Comments on: The Empire Struck Back

By: KenFletcher

KenFletcher — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:14:38 +0000

Paul (and all) –

Esquire has sent you a link to a copy of the British Trademark judge’s denial of the “roundel” claim from the Ministry of Defence bureaucrats.

That ‘denial’ in the early 2000s says a lot, because UK law does allow the ‘Crown’ its own version of perpetual copyrights for some material. And the recently negotiated trade treaties do allow more challenges to be made to copyrights and trademark use in other nations. But the ’roundel’ trademark claim for apparel was denied by the British courts.

Please consider the possibility that the legal finding should be forwarded to Zazzle, with the pointed question of “Whether the correspondence from the Ministry of Defence made any claims that the trademark ‘denial’ ruling has been changed since that date?”

It really does look like the natural consequence of claiming trademark control over a national symbol will lead to a demand for percentages of the sales of every United Kingdom aircraft painting (and art prints) ever done! That of course, moves into the absurd situation of demanding royalties for using the symbol in photographs and original created content in books and media.

Best regards
Ken Fletcher

By: thatdarncat

thatdarncat — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:10:10 +0000

Typical of a government that claims to have your best interests at heart.

By: Paul Gazis

Paul Gazis — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:19:23 +0000

Thanks, Esquire! I read the text of that denial and it was fascinating — a refreshing breath of reason after some of the IP issues I’ve seen in Silicon Valley. I’m sure you’re right about Zazzle being an easy target. Their business model is almost certainly, “Don’t even think of fighting these things.” I also notice, now that I know to search the Web for these things, that the Office of the UK Secretary of State for Defense seems to have what we crude fellows here in the States would call a ‘real bug up their [indelicacy]‘ when it comes to Mod clothing. An unfortunate lack of realism on their part. That aphorism about trying to shovel back the ocean with a fork leaps to mind…

My only concern is that if I publish this as an eBook with the current graphics, Amazon (or whoever) might knuckle under in response to a similar bit of official harassment. Is it worth the hassle of photoshopping 200+ insignia to avoid this admittedly minor risk? Who knows?

Of course, if the saga of Captain Everett and his crew becomes an international best-seller and we try to market t-shirts again…. that could get interesting

By: Esquire

Esquire — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:39:07 +0000

…. which might actually be the purpose of the official harassment, to prevent commerical usage other than purchasing the goods/gear from ‘official’ RAF outlet stores….

when a government enters the marketplace as a ‘competitive’ player, good things are unlikely to happen.

By: Esquire

Esquire — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:35:10 +0000

using the roundels as before should be no problem. technically i think you could probably even sell them – but you’d probably have to go to court to clear that right – likely not worth the trouble. however, any ‘new use’, in art or text, should be unobjectionable even to this tin-plated person from the ministry. zazzle might simply be a easy target for him. i think he’ll have problems trying to remove the roundels from the stream of commerce, as 1/24 reproductions are easily available from ebay vendors.

on related matters, the ministry attempted to secure a trademark for clothing in 2004, and was unsuccessful. story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3222616.stm
denial by UK patent office:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/o01004.pdf

in conclusion, your use of the roundel mark in illustrations and fiction is probably defensible, but i’m not sure simple commercial use of reproductions of the mark worth the effort to defend if it became necessary.

By: Walshy

Walshy — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:06:19 +0000

Steve’s right, alternate universe, alternate roundels. just change the red for blue and vice versa.
I live in Australia so I am well aware of bureaucracy gone crazy, it happens here all the time!

By: Steve Sharp

Steve Sharp — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:52:36 +0000

Why not just change the colours of the roundels? Perhaps you could use a white centre for example. After all, this does take place in an alternate universe and who is to say that teh Royal Navy in that universe had to come up with the same colour scheme as the Royal Flying Corps?

By: Paul Gazis

Paul Gazis — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:46:07 +0000

Thanks, Esquire. After reading comments from yourself and others, I’m no longer particularly concerned about the site. But I’m still deciding what to do about the proposed EBook. The options include

1) Leave the graphics as they are and see what happens. I must admit to some curiosity.

2) Ask the relevant bureaucrats for permission to use their precious roundels. Members of my tribe have learned not to ask favors from people of that ilk.

3) Change all the insignia to some variant of the Union Jack. This could be a pain, but as I’ve noted elsewhere, I always had mixed feelings about painting big red, white, and blue targets on airships

By: Dave H

Dave H — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:50:50 +0000

My guess (not that it’s worth much – I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, therefore I deal only with reality) is that your art represents fair use as satire. The commercial products, well, I think a strategic regrouping might be prudent.

By: Esquire

Esquire — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:47:55 +0000

ah. well.

hopefully it ends there.

i can tell you there is a significant difference between commercial items like the zazzle stuff, and fair use stuff like the art, your stories, etc. since you are ‘creating’ new material – that’s usually not a problem, commercialization is usually the issue. Digital Millennium copyright act requires some specific actions on behalf of the complaining party before ‘damages’ are possible.