[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

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

Probably FedEx.....

[jim]

What about the chaps that did the painting on the originals? In a PC world maybe they have a claim?

[STARMAN 352ND]

This is such a fine line to walk on when it comes to copyrights.
JP

[Old Crow]

What about the chaps that did the painting on the originals? In a PC world maybe they have a claim?

While copyright (and IP) are not my areas of practice (as this post will probably make evident ), copyright questions and rights are usually more complicated when dealing with work generated in the course of employment, especially when the employer is Uncle Sam.

Generally speaking, and I mean really generally, only the author of a work can claim copyright once the work has been completed (such as a song recorded on tape or perhaps an image painted on a fuselage). The artist or creator becomes the owner of the property. A work created in some permanent or fixed form is automatically protected by copyright, including the right to reproduce or redistribute the work, or to transfer or license such rights to the work to others.

In the case of a work made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered the author. U.S. copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his employment. And if dealing with an independent contractor who signs an agreement indicating the work is "made for hire," the employer will own the work made for hire if it is one of various types, such as part of a larger literary work, an article in a magazine, part of a motion picture, an instructional text, etc.

It is also important to note that simply owning a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy does not give the possessor the copyright to the work itself.

Now, when considering the federal government, a "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties would be described in a position description and include other incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty.

U.S. Government works are covered by 17 USC § 105.59. "Copyright protection … is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Copyright protection may be available for U.S. Government works outside the United States. When a copyrighted work is transferred to the U.S. Government, the Government becomes the copyright owner and the work retains its copyright protection.

However, the fact that U.S. Government works are not protected under U.S. Copyright Law does not mean that all U.S. Government works can be made publicly available without restriction. Certain statutes (such as some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions) provide the Government with authority to restrict access to U.S. Government works. Reasons can include national security, export control, and the filing of patent applications. Some federal agencies also have additional statutory authority to impose conditions for use.

I found reference to a case in a Law Review article which I thought interesting:

The earliest case clearly involving the issue of whether a work prepared
by a government employee could be copyrighted is Heine v. Appleton.Y'
Heine, a professional artist, had been a member of the crew that accompa-
nied Admiral Perry to Japan and the China Seas. Although he was hired
as a master's mate, his chief duty was to make sketches and drawings for
the government. It was understood from the outset that all such works
would be the exclusive property of the government. Upon completion of
the expedition, the plaintiff's works were included in the official report on
the expedition. Later, Heine obtained a certificate of copyright in his
sketches and drawings. The court denied the plaintiff's right to copyright,
stating, "The sketches and drawings were made for the government, to be
at their disposal; and congress, by ordering the report, which contained
those sketches and drawings, to be published for the benefit of the public
at large, has thereby given them to the public.""' While there was an ex-
plicit understanding that the plaintiffs works were to be the exclusive
property of the government, this understanding arguably may have been
directed to the physical embodiment of the works and not to the individual
works contained in the report. The court's decision, however, was based
primarily on the consideration that the works were made for, and pub-
lished by, the government.
(From Catholic University Law Review, Copyright In Government Employee
Authored Works, John O. Tresansky, 1981).

It is a different story with independent contractors, however, whose work is still subject to copyright. Disney, in particular, created many images used by the military in WW2 and protected its images. here is an interesting site, by the way, with images of Disney war art. http://www.skylighters.org/disney/

So, you ask, what is the bottom line? I have no idea but I assume you are all asleep or on the verge of sleep.

[mustangdriver]

Just to keep everyone on the same page, the NMUSAF is not claiming copy right, it is the USAF. We just happen to own the airplane.

[Warhawk]

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

From Lydia Rossi, wife of AVG pilot Dick Rossi;
The FTA (Flying Tiger Assn.) holds registered tradmarks on the AVG insignia and also the three squadron insignias. We have no objection to anyone using them for personal use, but object to those who try to make money on them without permission.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Warhawk

From Lydia Rossi, wife of AVG pilot Dick Rossi;
The FTA (Flying Tiger Assn.) holds registered tradmarks on the AVG insignia and also the three squadron insignias. We have no objection to anyone using them for personal use, but object to those who try to make money on them without permission.

I think that seems fair.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

So, you ask, what is the bottom line? I have no idea but I assume you are all asleep or on the verge of sleep.

No not asleep Old Crow, its interesting to delve into this area and I enjoyed your post. When I worked as a designer my terms of contract stated that any designs created by me was the property of the company and I had no rights to them because I had been paid a salary to create them.
Fair enough in my book. If I didnt like the terms I could have chosen to go freelance.

[TopHat]

Many companies, especially in high-tech industries, will have similar contractual provisions regarding patents relative to the inventions of company employees. It is customary for "nominal consideration" in the amount of $1.00 to be paid to the employee/inventor in exchange for the patent rights.

[Cavtanker]

That's good to know on the Flying Tigers. Thank you.