UP matter...that the model was produced by Monogram and was not connected in any way with Boeing. This, incidentally, is what the UP historical society does and its predecessor did with regard to the UP. Remember, trademark only functions to provide an association between producer and product. It is fairly easy to put the same indicator on the bottom of a railroad item...not so easy on an airplane. At any rate, if Athearn and Monogram did do as I suggest, I would think a court would have a hard time deciding that potential buyers would confuse products made by Athearn and UP OR those mader by Monogram and Boeing.

It is possible, of course, for Monogram...or anyone else making models of aircraft...to try to register the term "B-17" as a trademark. After all, in Athearn or Monogram's case, it has nothing to do with who built the real train or airplane. In fact, the production of model B-17's and the production of real B-17s are not the same or even similar goods as in the tradrmark office's "...on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration". In fact, Monogram...like Athearn and model trains....has, IMO, a much stronger case for using the B-17 Flying Fortress trademark FOR MAKING MODELS than Boeing does...although, of course, Boeing has an infinitely stronger case for making real B-17s...if they chose to do so.

I haven't yet checked for designs built under any sort of "war act" (ie: WWII), but would guess patented designs and copyrights built/created for and granted by various governments would be difficult to enforce, if even valid at this point. (Example: Government-A authorizes Company-Z to build Locomotive-X during wartime.)

IMHO, before the chickens go running about claiming the sky is falling (and no C&D has been issued), anyone concerned with ownership rights should contact an attorney specializing in Copyright & Trademarks (and/or patents) for their particular country, and then have them explain how a particular law affects the building of a specific shape.

I'm no attorney, just someone interested in applying a bit of logic to this discussion. Smile

Cheers!
Marc

gallop3 · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:21 am

Another very interesting post there Marc re the different naming.

We actually have a good one to throw over to Alltrains.
The old advertising U vans were built in the 1920's but a lot of the companies
who used these logos still exist but are now mostly owned by international conglomerates.

One that comes to mind is Peters ice cream, and Black Crows cough lollies
who are now owned by the nestle corporation.
So the way I read into this example is that the van itself is OK, but the advertising logo would need the permission of Nestle.
Is this correct Alltrains?
Not sure what the packaging logo looks like these days compared to then but might be slightly different or would it be the brand name that becomes the stumbling block.
Looking forward for your comments on this one.
Cheers
Ian

gallop3

Alltrains · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:23 am

Come back to earth Marc we are not at war and we are in Australia not America so what applies in America does not apply in Australia it is only via an agreement that we recognize designs and copyrights from overseas. And the site that you went to is an American site.
Look in these
www.australia.gov.au
then down the left side click on business.gov.au
and go to the section Intellectual Property
when you have finished there goto
www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP2000401428?OpenDocument
when you have read everything and desyphored all the legal jargon so that you can understand it all then go to a good copyright lawyer ($150-$300 per hour) and get them to explain it all to you. or you could have looked at the pages that were listed in a previous post or you could continue on the way you were and risk the chance of being prosecuted.

Bomn · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:31 am

gallop3 · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:20 am

I personally think that Alltrain's credentials speak for itself.
From what I have seen so far he knows the legislation back to front.
Read the documentation recomended to Hack.
You might just learn something if you can decipher the legal jargon.
I would advise to have a dictionary at the ready also.
Cheers
Ian

gallop3

Alltrains · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:34 am

Bomn I suggest that you get a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator for Windows 95 and read the first page of the Pilot's Handbook and I quote

"Information in this document is subject to change without notice. The names of companies, products, people, characters, and/or data mentioned herein are fictitious, and are in no way intended to represent any real individual, company, product, or event, unless otherwise noted. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft may have patents or pending patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property except as expressly provided in any written licence agreement from Microsoft."

"Copyright 1983-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved"

"Microsoft,MS-DOS, Sidewinder 3D Pro, Windows, and the Windows logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries"

"Microsoft Flight Simulator scenery designed for Microsoft Corporation by Microscene Inc under contract, and produced by the microsoft Corporation"

Airport charts were reproduced with the permission of Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. copyright 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc"

"FlightSafety International is a registered trademark of FlightSafety International Inc"

"This product is for entertainment purposes only and shall not be used for training purposes. It is not part of an approved training program under the standards of the FAA or any other regulatory authority"

"Document No 93589-0896"

"Printed in Australia"

Alltrains · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:09 am

Further to your inquiry Bomn on page 13 of Scenery Queensland as produced by Sim-Flite Australia and PC Aviator Pty Ltd in the Credits section it lists
"Queensland flora photoghraphs digitally reproduced with the expressed permission of Reed Books Melbourne, Australia"
This means that if you digitally reproduce a photo that is in a book then you need permission

Bomn · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:16 am

Nowhere in that does it state that microsoft is licenced to depict any buildings.

Alltrains · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:24 am

Bomn. Go and read the information that is in the web sites that I have listed before you make anymore stupid remarks. It appears the you can't read because any blind man would see that Microsoft Corporation contracted Microscene Inc to design the scenery so Microscene Inc would get the permission.

Bomn · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:52 am

Alltrains · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:28 pm

Yes thats right I would assume that if YOU were the owner of a company like Microsoft or MicroScene and did not want to be sued for millions of dollars by the legal owner of any patent, copyright, design or whatever then I would assume that YOU would obtain all the permission that is required by law and if YOU did not then YOU would deserve every legal action that would be taken against YOU and as there has been no legal action taken against either Microsoft or MicroScene then yes I have assumed that they have done everything legally

Hack · Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:27 pm