Back in February this year Andy Saunders posted on the Battle of Britain Historical Society forum a letter found on a pilot washed up on a beach in November 1940.

The letter commences

Dear Helen,…….

Andy asked if anyone had any idea of who it could be. It was suggested that perhaps it was Stuart Walch of 238 Squadron who had died in August 1940. On my reading of it, internal evidence indicates that the author was NOT Stuart Walch ……

cheers, alexfax

I found this both an interesting but perplexing and frustrating thread.

The opening post quotes the introduction of the letter, and poses the identity of the author, and then discounts the identity being Stuart Walch, and subsequent posts debate if the authors real name was Stuart, or if its an adopted family name, or if the letter has been correctly transcribed? but for those of us unfamiliar with the issue, there is the missing clue of “why” Stuart is at issue in the first place

– Is the name the signature at the bottom of the rest of the letter, or mentioned in the text?, is it possible to share the full transcription of the letter here?

I went to the Battle of Britain forum looking for Andy’s original post but couldnt find it there either.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Sorry, moderation of this compared to other incidents ie bbd does not hold water at all.

Like it or no not that is pretty much a fact.

I would rather see active moderation based on good intentions to maintain and uphold some standards, than lax or no moderation and descent into a “free for all” -“no holds barred” rabble because Mods were concerned at the mob reaction, or simply non-existant due to lack of volunteers.

Peter’s reasons for the lock were explained and reasonable, there was no facts coming forward or even seperate confirmation of any incident beyond the original OP, I dont think anyone bordered on outrageous speculation but it was Peter’s call to await some confirmation.

And still no real damage done in temporarily closing the thread if he was being a bit too cautious in other peoples eyes, as can be seen, some facts came forward and the thread re-opened.

The BBD thread was discussing a confirmed and public incident, with additional independant and public information /facts being released from various sources as it unfolded so that speculation was kept as at a minimum, I’m therefore not sure there is a direct comparison to be made?

Its usually a thankless task as far as I can see, but our volunteer Moderators give up their time to help us enjoy this site under the direction of the owners /providers KP- I’m happy to abide by the Moderators judgement, and am happy to support Peters call on this issue too.

Thanks to Peter and our other Mods, keep up the good work.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Copyright is a confusing legal right, but not as vague and as weak as is implied by some of the comments above.

Remedy need not be financial compensation, but simply legal restraint from further use, ie further breach of copyright, the legal costs to recover compensation may far outweigh the compensation -deterring any court action, but the legal costs to enforce copyright through legal restraint is quite modest in comparison, (but still unlikely to be justifiable to simply stop use of a single “happy snap”)

Despite the opinions and bushlawyer advice of some, it is (in Australia at least) quite easy to legally enforce copyright (if your ownership claim is able to be evidenced to the satisfaction of a court) by simply applying to the courts to place an injunction on the offending person to restrain them from ongoing infringement, if that infringement is outside the usage permitted under copyright laws.

Continued infringement of the copyright is clearly then illegal against the injunction applied by the court and easily enforceable ongoing by the court itself.

Legally then, a breach or contravention of an Injunction is contempt of court, the fines and penalties of which are decided by the court and not requiring further legal action or costs by the copyright owner to enforce it, or the underlying “copy” rights it was enforcing.

The obligation then falls to the other party to overturn your injunction by evidencing their rights, or disputing your claim.

Unless the other party contests and overturns the injunction by legally disputing to the court that an copyright infringement has not occured or disputes your claim of ownership, then is no need for the copyright owner to expend additional civil costs in a court battle, as the ignoring of a court order is not a dispute between the private individuals, but now a disobediance of the court itself and therefore now becomes a dispute with the crown and society.

In addition, some legal claims may allow the plaintiff to seek a court order to prevent you from doing something (or requiring you to take a particular action) before the matter is finalised. This is court order is known as an “injunction” and it can be a very serious matter to ignore or breach an injunction

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4131/being-sued—tips-for-small-business-owners-involv.aspx

The following outlines the true facts regarding remedies for copyright infringement in Australia, under Australian copyright law.

Injunctions
11.1 The owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may obtain an injunction to restrain an infringement of copyright occurring or continuing.

Costs to invoke an injunction might still outway the true value to you of someone “stealing use” of your “happy snap”, and of course that is a personal financial decision, but the costs are far lower that embarking on civil action seek financial compensation, and successful restraint does not rely on demonstrating any financial loss, simply ownership of copyright.

The matter of getting compensation is a totally seperate matter and requires a loss to have been suffered, but legal compensation for commercial use can be beyond compensation and include punitive damages.

Damages
11.2 A person whose copyright is infringed is entitled to damages as compensation for infringement. In the case of a blatant infringement, or where some particular benefit has accrued to the defendant, punitive damages may be awarded to a copyright owner. In determining the amount of damages for copyright infringement, a court may consider whether the infringement involved converting hardcopy material into digital form, as well as whether a stronger penalty would deter others from committing the same infringement.

Account of Profits
11.3 Alternatively, the court may order payment to the owner of copyright of the profit made by the infringer as a result of the infringement.

Conversion damages
11.4 Where the infringement was deliberate, the Copyright Act also provides for the owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter to be in substantially the same position as if he or she owned the infringing copies of the material. Subject to the discretion of the court, there is a provision for a copyright owner to have any infringing copies of the material in the hands of the infringer (including any device used in making the copies) delivered up to him or her.

Of course the laws of other countries may vary from above, but those extracts above are from the Australian Attorney Generals office rather than bushlawyer opinion, and although they are clearly pertaining to Australian Law, I suspect similar remedies exist under most western law in other countries.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Copyright+Law+in+Australia+-+A+Short+Guide+-+June+2005.pdf/$file/Copyright+Law+in+Australia+-+A+Short+Guide+-+June+2005.pdf

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The wing parts are useful but the undercarriage is not, perhaps the Hermes at Duxford can use them.

Cees

Perhaps the Hermes at Duxford is a suitable recepient of the surplus Malta Wing Centre-section and undercarriage if a second Halifax project is not identified?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Mark – I would dearly like to see the RAFM Beaufort restored to its genuine RAAF PNG markings and I dont think people would see that as being out of place as that is exactly what it is. Aircraft such as the Beaufort were a part of the direct Empire war effort and I think people would relate to it more.
As for the CASA -I still feel that her genuine markings are what would suit her best -I am hoping that the days of museums painting aircraft in spurious markings are coming to an end – the idea that by painting her for instance in a BOB film scheme could act as a kind of half way house isnt really that worthy. The use of the machines in the film was just a tiny part of the Heinkel /CASA story. I am not a great advocate that the IWM should spend large sums of money on an aircraft of limited historical connection to the U.K. To me the real story is the Spanish use post WWII and their exploits in North Africa.

David,

I support much of what you say, and retaining aircraft in their own identities and colourschemes is a valid display strategy, particularly when the aircraft is complete and has its own unique story to tell, but balancing that is the issue of the collection purpose and the role the aircraft is to play in the collection.

There is a valid role for replicas, reproductions and FSM’s in museum displays, and we accept those being put into the colourschemes and markings of the collections subject matter, as clearly they have no identity of their own, so I still consider the same can apply to a complete aircraft being presented in “representative” markings rather than its own.

The RAFM Beaufort in one of 5 surviving in the world, with the other 3 in Australia, 1 in the USA, all ex RAAF examples.

One of those in Australia is A9-13 / T9552, a DAP mark V and the oldest surviving example of the 5, it was built in Australia and joined 100 Squadron RAF in Australia as part of 180 intended to be delivered to the RAF from Australian production, although only 6 were flown to Singapore to try and defend from Japanese attack, and the remaining 59 built including this aircraft then tranferred back to the RAAF – This would have been the ideal one for Hendon to have acquired, displayed as itself as T9552 it would have fulfilled all objectives.

The example that the RAFM does have is an ex RAAF Mark VIII, but is very similar to the Bristol Mark II that it represents, the other 3 surviving examples are identical to it with the AWM and US examples being mark VIII’s and the Flying restoration in Australia being a mark VII but fitted with the centre-fuselage of a mark VIII effectively resulting in that outcome in anycase.

All 3 in Australia will be presented as Australian built RAAF aircraft in their own identities, the US example is assumed to result in the same outcome ands from my position the 5th in the RAFM being presented as a Bristol mark II in RAF markings is not a loss of the RAAF heritage but filling a gap of an extinct type in the UK, representing a type both built and operated by Britain.

I do contrast that with the RAAF Seagull in the RAFM which is best displayed as itself given its rarity.

In the USAF Museum there is an ex RAAF Bristol Beaufighter mark IC, A19-43, its main structure was recovered intact in Australia in the 1970s and the airframe saw operational service with the RAAF in PNG, It is one of only 3 surviving ex RAAF Bristol built Beaufighters, the other two are later mark XI examples one in the UK at Duxford and the other in storage un restored in Australia, while two ex RAAF DAP Mark 21’s also survive but tell a completely different story.

It is an example of the failures of Australia’s export laws at the time, and should have instead been acquired by the AWM and retained in Australia, instead it is displayed in the USAF Museum in night fighter colours as an obsecure type the US flew in Italy. Instead it could be displayed in its own authentic operational colours as an allied aircraft that flew in support of US forces in the Pacific against the Japanese and is of the type that Americans flew as night fighters in Italy.

and yes, the RAAF Beaufort in the RAFM could be displayed in its RAAF colours on the same basis, but its not the sole survivor, and there are equivalents remaining in Australia itself.

Museums need to balance using exhibits to tell the story they acquired them to tell, as well as retaining the provenance of the object itself, but there are a number of ways that can be achieved.

The CASA as a type is irrelevent to the UK let alone the remit of the IWM, but as an FSM of a He 111 it is a perfect acquisition, if they spent money on a fibreglass FSM of a HE 111 for a display it would be happily displayed in BoB german markings, I dont see the difference with the CASA.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The aircraft was either built on the line with Merlins or converted from Jumo. Either way back engineering is all well and fine but it didnt see service with the Luftwaffe and most likely was built when the Nazi regime had ceased to exist. What I do find interesting is that the Deuches Museum choose to restore their CASA in the silver and blue of the Spanish air force -as a machine it looks far better in that than a pseudo Luftwaffe scheme and I think the public is savvy enough through information boards to understand what they are looking at!

I’m not sure there is a need to display it as authentically as a CASA and in spanish colours to justify its pedigree, but if that was done so be it?, I suspect that might simply support arguments of no relevence?

The Deuches Museum as a German Science and Technology museum (as against a Military Service or War Museum) is displaying a German design licenced built in Spain post WW2, its relevence isnt as a mockup He 111, it has historical relevence to be there in its own right as a german design, hence presentation in its CASA and spanish colour scheme are very appropriate and relevent.

The rationale for the CASA in the IWM is assumed to be its relationship to and representation of the He-111 as a type, and that types strong significance in the wartime experiences of Britain and therefore its relevence to a War Museum, I think thats quite acceptable, but that would lean me to displaying it in the context of that relevence not its own spanish identity.

In this case we have a post war “version” of a wartime aircraft being presented in colours and an identity it never wore, and with technical differences to the actual aircraft it is trying to represent.

There are hundreds of aircraft in museums in that same situation.

Would you then also apply the same criteria to the Beaufort in the RAF Museum, its an Australian built mark VIII presented as a Bristol built mark II, it clearly never served in the RAF or Europe and therefore should be presented in its RAAF colours?

Similarly the P-40 is built up from an ex-RAAF example recovered from the Pacific, and although technically similar to those flown by the RAF never in fact did so, should it be presented in its RAAF colours.

I personally wouldnt mind those outcomes, but within the UK presentation in representative RAF colours chemes and identities are more relevent to the types significance in Europe, otherwise the UK public might question what is the relevence of Australian aircraft in a British museum?, and have difficulty in interpreting the types role in UK history due to the distraction of the RAAF colours and markings.

Equally when Hendon acquired its Hudson there wasnt any others in preservation in Australia so display in its authentic RAAF colours and identity were very appropriate and appreciated, but with the AWM and RAAFM both having RAAF examples in preservation for future display, and Temora flying theirs in RAAF colours perhaps it is time for the RAFM to be encouraged/permitted to present their Hudson in a more relevent colourscheme to UK heritage, ie an RAF Coastal Command colour scheme?

The RAAF Seagull is perhaps a special case, it is the last of breed (as against a Walrus) and so is deserving of being preserved in its authentic RAAF colourschemes despite its role in the RAFM in representing the wider family ie Walrus, and certainly it shouldnt be technically modified “into” a Walrus to “correct” any differences.

Not that I consider full conversion of the CASA is viable or necessary to justify its retention and display in the IWM collection at Duxford, but what about all the WW1 replica’s in the RAF Museum collection, even if they are technically accurate, they equally didnt ever see service with the RAF and were all built long after the period they purport to represent, yet display in no colour schemes (as they are not entitled to wear them) and signage focusing on them not being original would defeat the very purpose of them being there, to allow full size interpretation of machines from that period.

Otherwise the argument for any full size aircraft or mockups being displayed in museums dis-appears and a collection of walk around photos on a digital display and historic movie film can suffice, ie is the UK richer or poorer in terms of Bomber Command heritage and public interpretations and learnings from the Yorkshire “Halifax” display?

As I have said previously, I would not embark on a complete conversion of the CASA to a quasi He 111 its unlikely to be a complete success due to the lack of parts and would still not be an original.

I wouldnt argue with it being presented in an accurate BoB colourscheme with Merlins in place and a signboard coverage of the CASA and its spanish history.

Equally I wouldnt argue with its merlins and cowls being removed and replaced with fibreglass He-111 cowls etc to better present it, but would still retain signboard coverage of the CASA and its spanish history.

Of course my opinion is just that of an armchair enthusiast in front of a PC on the other side of the world, but also a potential visitor or “customer” to the IWM as well. (and despite the comments of some, we are all entitled to our opinions and able to debate opposing views without denigrating others)

Regards

Mark Pilkington