This evening I got a number of warnings from my webstore holders: apparently I had breached someone’s copyrights and some of the artwork and photographs I had for sale were removed from my webstore. The images involved were all British: the TSR2, Spitfire and Vulcan.
As I am the creator of these artworks/photos, I enquired who would be claiming the copyright on these. This was the reply:
Unfortunately, it appears that your products titled, “spitfire mk ix”,”hell-for-leather (2)”, and “vulcan”, did not meet Zazzle’s Acceptable Content Guidelines. Specifically, your products infringed upon The UK Secretary of State for Defence intellectual property rights of The Royal Air Force. This also includes all logos, insignias, badges, etc.
Zazzle has been contacted by legal and commercial rights representatives of The UK Secretary of State for Defence, and at their request, to remove products that infringe upon their rights from the Zazzle Marketplace.
I am in absolute shock. Is the RAF really spending tax money on hunting down hard working artists and photographers and disallowing them to sell their images because it uses the RAF roundel? As far as I’m concerned…
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! 😡
By: WH904 - 9th March 2015 at 22:24
I keep reading references to the “RAF roundel” … it isn’t an “RAF roundel” of course…
By: GrahamF - 9th March 2015 at 19:59
I haven’t read all the posts so apologies if I’m repeating here but as regards Decals that problem is dead easy to resolve, all you have to do is get the customer to assemble the logo or roundel etc, Its a bit like the swastika which is illegal in certain countries the decal sheets have it split up into two arms and all you have to do is put it together. So the red dot could be separate which on some I’m sure I’ve seen. Also isn’t the roundel very specific as regards proportion and size? one could argue that its only representive?
Graham
By: Skyraider3D - 9th March 2015 at 15:24
That’s an interesting document indeed.
Perhaps it has something to do with the star-and-bar being used by the USN/USMC/USCG too?
By: Cherry Ripe - 8th March 2015 at 07:42
Seems you can apply for a free licence http://www.trademark.af.mil/usagerules/
Interestingly, it appears that the star-and-bar(s) isn’t trademarked… see page 22:
http://www.trademark.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120213-033.pdf
See page 8 for the symbols that are trademarked; mostly twee except for the command and ANG shields.
By: scotavia - 7th March 2015 at 10:13
We live in a mostly fast moving connected world, the method of working around a problem is now common place and it is a measure of imagination to see how this occurs often. Apart from the scale models which need a direct reference to the colour scheme the avoidance of certain words and phrases which are trademarks and copyrighted seems an easy method which will become well used and understood by many.
By: Project-9699 - 7th March 2015 at 09:50
I came across this a few times during my time in the MOD Police, its a Gov Directive and happens with Police Badges and other Gov logos.
To that end the RAF Wethersfield Museum will now be known as the Wethersfield Airfield Museum as will my Brief History Booklet.
By: Fouga23 - 7th March 2015 at 09:03
Off on a tangent, when is your Fouga book out in UK ?
Shameless plug:
Out in a few weeks! It’s currently at the printers.
^^
By: trumper - 19th February 2015 at 11:06
I guess that doing a picture of a background in which an aircraft just accidently happened to get in the way wouldn’t work 🙂 A can of worms ,what happens when some one like the Red Arrows have a painting done for publicity purposes ,is it all waived then?
By: Archer - 19th February 2015 at 10:02
Aahh, I just checked and noticed that a gallery which specialises in this type of stuff only mentions the painting’s title and an aircraft type. Nothing about which particular organisation was involved. Don’t know if that’s typical but it clears up one of my puzzles.
By: Skyraider3D - 18th February 2015 at 13:02
It’s more about the marketing: advertise a painting-for-sale as “Royal Air Force Spitfires” instead of “Spitfires” and you could indeed get trouble.
By: Archer - 18th February 2015 at 10:23
Just wondering (don’t think I’ve seen it on the thread yet): What’s the GAVA‘s position on this? How do galleries selling prints of paintings deal with this situation? Are they knocking on their doors demanding that these prints are taken off the market?
By: Skyraider3D - 17th February 2015 at 21:29
I finally decided to go ahead and edit my shop… and then found the official guidelines for USAF fan merch. One of the first being:
Set your Royalty Rate at 10%
Please Note: Royalty Rates will be re-set to 10% if they are found to be above the allowable rate for FanMerch.
So I make one whole dollar on a $10 shirt? Hardly worth the effort… Anyone who wants stuff from my store, get it now as chances are I’ll close it before the month is out. First the RAF, then the RAAF, now the USAF. I’m sick and tired of this nonsense…
I’m going to do Messerschmitts from now on, see if anyone has the filthy guts to claim trademark on swastikas! :stupid:
Those Zazzle nazis…
By: SADSACK - 13th February 2015 at 20:56
many years ago I was ushered in and a wonderful RAF veteran showed me his portrait of the City of Lincoln. I would like to see them try and stop him painting her!
By: TonyT - 13th February 2015 at 00:21
Oddly enough when the RAF tried to register it for clothing it was argued that the use on clothing pre dated the trademark application so it couldn’t be done, one wonders if the same could be argued over art
By: TonyT - 13th February 2015 at 00:14
Quickly register the RAF’s new Roundel design if they haven’t then ask them to remove it, see
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/556341-roundel-looks-stupid-f35.html
By: Fouga23 - 12th February 2015 at 19:03
No release date yet. My graphic artist is still finishing the last profiles. Best that I can say is: ASAP 🙂
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th February 2015 at 16:40
Make a Fouga 😉 No problems with French aircraft AFAIK!
Off on a tangent, when is your Fouga book out in UK ?
By: Fouga23 - 12th February 2015 at 16:07
Make a Fouga 😉 No problems with French aircraft AFAIK!
By: plough - 12th February 2015 at 13:22
I think they have probably always needed a licence from the original manufacturer to produce the models (where they, or a subsequent holder of the trademark still exist) – certainly for some years at the least. It is exactly the same with diecast toys/models, whether they be of aeroplanes, buses, trucks cars or whatever. The OEM has to give permission via issueing a licence, and where the licensee is likely to make significant profits, there is likely to be a fee payable, or a licence may be issued without charge where the resulting product can be used for promotional purposes by the trademark holder.
By: CADman - 12th February 2015 at 11:54
bloody ridicules the next thing is Boeing will ask for money using a mustang as a pic subject
That has already happened. The last Airfix kit released of the P-51D Mustang in RAF markings as a starter set had the statement that Boeing owned copyright on P-51 and Mustang. Dont know if Airfix had to pay for such an agreement or if it was just a request to allow sales in the USA.
Sign In
March 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm