The Royal Air Force (TM)

[Archimedes]

Earlier today, I had a most peculiar enquiry from a friend who likes to put Airfix kits together. It appears that the MoD, through the DPA, is claiming intellectual property/crown copyright over the roundel plus all squadron badges, crests, etc, etc and sending missives out to model kit manufacturers asking for information so that royalty payments can be calculated (the fear, I assume, is that Airfix kits will go up in price).

On explaining what the DPA is, I was pointed in the direction of the forum on which the issue was raised. It would seem that some of the image rights of the RAF have been licenced to a US firm, and is now part of a portfolio that seems to include the teenage ninja turtles and other great military figures. I'm not quite sure what Trenchard, Dowding, Harris et al would have made of this...

http://www.4kidsentertainment.com/properties/raf.html

I assume that the MoD has merely licenced the RAF (™) to this firm, and is hoping to rake in a tidy sum from emblazoning the image over a host of other things too. Might even pay for a JCA or three.:hmm:

Edit: just looked at that link again, and the wording elsewhere seems to suggest that 4kids entertainment now think that the RAF is their property "To get more information about licensing our properties write to one of our brand managers at 4Kids Entertainment....Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles® / Mew Mew Power™ / Kappa Mikey™ / Royal Air Force™ Laurie Windrow"

(http://www.4kidsentertainment.com/services/lic_sales_cont.html)

[CBA_caption]

UN:mad: ing believable!!!!

Just what were they thinking? Which t:mad: t allowed that to happen. Nevermind losing the next war, if we pitched up the other side would just point and laugh.

I couldn't tell you offhand how many chaps died in the battle of Britain, but I've seen the painting in Bentley Priory Mess and been to their memorial outside Dover. How pleased they must be that their deaths are now part of the sales pitch for f:mad: king Hasbro or whoever they are?

Everybody. PVR now and make them start again. This airforce has lost the plot entirely.

CBA

[Washington_Irving]

What the F:mad:k?

I guess they heard us talking about playing with Tonkas and got the wrong end of the stick.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

[brit bus driver]

:eek: Right....step away from the red wine bottle....refresh this post.....nope, not pi55ed then, but perhaps someone was? I'm sure this looked like a really good idea when someone was given it as their secondary duty, or chance to make their mark. Well, they've done that alright!

[Pontius Navigator]

Media and Corporate Comms guys I believe. I will try and ask the q at the next symposium. And this after they lost the last court case to Diesel?

Certainly the MCO guys got Cranditz to work up the NEW RAF Fonts but so far, although used on merchandising it has not got out on the streets.

In case your wonder, the new font has a forward leaning A and F.

[doubledolphins]

But didn't the RNAS and RFC have the roundel before the RAF?

[brit bus driver]

the new font has a forward leaning A and F.

Aaaaaggghhh....not LEANing again....:}

[Safety_Helmut]

This is a joke, right ? A simple misunderstanding surely ? Or have we really sold our soul for a fast buck ?

Safety_Helmut

[Washington_Irving]

Could this be the work of The Syndicate?;)

Remember, what's good for The Syndicate is good for the country...:E

(Where's The Helpful Stacker?)

[Safety_Helmut]

(Where's The Helpful Stacker?)A stacker would never let it go..........................






................someone might need it !

Safety_Helmut :E

[Blacksheep]

Trademark??? What trade, exactly does Royal Air Force PLC engage in? Will Royal Navy PLC and Army PLC helicopters now have to remove their roundels? Does the RAF Museum have a licence? We need to be told these things...

Here's (http://www.surplusandadventure.com/ishop/800/shopscr3047.html) an example of a clear violation.

(I must say, I'm glad to see that Chiefies are still the same shape as they were in my day. Tradition is Tradition... ;) )

[Kim Il Jong]

WoHaa, WoHaa everyone.

This has GOT to be a wind-up. Airfix must have been making kits for any where between 30-50 years at least I guess(anyone help me out on pre 1970 kits here??). Surely that means that any claim over markings is grossly out of date by at least 30 years?? Any lawyers here??

Me smells BS here

[Archimedes]

K-I-J,
That's what I thought, but on going to the modeller's website concerned, there were lots of concerned small business types (the sort who put out markings not in kits - you know the sort of thing - Airfix lets you model a Harrier of 1 Sqn, while the decal manufacturer provides you with the ability to present your creation as something wearing the markings of 3, 4 or 20 Sqns) moaning about the MoD and the royalty charges. A couple of posters had alrady posited that it must be some kind of hoax, and I was minded to believe them.
I too thought that the ruling about the roundel being around for years and years, and having seen wide public use would apply, but this - apparently - is only applicable to clothing, not squadron badges, airfix kit decals, etc, etc. I'm not sure how that would hold up in a court, but I was still mildly sceptical...
...but then I found the links to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. So I've done a bit of searching, and found a report in the Independent (via http://www3.all-usenet-archive.com/File.asp?service=37573)
Source: Independent du 20.10.2004

[The] Air Force yesterday signed a ground-breaking deal to produce a range of its own copyright-protected merchandise. It is believed to be the first broad-ranging agreement by any of Britain's armed forces to exploit their intellectual property. Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, yesterday signed the deal with 4Kids Entertainment International, the overseas operation of a USowned group specialising in intellectual property.
4Kids has merchandised popular children's products including Pokemon, Ninja Turtles and#u-Gi-Oh trading cards, a current craze. The RAF said it would use the MOD'S intellectual rights group to protect the trademarks it has now
registered....
...Squadron Leader Simon Buckingham said: "We want to raise awareness of the air force with the public in an appealing way .'.. the commercial part of this is almost incidental." He said research had shown that 47 per cent of the public did not know what RAF meant and most had difficulty differentiating between it and the Army. The royalties that the RAF will receive from the products will go to the Royal Air Fbrce Museum in Hendon, north London....
...
There will be four strands to the exploitation of the RAF brand; firstly, a mass-market range including computer games, "back to school" items, toys, stationery and clothing. An "authentics" range will seek to replicate the items used by members of the RAF, including sunglasses, penknives, bomberjackets and watches that can withstand high G-forces. A collectors' programme will produce memorabilia, such as plates and pictures, and a publishing programme will bring out coffee table books and part-works.

I'm begining to see where the idea of the RAF rucksack originated.

[Ali Barber]

I thought they had already tried that a couple of years ago and had it thrown out of court.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ali Barber, it was but they prbably found a new angle. They lost to Diesel over its roundel but by licencing and allowing the addition of the RAF bit then they have probably moved to Diesel's side.

In addition to the rucksack - the RAF trainers?

Mind you, tried to buy a watch on eBay recently? You can buy genuine Russian air force, navy, submariner, spy (even) watches. The latter has KGB in cyrilic script on the face. Obviously so KGB spies can recognise each other but no one else can.

Would anyone in the air force wear its merchandising?

Kim il Jong, sadly I remember the first two airfix kits. A Spitfire and a Gladiator. Got them in London about 1954-55.

[BEagle]

"4Kids Entertainment is proud to be associated with the rich tradition of the Royal Air Force™, bringing to market a licensing program designed to appeal to both the enthusiast and a new generation of RAF fans.

4Kids plans to launch the initial product line in early 2006, including luggage, tools, men's gift and publishing - with toys, apparel and accessories following later in 2006."

Luggage which is mover-proof? Tools that come with little dayglo shadows to stick to your wall? Men's 'gift' - that'll be the rucksack (fortunately not Kelvin the Redundant Rucksack, no-one would want him!), that prayer mat thing which does such a good job stopping my car door from hitting the garage wall, I guess? 'Publishing' - that uneed2no plus all the glossy, regrettably non-absorbent bumf pushed out from the AirPah mob. But toys? Are they flogging off Das Teutor?? Apparel and accessories - "Buy your desert kit here, it's the only place you'll find any"?

Presumably HM has signed over the rights to use the expression 'Royal'?

Who is this Simon Buckingham?

[Bluntend]

...research had shown that 47 per cent of the public did not know what RAF meant and most had difficulty differentiating between it and the Army
So, Sqn Ldr Buckingham genuinely believes that when the RAF is mentioned on the news that almost half those who are watching haven't got a clue what it means? What planet is he from? Yes, there will undoubtedley be those who haven't got a clue but if that makes up 47% of the population then I recommend we shut up shop now - this country doesn't desrve defending!! :mad:
There will be four strands to the exploitation of the RAF brand; firstly, a mass-market range including computer games, "back to school" items, toys, stationery and clothing. An "authentics" range will seek to replicate the items used by members of the RAF, including sunglasses, penknives, bomberjackets and watches that can withstand high G-forces....
Not that I really care but what about army surplus stores that have been selling genuine authentic clothing etc or ebay for example. And lets not forget Lamberetta - they've been using the RAF roundel (or a very similar red/blue circle design) on their clothing range for years.

Oh God! Whats the point???

[airborne_artist]

47 per cent of the public did not know what RAF meant

Bear in mind that some time in 06 the number of kids (ATC/CCF) wearing the light blue uniform will overtake the number serving in the RAF.

[Funkletrumpet]

47 percent of the country were too fat, lazy, illiterate or busy beating up old ladies to make a comment too!!!

[BEagle]

"There will be four strands to the exploitation of the RAF brand..."

God, what marketing-luvvie drivel....:yuk:

Let me think of 4 suitable 'strands':

1. Fighters
2. Bombers & MPA
3. Transport & Tankers
4. Helicopters

[c-bert]

I'm afraid this isn't anything new. A computer game manufacturer was recently unable to include certain WW2 American carrier bourne aircraft because a certain American aerospace company wanted a large sum for the rights to use their aircraft. :mad:

[Postman Plod]

Surely this is going to have the completely opposite effect to the one desired? Manufacturers currently using the logo will either switch to something else or stop making them (Airfix stop making RAF makred aircraft, or remove the decals completely say, Ben Sherman stop making target branded stuff, etc) meaning the logos are no longer in the public domain, other than on "official" merchendise.

Lets face it, the RAF aren't exactly good at marketing their own goods - I mean the RAF trainers for example.... Even then, the goods will only be available by mail order, or from a few museums. So how exactly is this increasing public awareness?

[Bluntend]

Recent recruitment campaigns have also been dire. The guy getting a splinter in the supermarket for example or the chap playing solitaire on his PC - laughable!

[MrBernoulli]

Good grief! These sodding wankers have got nothing better to do? Obviously not. I despair of idle desk-driving idiots who think up hare-brained bollocks over their endless cups of tea/coffee. They should be SHOT ....... every day for a fortnight!

[Jackonicko]

Great image booster. The roundel, squadron markings, etc. were once associated with professionalism, excellence, etc. Now many people's first reaction will be "grasping c**ts."

I hope kit and decal manufacturers tell the DPA to "go away."

[mrwickets]

I hope this is a wind up. That said, IMHO it could be the RAF getting its own back, as I understand that Ben Sherman successfully blocked our right to emblazon roundels on baseball caps and t-shirts recently. Couldn't swear to the accuracy of that, but some corporate comms dude told me that a few weeks ago. What a load of bolleux

[Gainesy]

Which, of the many variations of roundel, has been trade-marked? One of them? All of them? Hi-viz or low viz? Matt or gloss? What about the fin flash?:confused:

Whatever, this adoption of civvy huggyfluff crap by a supposedly military organisation makes me seeth. Tossers.

[g126]

Disgusting! Does this mean that unit produced merchandise will be banned as well? I recently had T-Shirts printed with the Roundel and with our unit badge. Should I be preparing myself for a law-suit? The world has gone mad.

I did hear of the RAF attempting to stop Ben Sherman/Lambretta etc. from using the Roundel many a year ago, but I thought that was unsuccessful. Anyone know any more?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

************ADVERTISEMENT*************

New:RAF SPREAD

Leaner than any other

Spreads more thinly than you could believe

Collect tokens from the first ten packs, and win a free recipe book from our chefs T Blair, G Brown, G "TCH" Hoon, J Reid and A Ingram

Check it out bro'! Is it coz we ain't got any money?

[g126]

Here we are...

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2004/o01004.pdf

(Skip to the decision.)

The Air Force lost it's bid to preserve the roundel exclusively for the use of RAF merchandise in 2002. May be different for Airfix though if they are using it in context of the Air Force,

[BEagle]

Perhaps Pusser will put in a requisition for Royal Air Force™ 'Lean and Thin' Crab Paste....? I do hope so!

Has anyone ever met this Buckingham person? Is TMAC? He rather sounds it. If he wants to raise public awareness of the RAF, sorry, the RAF™ the solution is obvious - bloody well pay for a few more airshows with lots of noisy jets roaring past low and fast at warp snot. Not some silly logo-flogging marketing crap.

MoD Corporate Greed™ - You Invest in Our People....

[mrwickets]

Further to above, just did a quick bit of research - looks like RAF tried to copyright roundel in 2003/2004 but were opposed by Ben Sherman, amongst others. RAF told to shove it and had to pay some costs. Some great legaleeze - eg 'group of persons known as mods'. Can't do the clever link stuff, but transcript of findings at for those interested:

www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2004/o01004.pdf

Now lost the will to live ....

Wow - pprune did the fancy link stuff for me!
Damn - someone got in before me!

[BEagle]

"59. The opponent contends that the mark in suit, which it describes as the “target device”, has been used by numerous third parties in relation to clothing since the 1960s and in particular, has been closely associated with the style of dress worn by Mods, a group of individuals who from the 1960s became identified by their clothes consciousness, their fondness for motorised scooters and opposition to certain other groups."

Wonderful stuff. Perhaps the Mr Moolamkuzhiel Raghavan Viswanathan Nair, who explained in his witness statement, dated 1 April 2003, that he worked for the Ministry of Defence’s Intellectual Property Rights Group, simply didn't remember the 'Mods and Rockers' of the 1960s?

I do hope the journos are reading this thread! Morale and overstretch at an all-time low, exit rates burgeoning yet all the MoD worries about is trying to trademark the RAF, sorry, the RAF™ roundel.

[mystic_meg]

Has anyone ever met this Buckingham person?.....sadly, yes.
Is TMAC?....I refer my learned friend to my first answer.
chump....I refer (etc, etc)

[airborne_artist]

Perhaps the RAF™ should be instructing Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Run to seek a licencing fee from the RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF etc. who might be attempting to "pass off" as the RAF™ in their own countries, and may have been doing so for many years. :}

[RayDarr]

Chaps, it's worse than you think. Every time one of our brave boys/girls takes to the sky, we must pay a "Royalty" for dareing to have our aircraft marked with the official logo. Not only that, but after each bomb is dropped on the enemy, we must also drop leaflets stating:
"This destruction is brought to you with the complements of blah blah blah, owners of Pokermon and all the other toys your children used to play with"
NB Ref Blah Blah etc. I just can't be asked to look back in the thread and see who these fools are.

Sounds like another stunning victory in the war against terrorism, and an opportunity for the leaders of "The Hoon Show" to make their way in civi street once they decide to get a propper job.

[Big Tudor]

Could be the way forward in future conflicts though. Can you imagine how powerful the RAF™ would be if they copyrighted air-to-air and ground-to-air weapons.
"Right chaps, if any of those nasty enemy chaps try to shoot you down just note their name, rank & country of origin and report them to the Office of Fair Trading!"

Could be onto a winner here chaps! ;) :p

"All events, characters and names portrayed in this air raid are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to air raids current or past is purely coincidental and the RAF™ cannot be held liable for any likeness, whether actual or inferred."

[airborne_artist]

The RAF™ should also trademark the Battle of Britain and other significant UK plc air warfare events, and so be able to charge a licensing fee for BoB parades, for example, say a fiver a head :yuk: :yuk:

I think I'm right in saying that RAF™ CFS "invented" the basic flying training lessons etc., you know EofC ... so RAF™ should be charging a fee for every flying lesson conducted using RAF™ instructional methods.

[Well Travelled Nav]

Who is this Buckingham?

Well, it sounds awfully like an IOT Flight Commander I had back in 1994.

I recall that we were volunteered, as cheap labour, to sell tickets at the Finningley Airshow. As a reward, he allowed us to attend the Mess party on the proviso that we left the party at 9pm to return to IOT. Cheers. A nice chap who looks after and rewards his subordinates.


WTN

[ExGrunt]

I suspect I am going to be in a minority here, having read the rest of the thread.

But the position is:

Businesses are making money out of the RAF's insignia. The RAF has two choices:

1. Do nothing and let anyone make what they can on any old tat they can flog.

2. Get someone who knows something about licencing to make sure that people pay a contribution for use of the RAF's insignia to the RAF. ( I believe that the bulk of the cash goes to the RAF museum at Hendon).

So in the end which is better: something for the RAF or nothing for the RAF?

EG

[teeteringhead]

Abso - buckingham -lutely amazing!! And it would appear that the RAF will have little or no control over the quality of the goods bearing the logo. I recall a few years ago being given a "gizzit" alarm clock by a WRAFfie who worked for DPR (it's a long story ;) ) with RAF logo on it.

Cheap and nasty rubbish that fell apart the first time you touched it (the clock!) What sort of impression would shoddy goods leave (still talking about the clock)

And it seems that friend Buckie is a GD/P ........:( (or whatever one is supposed to call them nowadays...)

[Jackonicko]

I could see some justification for charging a licence fee for use of the words 'Royal Air Force' in a way in which implies or infers official sanction of a commercial product - there's a new RAF Magazine on the shelves at WH Smith, for example, or there's the Royal Air Force Yearbook.

But charging Airfix or an aftermarket decal maker to reproduce the roundel or (say) No.6 Squadron's badge for use on a plastic model looks small-minded, mean-spirited, petty and trivial, and is likely to reduce respect and admiration for the organisation.

"So in the end which is better: something for the RAF or nothing for the RAF?"

If a few pence for the RAF museum costs goodwill, and if by not charging those few pence the RAF gets better media coverage, better visibility, and more goodwill, then "Nothing for the RAF" seems preferable.

These tw@ts seem to be able to put a price on everything, while knowing the value of nothing.

[Safety_Helmut]

Well said Jacko !

I'm sure someone will know the answer, but have sold the rights to the Union Flag, or our other national flags yet ?

Safety_Helmut

[Onan the Clumsy]

This is old news and dates back to 1961.

The character in question at the time was called, not Buckingham, but Milo Minderbinder and he had a nice little angle going selling World War 2 to both sides. He started in the Italian theatre and was working towards a global franchising arrangement, but I forgot what the outcome of his expansion was. It was genius really as it's a lot cheaper to bomb your own airfield than to go to the enemy's and bomb there, especially as for the right price, they'll return the compliment for you.

If you don't believe me, full details are available in a very readable book called Catch 22.

Life does often imitate art.


Here's more info on Milo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder), which I suggest is a nickname this Buckingham character has rightly earned :yuk:

[Showtime100]

Catch-22, that's a great book Onan! They should issue it to anyone joining the military.
As for this cock-up over Image Rights and Intellectual Property well it's not a surprise really is it? Just a great deal of blundering about by some politicans, civil servants and another type of civil servant who just happens to wear a light blue uniform.
Does have some advantages though………as an ex-FC I can’t wait for the GD FC Flt Lt toy “action” figure of a few old mates. He comes with permanent Flt Lt decals and a model bunker to sit in and push paper round!! When he’s not busy pushing paper he gets bent over and shafted by the fat Senior officer figure and every now and again he’s let out of the bunker to do a week-end orderly officer shift!
I can see it now, Pull the cord on your Flt Lt action figure and listen to the 'Commander' bark the following actions:

"Oh Sh*t! Stranger dead ahead 3 miles, Avoiding Action!! Avoiding Action!!"

"Fill in Form 7600 in triplicate Bloggs before I can allow you to have authority over the duty pencil."

"Honestly, I'm gonna get promoted. Honestly, I'm gonna get promoted. Honestly, I'm.........."

"I love doing paperwork and clearing my bosses sh*t. "

"Enemy Tanks ahead!"

"Achtung! Dive Dive Dive, Sunderland Flying Boat!"

Alright so the last two are a joke.
Showtime

[teeteringhead]

But if we're talking IPR or copyright for squadron badges, then surely that can hardly be given or signed away.

IIRC most badges have been drawn up by that talented "Herald" family, usually Chester or one of his siblings, and then signed off by someone called George or his daughter/granddaughter Elizabeth .... I wonder if they've been consulted?

(Question expecting the answer no as my old Latin master would have it ... [yes BEags, some of us grammar school oiks did Latin too.....;) ])

[doubledolphins]

Do not forget the RAF came in to being on April 1 1918. CFS predates that as does the Roundel. as I said before, the RAF would have to pay the RN and the Army for the use of their logo, if ownership can be proved. As an afterthought. The Union Flag was originally designed purely as a Jack for HM Ships. It only came ashore later on. So any one wishing to use it should pay royalties to MoD(N) (as the Admiralty is now John Prescot's home). I don't think. Who ever thought this up is completely barking.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Does it mean we can get the French for trademark infringement?




After all, you couldn't start a burger joint with green arches....

[Rakshasa]

I seem to recall several aircraft manufacturers slapping IPRs on model companies several years ago. Could this be yet another case of dimwitted bandwagoning?


To answer my own question, (Cause the answer is so bl**dy obvious.)

Yes. :yuk:

[Jackonicko]

I think that the Directorate of Corporate Communications has been doing a dreadful job for the RAF's image in recent years, and has virtually failed in its PR and Press roles. I leave it to you serving blokes to judge whether internal comms have been handled any more adroitly!

I think that this latest piece of genius is barking.

But I'm uncomfortable at the personal vitriol being directed against this Buckingham fella. I don't know the chap, but he is obviously just a blue suiter in an 'out of specialism' post. I'd be astonished if the policy he is implementing has anything to do with him, and he may well disagree with it. There are civil servants and Air Rank officers responsible for this, and blaming Buckingham seems unnecessary.

It's unfortunate that the mention of this relatively junior bloke's real name hasn't attracted the same 'opsec' calls that happen when some spotter asks about (say) the Jag display pilot - whose name is widely published and is already out there.

[FOMere2eternity]

Seems the RAFTM are possibly making some short-term cash but - and I know readers will find this hard to believe - the long-term strategy is flawed. On the one hand, utilising a civilian companies marketing machine is a clever idea, but fashions are also seasonal. The RAFTM brand could easy lose favour after potential short-term benefit.

Looking at the UK patents website there are only two UK registered trademarks containing Royal Air Force - the Royal Air Force LSS (doesn't elaborate to confirm if this is Line Support Sqn, but DefSec owns it) and the Royal Air Force Squadronaires.

I also believe that users of a trademark before it is classed as such are not liable for royalties, just as my patenting of 'the wheel' isn't my path to instant fortune. However, now it is registered, albeit in the US, third parties need to be careful and obtain permission.

Ironically, whoever it is that now owns RAFTM is in a better position to impose its will on traders passing off shoddy goods with a RAF logo. Unfortunately I don't think this extends to the official procurement process.

I suspect we've left the job to someone who was new in post (or maybe just about to be posted elsewhere!) who hasn't totally thought out the long term consequences when the trademark owner want to use the mark on something the Service would prefer not to be associated with. When that happens - and presuming we didn't have the foresight to build caveats in to a contract - we'll be hard pressed to win a case.

RAF toilet brushes anyone?

[Melchett01]

The] Air Force yesterday signed a ground-breaking deal to produce a range of its own copyright-protected merchandise.

Does this mean that we'll be able to get balloons with "Rise Above The Rest" on them soon??:E

All I can say is what a load of crap - whoever thought this one up really ought to go and draw the Mess Webley and put themselves and more importantly the rest of the proper Air Force out of its misery.

Mind you, I can just see what will happen if this scheme is true to real life.... Cut to late 2006; little Timmy gets his RAF catelogue in the post and gets all excited by the promise of cheap tat. He decides that he would like an RAF lunchbox to take to his sandwiches to school, because the local authority won't pay the 14.5p per head for school dinners. He sends his order form off and waits. And waits. And waits. He then gets a reply telling him that owing to difficulties in integrating the parts produced in Spain and Italy with said lunchbox, IOC for lunchboxes has been put back to 2009.

Come 2009 and Timmy, still all excited by the prospect of getting his lunchbox rings up the RAF merchandise helpline (lunchbox section), only to be told by a snotty voice on the other end of the line that they only have one lunchbox left and someone else might want it; however, there will probably be a delivery at some point so he can get one in 2010.

By 2010, Timmy is now getting older and despite being a bit too old for a children's lunchbox is developing a stubborn streak and decides he's paid for his lunchbox and he's damn well going to get it. The big day comes and a parcel arrives. Funny shape for a lunchbox he thinks. He opens the parcel, and finds a thermos flask - with no cup and a small hole in the base instead. There is also a note attached explaining that owing to contractual difficulties, lunchbox production has been superceded by flask production, and as they have made fewer flasks than they first thought they would, the price has increased by an extra £20, so would he mind popping a cheque in the post. Little Timmy isn't a happy bunny.

It's late, not what he wanted, cost more than advertised and doesn't do what it should. Now if they are being accurate - that's what RAF merchandise will REALLY be like!:\

[L J R]

......and I am going to demand a royalty cut for those who copy the little 'bomb' painted on the side of my jet when they make (modify?) their airfix kits to represent jets that participated in recent offensives.

oops sorry, it wasn't MY jet, it belonged to the taxpayers.

[wishtobflying]

Can you just imagine the American lawyers hands rubbing together with pure glee when this contract was signed? They must have been thinking "surely we'll get caught before this goes through ... surely someone with some sense will twig to this before it becomes official ... surely they aren't THIS stupid ... but boy oh boy are we gonna CLEAN UP!".

Oh and then they probably offered the MoD idiots a bridge in Brooklyn after the contract was signed ("You can have it for the price of repainting it").

... but nobody twigged, they didn't get caught, the contract went through, MoD really are that stupid, and they ARE going to CLEAN UP!

[Pontius Navigator]

I don't see a 'report this post' option.

I am minded to side with those that think direct and derogatory mentions of someone by name, someone who is, as the tabloids would say, a Senior RAF Officer, but is in reality at the bottom of the higher food chain, in not on.

Reflect for a moment how you would feel if it was your name in lights and you know you had only been doing your job.

Can I suggest a bit of retrospective editing?

[StuartP]

The RAF has two choices:
1. Do nothing and let anyone make what they can on any old tat they can flog.
2. Get someone who knows something about licencing to make sure that people pay a contribution for use of the RAF's insignia to the RAF.

What he said. As I understand it, the MOD hasn't sold the RAF brand, it's sold a licence to a third party to use that brand. The MOD still owns the brand, the only difference is the third party now has a controlled right to use it under whatever the terms of the licence are. Nobody has sold out your heritage, traditions or anything else; on the contrary licencing prevents purveyors of cheap tat (of which there are many) from flogging their wares on the back of your good name. The RAF may well not be what it was 20 years ago (I'm not in the forces so I won't comment) but your reputation out here amongst the great unwashed (or the 53% of us that have heard of you :uhoh: ) is still as high as it ever was.

Stuart.

[Postman Plod]

on the contrary licencing prevents purveyors of cheap tat (of which there are many) from flogging their wares on the back of your good name.

Or the purveyors of quality goods that have never in the past caused any problems or concerns, and probably contribute more to the public awareness, knowledge and appreciation of the RAF than any official RAF merchendise (sold through catalogue or at museums only) ever has? Official RAF Typhoon trainers anyone? Yeh, I see them on the streets every day....

[Jackonicko]

"Licencing prevents purveyors of cheap tat (of which there are many) from flogging their wares on the back of your good name."

It also prevents the purveyors of high quality items from featuring RAF subjects without the permission of the owners of the Ninja Turtles trademark. If a model manufacturer wants to produce an accurate model of a Typhoon in 29 Squadron markings, if a small publisher wants to produce a book about the RAF, etc.

[wiggy]

Ahh, a mystery explained, so this %$&*()^ policy is why at the end of "Curse of the "Weere (?sp) Rabbit" the MOD gets a credit for allowing the use of the roundel on some fairground pretend aircraft
(BTW "Crackin' film Grommit")...........................
(as you can tell I like to get full value from films..now bring back the National Anthem).

[StuartP]

It also prevents the purveyors of high quality items from featuring RAF subjects without the permission of the owners of the Ninja Turtles trademark. If a model manufacturer wants to produce an accurate model of a Typhoon in 29 Squadron markings, if a small publisher wants to produce a book about the RAF, etc

Only if the MOD has granted the Ninja Turtles exclusive use, which I doubt (if they have then they are truly MuppetsTM and I take it all back).

The model issue is murky but recent experience in the US suggests both the aircraft manufacturer and the MOD could enforce copyrights should they choose to do so. As I understand it a publisher of a book does not need a licence from the MOD to publish pictures of RAF kit with RAF roundels on it, any more than Airforces Monthly or the Daily Mail does as copyright in this case rests with the photographer as creator of the image. If they want to incorporate the roundel into the design of the book/magazine, that's different.

Railway modelling is exactly the same (it started off as a modelling question so why not). Bachmann and Heiljan both produce models of Virgin Trains Class 57s, for which both hold a licence from Virgin to reproduce the trademarked livery. However, only one of them (I forget which) has the "Thunderbirds" nameplates attached as the other couldn't (or wouldn't) obtain a licence from whoever Gerry Anderson sold the rights to.

Edit - Definitive (?) answer here: http://www.mod.uk/dpa/project_services/trademarks_crests_and_logos.htm. Apparently Airfix already hold a licence, the MOD are now going after smaller manufacturers. If your reproduction of trademarked designs is not for commercial gain the licence is free. Totally agree that there must surely be more important things for them to do though.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just a thought but I believe that the Head of MOD Corporate Comms (the top banana in the world formerly known as PR) is....................







A 1* (equivalent) Civil Serpant! And we wonder why it all gone to rats?!?!

[Onan the Clumsy]

All those lives lost fighting the Battle of Britain when all we needed to do was to register the black cross and the swastika and we could have done Jerry for trademark infringement. At the very least we could have had them tied up in court for long enough to build a fairly convincing fleet of aircraft.