[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

The NMUSAF has come out and said that the Memphis Belle and her markings are property of the USAF. I thought that we had talked abotu something like this before.

This may just be a bluff. I think they'd have a hard time proving their ability to hold copyright. Anyone can say they hold copyright. Getting the courts to agree is a whole different kettle of fish, but who in this business wants to lawyer up enough to find out.

[mustangdriver]

Well in the most recent FM magazine, it show an insignia that says licensed by the USAF.

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

I think what the big deal is about is that there is another aircraft flying around painted as the belle, and the owner of that plane is just fine with people thinking it is the real deal.

Yeah, it's a shame (in my book) that the 'bird' you refer to, (which is painted up accurately) has continued to wear the same "personal markings", serial & Sqdn codes, (since the famous Hollywood/Sir David Puttnam/Katherine Wyler film) - & is 'technically' masquerading as Capt Robert Morgan & Co's Bassingbourne-based original.

Even more irony, as she is actually a chin turreted 'G' version in reality, who just happened to 'lose' her 'chin-piece' for the

benefit of the film - (give Puttnam & Co credit, for making ALL the '17's in the film look like 1943 B.17-'F's - as per accurate timescale).


Another irony, is that she never had her 'chin-turret' in the mid-'seventies, when she was accquired from France (c/o Institute de Geographique National).

This is because she had been used for map-making & survey work throughout most of her civilian life in France during the 1960's & 70's.

I did put a post out (in detail) regarding this very a/c (on another thread, around Dec/Jan ?) answering the same basic question 'is it the original ???'

Well, truth is, you've got two hopes of seeing the 'Real' deal flying (Bob Hope & No Hope !), so as she stands, the 'film-painted'
"Sally B" is likely (sadly, in my opinion) to carry on with her spurious markings.
(incidentally, even the markings "Sally B" which the a/c has carried since she first operated out of Duxford, are fictitious).

If she were mine, I'd have the chin turret put straight back on (weight penalty or flying characteristics aside) & have her painted up in typical 1944 markings representative of a 1st A.D 'Triangle' (or) 3rd A.D 'Square' B.17-G.

Personally, I'd paint her up in 100th B.G. markings ('D' in a Square) as a Thorpe Abbotts bird - especially as the current-day equivalent unit are flying KC.135's just down the road, at Mildenhall USAF base, (THEY helped set up the museum at their historic ancestral home/base).......... AND they've had special dispensation to fly (over the last 10 - 15 years) PROUDLY wearing their 'D' in a Square W.W.II historic markings on EACH & every KC.135 on the base !!!!!!!

Maybe Elly Sallingboe (THE '17's owner/operator - but not pilot) is just quite content with the 'Memphis Belle' name generating interest AND much needed revenue.

My guess is that NMUSAF are WELL & truly fed-up, as "Sally B" has just been re-painted up as "Memphis Belle" for the third time around, (as these two factors co-incide).......

I don't blame 'em ; but legally, I don't think they've got a 'leg to stand on' ??????

[timbo]

Originally Posted by hworth18

The Government can't copywrite personal markings, only the standard ID/livery markings of the aircraft.. If anyone has copywrite priviledges, it would be the pilot of Memphis Belle whom painted them on his government issued A/C.. Yeager and Preddy's families are the same way, they have copywritten the personal markings, but can't do anything about the Gov't issued stuff such as livery.. That's why the 1/32 FOV Mustangs don't have either personal markings on their birds..

Just recently, Boeing and some of the other military contractors tried to gain copywrites on their military hardware, but the case was shot down because a Government contractor can't copywrite Goverment owned/commissioned materials..

Noticed on the HM SBD box's that it say's it's an official boeing licensed product, and that SBD was a Boeing trademark. At the time I was not sure how they could claim that as I thought the Navy came up with that designation, and would have owned anything to do with the Dauntless.

Sounds like over active IP lawyers to me.

How can either Yeager or Preddy's estates claim ownership. The basicly defaced Gov't property that was issued to them to do their job. Ok they are very famous and did their job incredably well - but still.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

What affect do they suppose this will have on global warming, 'stang?...

Maine will be Char-grilled

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by timbo

Maine will be Char-grilled

Couldn't happen soon enuff!...

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Well in the most recent FM magazine, it show an insignia that says licensed by the USAF.

If it's an official USAF insignia commisioned by the USAF, the USAF probably does own the rights to that.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by TopHat

If it's an official USAF insignia commisioned by the USAF, the USAF probably does own the rights to that.

Air Force photos, documents etc. that are not restricted in their classification are public domain as are other government works (especially as you as citizens paid for them). I can print, sell, copy Air Force photos all day long and not be in violation of copyright. I'm having trouble understanding what basis they have claiming copyright on something owned by the taxpayers. I suspect what might be happening is that the Museum Foundation, as a non-profit, non-governmental entity, may be claiming copyright. They might have a bit more leg to stand on there, but it seems pretty shaky to me as it is ultimately government property, whether or not they are the custodians of it.

[Cavtanker]

Out of curiousity, who owns the copyright to the Flying Tigers insignia? I remember reading somewhere it was designed by Walt Disney.

[mapleflag]

Based on this argument then why is USAF not after Revell for its 60's release of the Belle and every photo,t-shirt,ball cap and god knows what?
The markings were designed by one person and if anyone owns them it would be that person or the artist who applied them. Nowhere in any photo
official or private have I ever seen that cute little C that indicates copyright protection nor have I ever read any caution relating to licensed use of the name or logo.
If the USAF wants to play this game then every aircraft that was field modified would be subject to copyright by the person who did the mods beyond factory finish.