The Royal Air Force (TM)

[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, which I suggest is a nickname this Buckingham character has rightly earned

[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.

[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??

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]

Originally Posted by ExGrunt

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 ) 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_servic..._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.