3D models and copyrights

[+littlesmoke 64]

source

 

 

April 9th, 2008

Liberate the B-24 Liberator!

Posted by Corynne McSherry

 

Who owns the B-24, the bomber that helped win World War II? U.S. taxpayers paid for it, Consolidated Aircraft built it, U.S. military pilots flew it, but Lockheed Martin says it owns the bomber—or at least it owns the name.

 

Some readers may already be familiar with the case of John MacNeill, the respected graphic artist and illustrator who had several digital images of classic military aircraft removed from TurboSquid, a stock images site, after Lockheed Martin claimed the images infringed its trademarks. The central mark at issue? The term “B-24,” which Lockheed managed to register as a mark for use in connection with scale models of airplanes. That’s right, Lockheed Martin claims the right to control use of the term “B-24” in connection with models of, um, B-24s.

 

It is perplexing that this mark was granted in the first place, given that the term “B-24” is nothing more than a U.S. military model number used to describe the plane itself (descriptiveness is a traditional basis for rejection; that’s why you can’t register a trademark on the use of the term “cyberlaw” in connection with the practice of technology law). MacNeill’s situation is a perfect example of why we need that rule. If Lockheed had its way, no one could create 3-D images (or anything else that could be construed as a “model”) of famous military aircraft—from the B-24 to the F-117 Nighthawk, also known as the Stealth fighter.

 

But Lockheed should not have its way, because MacNeill’s images are protected by the nominative fair use doctrine. Nominative fair use means, in a nutshell, that it is OK to use a mark to accurately identify a product if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you.

 

Unfortunately, the practicalities of the Internet make it all too easy for trademark owners like Lockheed to ignore fair use and shut down legitimate content. That is because online communication and commerce often depends on intermediaries like TurboSquid, who may not have the resources or the inclination to investigate trademark infringement claims. And, unlike the copyright context, there’s usually no counter-notice procedure. If targets of overreaching trademark claims can’t find counsel, they may have little or no recourse against a determined trademark owner.

 

Trademark owners—and the service providers they try to intimidate—need to learn that a trademark registration doesn’t give you a right to control everyday use of regular descriptive terms. Hoping to provide a little of that necessary education, we’ve sent an open letter to Lockheed’s licensing agency, demanding that they withdraw their improper objections so that Mr. MacNeill can go about his perfectly legitimate business.

 

Related Issues: Intellectual Property

[FastCargo 412]

Actually, LockMart tried this crap before about 10 years ago in regard to the F-22. The idea was that Novalogic was going to get exclusive rights to the trademark of the F-22 for their simulations.

 

The USAF and the government pretty much nulled that because the F-22 was paid for by tax money...making it de facto public domain in that aspect of it.

 

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1997/06/4317

 

Now, I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure that even if it wasn't for the fact that the name, images, hell, even older simulators have models of the B-24 in them and have existed for years, that this decision on the F-22 a decade ago already establishes such reasoning.

 

FastCargo

[+Klavs81 4]

Actually, LockMart tried this crap before about 10 years ago in regard to the F-22. The idea was that Novalogic was going to get exclusive rights to the trademark of the F-22 for their simulations.

 

The USAF and the government pretty much nulled that because the F-22 was paid for by tax money...making it de facto public domain in that aspect of it.

 

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1997/06/4317

 

Now, I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure that even if it wasn't for the fact that the name, images, hell, even older simulators have models of the B-24 in them and have existed for years, that this decision on the F-22 a decade ago already establishes such reasoning.

 

FastCargo

 

There was a sweet F-35 mesh on Turbosquid a while ago that got yanked due to that very issue, prompting me to build my own damn mesh.

 

All I can say, is that the F-35 will be free and availible to everyone. No payware, no exclusive membership archive sites. I may even put it up for free on Turbosquid just to spite them.

 

If Lockheed has a problem with that they can speak to my lawyer. It's a shame that such a world class aerospace company has such a typical busybody law office attached to it dedicated to hobbling artists and craftsmen who do nothing but drum up support for Lockheed products through their artistry and patriotism.

 

Makes me want to go punch a kitten.

[eraser_tr 29]

If they do, can you delay the case for about four years til I'm done with law school? I'll represent you and tear them a new ***hole for flight simmers and hobbyists everywhere.

[Ruggbutt 45]

I recommend everyone here call Lockheed often to tell them how full of s**t they are for pulling their trademarking stunt.

[Guest Stiglr]

Didn't Grumman do something similar to this with IL-2, such that Maddox couldn't use the "proper" names of certain big, blue WWII aircraft?

 

Both Grumman and Lockgreed and their tight-arse lawyer pansies can pound salt. Especially with regard to 3D modeling.

 

I'll move vertices to create any damned plane (or shape) I damn well please. And I'll use historical data, including their public domain training manuals and other historical records to make accurate representations of them. And they'll do bugger all about it. Because, last I checked, I'm not making a mint off it.

 

Past that, they can smell my finger.

[+Klavs81 4]

Didn't Grumman do something similar to this with IL-2, such that Maddox couldn't use the "proper" names of certain big, blue WWII aircraft?

 

Both Grumman and Lockgreed and their tight-arse lawyer pansies can pound salt. Especially with regard to 3D modeling.

 

I'll move vertices to create any damned plane (or shape) I damn well please. And I'll use historical data, including their public domain training manuals and other historical records to make accurate representations of them. And they'll do bugger all about it. Because, last I checked, I'm not making a mint off it.

 

Past that, they can smell my finger.

 

[Gus Grissom]F****n' A, bubba! [/Gus Grissom]

 

Nothing riles up a 3d modeler more than being told that your hard work equates to illegal activity.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Klavs81

[+Julhelm 266]

They probably watched the RIAA's racketerring ops (Collecting royalties from internet radio stations playing independent artists) and decided it'd be a good idea to do the same.

[+Klavs81 4]

They probably watched the RIAA's racketerring ops (Collecting royalties from internet radio stations playing independent artists) and decided it'd be a good idea to do the same.

 

I just don't understand how a company can enforce copywright law on something paid for by taxpayers. Reasonably, you can argue that the current AA-1 and BF-1 are flying as LM property right now, but once an aircraft enters the inventory, it's image becomes public domain. LM is notorious for going after F-16 artists and prints, but how the hell can they do that after years of the aircraft being in the public eye?

 

It's like the Borglum Family suing manufacturers of replica Mount Rushmore statues, it was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and should be availible for all to use.

[FastCargo 412]

What really puzzles me is that no one in the company has figured out that stuff folks put out like this is actually free advertising...

 

FastCargo

[eraser_tr 29]

Not that the average consumer buys Multimillion dollar jet fighters with most of their details classified.

 

Also on that note, anyone else see these lockheed or boeing commercials? Why are they running TV ads when their product isn't a consumer good like the drugs or cars they're advertising with?

[JediMaster 451]

Anyone remember that old SNL skit/commercial? A boy and a girl hanging out by his car, talking about their plans for going out that night, ending with them saying in unison "I guess we'll just watch TV!" followed by an announcer and titles saying "General Dynamics--the leader in global laser-guided defense technology."

 

It's so true, though, they're spending millions on commercials to influence like 50 people nationwide.