Trademark issues and creating books.

[Kryptid]

I'm pretty sure we have one or more authors here, so I was hoping that I may be able to get this question answered.

If I intended on writing a book about unbuilt aircraft, and drew all of the artwork myself (no photographs), would I still need permission from Boeing, Sukhoi, Dassault, etc. in order to publish the book?

 

[Steve Pace]

No. Go for it! Steve Pace (29 aviation books published)

 

[CJGibson]

You draw 'em, you own 'em.

You'll probably find that the manufacturers' official drawings are wrong anyway.

See Paul Jackson's article in Aeromilitaria last year.

Chris

 

[LowObservable]

Many years ago I was buttonholed by some contractors who were selling then-new software for taking measurements off photos, and informed my that my employers' C-130 three-view drawings were all wrong. (Who knows, we may have been updating the same once since 1955 for all I knew. Not my side of ship Sir.)


Paul Jackson has some interesting field techniques for getting real measurements and is (as my learned friend says) no fan of manufacturer drawings.

 

[Stargazer]

You draw 'em, you own 'em.

And thus... my USBP.

And still: "you draw 'em, you own 'em" is a philosophy that is at least theoretically disputed by at least one major American aerospace corporation (since there are really only two left, go ahead and guess). Their lawyers like the concept of "intellectual property" enough that they might decide to go after you if you paint a painting of a WWII fighter that not they, but that a company that they bought forty years later designed. Take one of your own photos of one of their aircraft and try to sell it, your chances of getting a C&D increase.

Completely ridiculous. How can one not rejoice when their competition wins markets?? These guys do not like aviation, they just want to make bucks. But they ought to beware because big dinosaurs failed to adapt and died out...

 

[CJGibson]

Could it come to this?

Chris

 

[Orionblamblam]

OK, now that's funny right there...

What I was told - by an aviation photographer who *used* to publish calendars with what I understand were fantastic jetliner photos and who now *doesn't* (not only because the Major Jetliner Manufacturer got pissy... but so did the Major Turbofan Manufacturer, the manufacturer of the actuators for the wing flaps, etc.) - was that the rule of thumb is that they only start to really care when you sell things in quantities of 5,000 or so.

I don't know what sort of numbers professionally published books get printed at. But for small timers like myself, "5,000 units" is a goal unreached by two orders of magnitude. Additionally: a lot of these sort of books are published by British companies. This would seem to put them outside the reach of grasping, greedy, short-sighted American companies who want to dominate how history is recorded.

And of course: IANAL. Any legal advise it to be taken with serious skepticism.

 

[CJGibson]

Thangyooverrymush, I'm here all week. Especially if the Super Pumas are still grounded.

Like you, I'd be very happy with shifting 5000 copies. Our lawyers are still at the ambulance-chasing stage the US was at 15 years ago, but give them time.

Chris

 

[CJGibson]

I had to Google IANAL:

Definition 2 was Ian Allan Publishing. Quite apt, eh Paul?

Chris

 

[Kryptid]

If they were to contact me about this matter, would they be willing to let me off if I agreed to cease and desist? Would I be liable for monetary damages and/or prison time?

 

[Bill Walker]

Just an observation:

My other hobby is model railroads. Lots of little kit manufacturers used to make models of rolling stock in correct markings of "old" railroad names, long since gone. However, this is becoming a risky business. Several of these old names have been purchased by modern big name railroads, who apparently all have a team of lawyers looking for people selling kits or decal sets for the names they own, and taking legal action. For little plastic models, five or ten dollars each. It is not clear to me how this harms the modern business, but the lawyers are having some success.

So, will Boeing sue you when you publish drawings of an early North American design? One has to wonder.

 

[Tony Williams]

And still: "you draw 'em, you own 'em" is a philosophy that is at least theoretically disputed by at least one major American aerospace corporation (since there are really only two left, go ahead and guess). Their lawyers like the concept of "intellectual property" enough that they might decide to go after you if you paint a painting of a WWII fighter that not they, but that a company that they bought forty years later designed. Take one of your own photos of one of their aircraft and try to sell it, your chances of getting a C&D increase.

Amazing. I've never heard of this. I go round taking photos of all sorts of kit, which are then published. My regular publisher (a big, US-owned organisation) is paranoid about getting formal copyright approval to use any photos in manufacturers' publicity material, but has never raised any queries about photos I take myself.

I find it hard to imagine that an attempt to control what people may do with their own drawings or photographs of kit on public display would actually succeed in court. Presumably the threat of legal action by a big corporation is enough to frighten people off from challenging their ridiculous position.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Presumably the threat of legal action by a big corporation is enough to frighten people off from challenging their ridiculous position.

Look up "Righthaven." Not exactly the same, but the idea here is that you threaten to sue small folks like bloggers who cannot possibly hope to stand up to corporate lawyers, and force them to settle. You do it right, and you never even have to actually go to court.

Now, for the other side of the story: as I was told it, a Major Jetliner Manufacturer was sued a few decades back because some kid was playing with a toy jetliner, snapped off a jet engine, swallowed it and choked. The toy was not licensed by the Jetliner Manufacturer, but was instead simply knocked off by some Asian company, unassailable by the families lawyers. Unable to squeeze a dime out of those responsible for a shoddy product, instead the lawyers went after deep-pockets Jetliner Manufacturer, on the premise that "If you hadn't designed the Jetliner, lil' dickens would still be alive." The lawsuit was successful, Jetliner Manufacturer had to shell out for something they were not responsible for, and since then have been rabid about maintaining control over their "Intellectual Property."

How the hell Jetliner Manufacturer can be threatened by a photo calendar of their jetliners, I don't know. Paper cuts? Fire hazard?

To me the long-term answer is simple: nationalize the lawyering biz. Just as we're supposed to get all giggitty about the idea of removing the profit motive from doctoring, let's remove it from lawyering. Spend your six years or whatever in law school, then spend the rest of your career making a small multiple of minimum wage as a low-end government employee, something along the lines of court stenographers and prison guards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I find it hard to imagine that an attempt to control what people may do with their own drawings or photographs of kit on public display would actually succeed in court. Presumably the threat of legal action by a big corporation is enough to frighten people off from challenging their ridiculous position.

The issue at hand is not just ownership of the photo as an original work but ownership of the original appearance of the item being photographed (or copied in some other way) and is called derivative work. It’s a long standing issue with art and now owners of other created objects. Certainly if you painted a picture and someone came around and photographed it and then sold thousands of photos of your picture you would want some recourse to compensation.

If you want to understand what is derivative work and what isn’t just look it up. There are plenty simple explanations of copyright law on the internet to answer all your questions.

Could it come to this?

When you don’t need a Criminal Lawyer you need a criminal, lawyer!

 

[Tony Williams]

Now, for the other side of the story: as I was told it, a Major Jetliner Manufacturer was sued a few decades back because some kid was playing with a toy jetliner, snapped off a jet engine, swallowed it and choked. The toy was not licensed by the Jetliner Manufacturer, but was instead simply knocked off by some Asian company, unassailable by the families lawyers. Unable to squeeze a dime out of those responsible for a shoddy product, instead the lawyers went after deep-pockets Jetliner Manufacturer, on the premise that "If you hadn't designed the Jetliner, lil' dickens would still be alive." The lawsuit was successful, Jetliner Manufacturer had to shell out for something they were not responsible for, and since then have been rabid about maintaining control over their "Intellectual Property."

How on Earth could the court have come to such a stupid decision? I presume it was "gut-think" along the lines of "these poor parents have suffered, someone must pay, this firm can afford to." But that bore no relationship to justice - so why didn't the company win on appeal?

I get the point entirely about the copyright on a picture you've painted, but that doesn't seem comparable to me. The whole value of a picture is in what is portrayed.

 

[flateric]

And still: "you draw 'em, you own 'em" is a philosophy that is at least theoretically disputed by at least one major American aerospace corporation (since there are really only two left, go ahead and guess).

LM, too. Remember that wows several years ago about death of plastic scale modeling business after they declared they should receive royalties from every Lockheed product model kit sold.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Now, for the other side of the story: as I was told it, a Major Jetliner Manufacturer was sued a few decades back because some kid was playing with a toy jetliner, snapped off a jet engine, swallowed it and choked. The toy was not licensed by the Jetliner Manufacturer, but was instead simply knocked off by some Asian company, unassailable by the families lawyers. Unable to squeeze a dime out of those responsible for a shoddy product, instead the lawyers went after deep-pockets Jetliner Manufacturer, on the premise that "If you hadn't designed the Jetliner, lil' dickens would still be alive." The lawsuit was successful, Jetliner Manufacturer had to shell out for something they were not responsible for, and since then have been rabid about maintaining control over their "Intellectual Property."

How on Earth could the court have come to such a stupid decision? I presume it was "gut-think" along the lines of "these poor parents have suffered, someone must pay, this firm can afford to." But that bore no relationship to justice - so why didn't the company win on appeal?

I get the point entirely about the copyright on a picture you've painted, but that doesn't seem comparable to me. The whole value of a picture is in what is portrayed.

Exactly. I can't fly to America in a photo of an 777.

 

[Stargazer]

I had to Google IANAL

I didn't, but given the context I figured it must mean "I am not a lawyer"...

 

[Tony Williams]

Exactly. I can't fly to America in a photo of an 777.

Really? Damn - you've just ruined my cunning plan for getting there on the cheap

 

[Abraham Gubler]

LM, too. Remember that wows several years ago about death of plastic scale modeling business after they declared they should receive royalties from every Lockheed product model kit sold.

In many cases they would own a patent for the appearance of the aircraft. Which is fair enough to stop a mockup being built by a rival but for royalties from scale models or prints and such and such:

 

[Orionblamblam]

How on Earth could the court have come to such a stupid decision? I presume it was "gut-think" along the lines of "these poor parents have suffered, someone must pay, this firm can afford to."

Remember John Edwards, Democrat Senator and candidate for Vice President? Remember how he got stinkin' rich? By convincing a jury that the *swimming* *pool* company was responsible for not having a warning label on a drain cover, when the drain cover itself was stolen by some kids.

But that bore no relationship to justice - so why didn't the company win on appeal?

Sometimes it's just not worth the bother. A judgement of a few million would - presumably - be Big News for the likes of those of us on this forum, but for a giant corporation? Meh.

 

[Jemiba]

So, will Boeing sue you when you publish drawings of an early North American design?

Following Abrahams advise to look up about "derivative work", I think, it would depend on your sources:
If you simply re-draw an old 3-view, Boeing may be justified, but if you worked from a photo or artist
impression, they could be out of luck. Problem may well be, to prove, what actually your sources were ....
But I'm still not sure, that many European courts would follow the legal opinion of their US American counterparts.
And if so, it could boost business of Asian or Russian publishers, something, that could lead to a change
of minds, I think.

 

[UpForce]

Well, it's easy to wallow in the silliness of the (legal) world, but I guess modellers and "garage shop size" publishers could get proactive through the PR dept's of airplane manufacturers. Digital imagery today in itself is so infinitely reproducible that it boggles the mind that anyone is willing to single out a minute segment of that activity due to a fistful of (insert your currency here) changing digital wallets. This will only get more ridiculous as in a couple of years it'll be commonplace to record and reproduce in 3D. It should be enough for an enthusiast selling a niche product to simply OK her/his work with the company where the manufacturer (or the intellectual rights holder) can just issue a suitable creative commons license. Maybe they could even issue a blanket CC, even a fairly detailed one, applicable to only past or legacy/merger affiliated products. That's likely also the cheapest available option all around. Not to mention the most humane and easy to understand. But then again, IANAL.

Obb mentioned removing profit as a motive from practicing law, i.e. nationalizing everything. I'd like to reframe that thought somewhat, since the courts in fact (to my knowledge) already are public institutions (leaving aside contracts etc.). The major problem, to me, is that it seems pretty common that a (potential) party to (potential) litigation can use the judicial process itself as leverage against others. That the courts, or the threat that they can be made to represent, allow themselves to essentially become instruments of extortion (in a manner that to me bears almost no distinction from extralegal practices the courts themselves could very well deem as extortion) is antithetical to their capability to apply law. I do not know if I'm alone in drawing such parallels but it seems to me this is a very basic issue that is quite incredibly overlooked. There has to be a way to consider proportionality not only in repercussions but in the process as well. Maybe the resources the parties are willing to invest in individual cases should be pooled for the duration of the process so that the the profit motive is somewhat reframed and legal arguments presented for consideration can be based on a maximum amount of things agreed, instead of a minimum.

Profits are good. Making a profit is pretty well essential to growth and ecologically minded as I am I'm buying none of that "we shouldn't expand our economies any further" stuff (was it Malthus who began this?) either - considering the energy and elements' cycles and balances of Earth (and indeed the entire solsys) our current problems are not for the dearth of resources but of common (and a bit of uncommon) sense in humanity. It's only when a profit comes at a cost to the whole when growth is compromised. Perhaps I'm wrong but at its heart this seems pretty simple. I mean, surely even someone who snatches handbags from little old ladies has a profit motive, as does a health inspector for whom a well placed likeness of Benjamin Franklin obscures a rat. I'd like to think most of us would resort to practical responses when encountering these activities and only consider the wider implications in a correspondingly large context, which means not only ideology but with actual the interaction of the amount of people involved and affected.

Sometimes pretty pictures of airplanes are just pretty pictures of airplanes. It seems inconceivable that if I manage to take a great picture of a TWA Convair 880 slowly decaying in some desert that I can't sell the image (or some derivative, or indeed do a realistic rendering by hand) as my artwork without the owner of the boneyard, AA, Boeing, Lockheed and everyone else and their cat butting in somehow.

 

[Stargazer]

The nonsense of that situation is that if we push the logic to its limits, any aircraft that is sold as a model kit is the sum of many patents, some of which apply to the design and configuration. Why then pay a fee to just the aircraft manufacturer and not the patentees too? And what about logos? The reproduction of a Boeing logo on the fuselage of a prototype for instance... in all logic that also is subject to legal protection. So you see there's no end to the madness. And that's why, as UpForce rightly said, it's up to the thousands of modellers and photographers around the world to get proactive about it and organize about it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It should be enough for an enthusiast selling a niche product to simply OK her/his work with the company where the manufacturer (or the intellectual rights holder) can just issue a suitable creative commons license.

You'd think so, but boy howdy would you be wrong. Example: one Major Jetliner Manufacturer will let you use one of their photos or drawings in a publication for the low, low price of (last I checked) about $300. Or if you want to make a model/toy/statue/whatever of one of their products, they will license that to you for, IIRC, a one-time fee of about $1000, plus $4 for every unit sold, plus three copies of the item.

So let's say you want to make a garage-kit model of X. Your direct costs are $25 per kit. Your selling price is $50. Your production run is 25 kits, of which you can only sell 22. Now add in the $1000+$4 each. How much profit do you make? Don't forget to factor in the cost of your *time* spend working on each kit...

the courts in fact (to my knowledge) already are public institutions

Ah, but not (all of) the *lawyers* themselves. Which is odd, because the cops and the judges aren't for-profit individuals, but government employees.

There has to be a way to consider proportionality not only in repercussions but in the process as well.

Britains system is superior to the US's in that they have a "loser pays" setup. I sue you, I lose, I gotta pay *your* lawyer fees. But a better system still: "Losing lawyer pays." Even in the "loser pays" system, there's no real disincentive for lawyers to take up crackpot lawsuits. A simple tradeoff between wasted time on the one hand, and a big payout on the other. But a system where lawyers themselves would be responsible for the costs of the other side if they lose? Lawyers would be far less likely to take on BS cases.

Profits are good. Making a profit is pretty well essential to growth...

Ah, but do we need a growth in the scope and power and societal cost of trial lawyers?

Sometimes pretty pictures of airplanes are just pretty pictures of airplanes. It seems inconceivable that if I manage to take a great picture of a TWA Convair 880 slowly decaying in some desert that I can't sell the image (or some derivative, or indeed do a realistic rendering by hand) as my artwork without the owner of the boneyard, AA, Boeing, Lockheed and everyone else and their cat butting in somehow.

It's inconceivable until the C&D shows up.

 

[Jemiba]

Britains system is superior to the US's in that they have a "loser pays" setup. I sue you, I lose, I gotta pay *your* lawyer fees. ...
Lawyers would be far less likely to take on BS cases.

If you are sued by one of those aircraft manufacturers then, it may be difficult for you to find a lawyer, as it would be too
risky. And to my opinion, with regards to law, it's seldom as shown in those movies like "Philadelphia", where the single
upright, faithful and incorruptible lawyer wins against the whole team from a big chancery. The bigger, the better, this motto
still is valid, I think and, unfortunately, the bigger, the more expensive, especially as large companies have their own legal
departments either, so additional costs for starting a legal fight are minimal. So, you would gladly have to agree to a settlement,
instead of risking to lose.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Good point. Thus, a counter-proposal: "losing lawyer pays" applies only to complainant. I sue you and lose, my lawyers pay your bills. I sue you and win, your lawyers do not have to pay my bills. My lawyers take a cut from the winnings. Which will dis-incentivize schmoes from suing, since even if they win, they still don't get very much.

 

[Bill Walker]

Good point. Thus, a counter-proposal: "losing lawyer pays" applies only to complainant. I sue you and lose, my lawyers pay your bills. I sue you and win, your lawyers do not have to pay my bills. My lawyers take a cut from the winnings. Which will dis-incentivize schmoes from suing, since even if they win, they still don't get very much.

But that is more or less what happens in US civil cases today. You sue me and win, your lawyer is paid a good chunk of your "winnings". Haven't seen the dis-incentiving yet. On the contrary: you sue me and lose and you pay nothing, so why not try? Even if your lawyer has to pay the defendants' legal bills, you still lose nothing, so again why not try? This is starting to happen for some civil cases in parts of Canada, and the only visible effect so far is a lot more advertising by lawyers.

 

[Orionblamblam]

But that is more or less what happens in US civil cases today. You sue me and win, your lawyer is paid a good chunk of your "winnings". Haven't seen the dis-incentiving yet.

It's a dis-incentive that's already in place. I shudder to imagine if it wasn't.

On the contrary: you sue me and lose and you pay nothing, so why not try?

Oh, no. You sue me and lose, you pay your *lawyer.* In the current system, lawyers get paid win or lose, barring the occasional pro-bono showtrial.

Even if your lawyer has to pay the defendants' legal bills, you still lose nothing, so again why not try?

Ah, but in this new system, your prospective lawyer would look at your case and weigh whether or not it's a likely winner. If it's not, you'll get turned down by lawyer after lawyer. You might be left with only the option of representing yourself, in which case you'll not only almost certainly lose, you'll lose your finances.

 

[Bill Walker]

In many civil cases in the US (and some in Canada) TODAY the plaintiff lawyer may charge a small up front fee, or no up front fee, and ONLY get paid a per centage of any winnings. For the plaintiff lawyer it is a business risk. They can even buy insurance for it. They are quite happy to have one in ten cases pay off, which tells you how hard they have to work on some of these cases.

The defendant pays their lawyer by the hour, from the start of the communications with a possible plaintiff, in every case or potential case. Lawyers always make money. Defendants always pay. Plaintiffs always pay little or nothing. That includes the majority of cases that never have papers filed. That's why there are so many lawyers ans so many plaintiffs in Western civilization. Every time you buy anything a portion of your money goes to pay the lawyers.