Insignia/Badge copyright (1 Viewer)

[Vicknor]

Was looking through my collection over the weekend and noticed how few 'specific' units (say Paras for example) have detailed reference to cap/uniform badges or insignia.

A quick Google seems to show that the UK MoD holds copyright for about 125 years! Can that be accurate?

What about regimental banners?

I'm not a big historian with regards to badge changes or design, but would it be safe to say that a WW2 regiment's insignia is still under copyright after 70 odd years?

If so, how would say the losing powers' governments deal with this issue. Would the German government restrict usage or even sell licence for usage for SS insignia?

I know that a number of manufacturers post on here and this might be somewhat easier for them to answer

 

[jazzeum]

Copyright can be a fairly tricky area and EU copyright law differs from US one. I'm more familiar with recording issues than insignia.

In Germany, use of SS insignia and other Nazi indicia are illegal so it's not a matter of copyright law.

 

[Vicknor]

Copyright can be a fairly tricky area and EU copyright law differs from US one. I'm more familiar with recording issues than insignia.

In Germany, use of SS insignia and other Nazi indicia are illegal so it's not a matter of copyright law.

Re: Nazi emblems etc. Yes silly of me not to think about that, but must be some 'fair usage' coverage for example in the making of the film Der Untergang.

Wonder how the import of TS into Germany works when they represent Nazi members.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi there,

On the Nazi insignia in Germany they are illegal to display publicly but you can own them and have them in your home. The dealers who sell the insignia at public events merely cover the swastika with some kind of sticker and it is good to go. For Toy Soldiers it seems to be less of a problem because I see the old soldiers on display for sale at flea markets with no covering of the painting aside from large flags. All in all they seem to be loosening up on how these items are viewed.

On British Insignia I dont know about the copyright issues but will certainly ask a friend of mine when I see him this week.

Dave

 

[Jack]

Not just the badges that are protected!

There are clear regulations around the use of the word ‘Anzac’ under the Protection of Word 'Anzac' Act 1920 (the Act) and penalties apply for the incorrect use of the term. Permission from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is generally required to use the word ‘Anzac’ in a commercial context.

The Protection of Word ‘Anzac’ Regulations state that ‘no person may use the word ‘Anzac’, or any word resembling it, in connection with any trade, business, calling or profession or in connection with any entertainment or any lottery or art union or as the name or part of a name of any private residence, boat, vehicle of charitable or other institution, or other institution, or any building without the authority of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.’


Generally, the use of the word 'Anzac' is approved in the name of businesses situated on a road, street, avenue or highway that includes the word 'Anzac', provided that the full name of that address is included, such as ‘Anzac Avenue Fruit Mart’. In such cases it is considered that the public would normally associate the name with its location rather than its traditional sense/meaning.

Applications for Anzac biscuits are normally approved provided the product generally conforms to the traditional recipe and shape, and are referred to as ‘Anzac Biscuits’ or ‘Anzac Slice’. Referring to these products as ‘Anzac Cookies’ is generally not approved, due to the non-Australian overtones.

For serious breaches of the Act, a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment may apply. Under the Crimes Act 1914, a penalty of up to $10,200 for a natural person and $51,000 for a body corporate may be imposed by the Court, instead of imprisonment.


The words 'Anzac Day' may be used in connection with certain events or entertainment held on 25 April itself, or on consecutive days including 25 April.
The word ‘Anzac’ may be used in the name of a street, road or park containing or near a memorial to the First or Second World War.

 

[jazzeum]

Re: Nazi emblems etc. Yes silly of me not to think about that, but must be some 'fair usage' coverage for example in the making of the film Der Untergang.

Wonder how the import of TS into Germany works when they represent Nazi members.

Fair use is an American concept (although spreading internationally) but only applies where there is a copyright holder. I read an article this weekend about the new movie about McDonalds and the fair use by the producers of the golden arches, to which McDonalds holds the copyright.

 

[Poppo]

Copyright can be a fairly tricky area and EU copyright law differs from US one. I'm more familiar with recording issues than insignia.

In Germany, use of SS insignia and other Nazi indicia are illegal so it's not a matter of copyright law.

The nazi symbols( and the italian fascist ones) are illegal not only in Germany, but also in many western european countries such as France and Italy.They can' t be shown in public places.And being illegal,as you correctly say, there is surely not copyright on them.

 

[Vicknor]

Not just the badges that are protected!

There are clear regulations around the use of the word ‘Anzac’ under the Protection of Word 'Anzac' Act 1920 (the Act) and penalties apply for the incorrect use of the term. Permission from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is generally required to use the word ‘Anzac’ in a commercial context.

The Protection of Word ‘Anzac’ Regulations state that ‘no person may use the word ‘Anzac’, or any word resembling it, in connection with any trade, business, calling or profession or in connection with any entertainment or any lottery or art union or as the name or part of a name of any private residence, boat, vehicle of charitable or other institution, or other institution, or any building without the authority of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.’


Generally, the use of the word 'Anzac' is approved in the name of businesses situated on a road, street, avenue or highway that includes the word 'Anzac', provided that the full name of that address is included, such as ‘Anzac Avenue Fruit Mart’. In such cases it is considered that the public would normally associate the name with its location rather than its traditional sense/meaning.

Applications for Anzac biscuits are normally approved provided the product generally conforms to the traditional recipe and shape, and are referred to as ‘Anzac Biscuits’ or ‘Anzac Slice’. Referring to these products as ‘Anzac Cookies’ is generally not approved, due to the non-Australian overtones.

For serious breaches of the Act, a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment may apply. Under the Crimes Act 1914, a penalty of up to $10,200 for a natural person and $51,000 for a body corporate may be imposed by the Court, instead of imprisonment.


The words 'Anzac Day' may be used in connection with certain events or entertainment held on 25 April itself, or on consecutive days including 25 April.
The word ‘Anzac’ may be used in the name of a street, road or park containing or near a memorial to the First or Second World War.

Large majority of the TS and model makers use ANZAC without listing any (c) privilege or licence

 

[theBaron]

Large majority of the TS and model makers use ANZAC without listing any (c) privilege or licence

They're using it in the historical context. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a barrister or solicitor, but that's probably not a violation of the law, which apparently applies only in Australia or New Zealand, in any case.

On a different note, I recall when Lockheed-Martin tried a couple of years ago to copyright the historical designations from some of the aircraft Lockheed built during WWII, such as the B-24 Liberator. The company's goal appeared to be to collect royalties from anyone who used the term, be it on a model kit or as the title of a book, if I remember correctly.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Martin Tabony]

They're using it in the historical context. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a barrister or solicitor, but that's probably not a violation of the law, which apparently applies only in Australia or New Zealand, in any case.

On a different note, I recall when Lockheed-Martin tried a couple of years ago to copyright the historical designations from some of the aircraft Lockheed built during WWII, such as the B-24 Liberator. The company's goal appeared to be to collect royalties from anyone who used the term, be it on a model kit or as the title of a book, if I remember correctly.

Prost!
Brad

Judging by the amount of plastic kits that now say "1/4 Ton Truck" I think the same thing may have happened with the name "Jeep"!

Martin

 

[johnnybach]

An interesting example of this occurred back in 2007 - when Prince Charles (Prince of Wales) had a letter written by his legal representatives to several Welsh Companies who had been producing products or advertising, bearing the famous image of the "Three Feathers" badge - which many people had thought had become to almost symbolise Wales. (Although there are many others who don't!).

This emblem - bearing three Ostrich feathers and with the words "Ich Dien" ( German for "I Serve") is in fact the property of the British Heir Apparent ( usually the Prince of Wales) - and thus he personally owns the copyright of the emblem - and it cannot be used without his permission.

Caused quite a stir at the time, with some folk - who claimed that the badge was in fact appropriated by "The Black Prince" after the Battle of Crecy in 1346 - and used by the heir presumptive thereafter - and therefore didn't belong to the current Prince ( which is in fact, in error!).

Many Welsh people however, couldn't care a jot - and regard the emblem as just another old heraldic emblem of British Monarchy - and has nothing to do with Wales - as we have no ostriches roaming the valleys - and don't speak German anyway!

This wasn't lost on the Welsh Rugby team - who quietly dropped the German wording back in the 1990's - and replaced it with a stylised version of the feathers - and the letters WRU ( for Welsh Rugby Union) instead of the original words. I assume they got permission first???:salute:: jb

BUT - an interesting example - nevertheless.

 

[Jack]

Large majority of the TS and model makers use ANZAC without listing any (c) privilege or licence

I doubt very much whether many issues, if any, have ever made it to court over this type of copyright infringement. It just shows how important the whole Anzac (c) story was, and is, to Australians. I doubt very much whether I would bow to the distates of Big Brother and be frightened to use Anzac (c) when and where I wished!^&grin

 

[Oberstinhaber]

I doubt very much whether many issues, if any, have ever made it to court over this type of copyright infringement. It just shows how important the whole Anzac (c) story was, and is, to Australians. I doubt very much whether I would bow to the distates of Big Brother and be frightened to use Anzac (c) when and where I wished!^&grin

You are right, not many ever get to court, they are "settled" before it goes that far. The Copyright holder invariably "wins"!

At the Chicago Show in 1998, I remember having an interesting discussion with Gerard from "Frontline". As many of you will remember, he made a large set of the "Glen Miller Orchestra" on stage. Sold quite well, I understand.

One day Jerard's phone rang. The caller confirmed he was speaking with Jerard and then identified himself as "the Attorney for the Glen Miller Foundation of New York"

Jerard's illusion that he was about to be congratulated for doing such a good job on the Band, was immediately shattered when the gentleman from New York, launched into the standard "Cease and desist, forthwith..." patter of a Copyright Lawyer.

It appears that the Glen Miller Foundation holds the copyright on the name and all "images" of the said "Glen Miller", in any shape or form or media. The gentleman from New York then informed Gerard that he, in fact, could keep producing, but he would have to pay an appropriate "Royalty" and acknowledge the Copyright on his product. Gerard did the math in his head and quickly informed the gentleman from New York that he would have no hesitation in immediately ceasing production, and sales, of the offending item.

So. any one out there who has this set should look after it as it is a rarity.

It is not only the word ANZAC which is a "protected" word in Australia. The words "Navy" and "Naval" for example,are "protected" words pursuant to provisions of the "Defence Act", their use requires written approval of the Chief of the Defence Force.

Happy Collecting,

Oberstinhaber.

 

[johnnybach]

You are right, not many ever get to court, they are "settled" before it goes that far. The Copyright holder invariably "wins"!

At the Chicago Show in 1998, I remember having an interesting discussion with Gerard from "Frontline". As many of you will remember, he made a large set of the "Glen Miller Orchestra" on stage. Sold quite well, I understand.

One day Jerard's phone rang. The caller confirmed he was speaking with Jerard and then identified himself as "the Attorney for the Glen Miller Foundation of New York"

Jerard's illusion that he was about to be congratulated for doing such a good job on the Band, was immediately shattered when the gentleman from New York, launched into the standard "Cease and desist, forthwith..." patter of a Copyright Lawyer.

It appears that the Glen Miller Foundation holds the copyright on the name and all "images" of the said "Glen Miller", in any shape or form or media. The gentleman from New York then informed Gerard that he, in fact, could keep producing, but he would have to pay an appropriate "Royalty" and acknowledge the Copyright on his product. Gerard did the math in his head and quickly informed the gentleman from New York that he would have no hesitation in immediately ceasing production, and sales, of the offending item.

So. any one out there who has this set should look after it as it is a rarity.

It is not only the word ANZAC which is a "protected" word in Australia. The words "Navy" and "Naval" for example,are "protected" words pursuant to provisions of the "Defence Act", their use requires written approval of the Chief of the Defence Force.

Happy Collecting,

Oberstinhaber.

Interesting reading, Mr O.

Due to the rarity ( and therefore high cost) of the "Frontline" GM set ( don't want to stir up trouble by using the full title), I actually made up a version of that band myself - using parts from a variety of sources. I only made one - for my own amusement - but am now left wondering if I have unwittingly infringed copyright in doing it?? Note that I haven't shown a pic of it - as this might be another "offence".

I'm also left wondering whether any of my other "sets" of home-made lookalike sets have a similar problem, as I do it all of the time??

The copyrighting of the word "Navy" - seems to me to be just absurd - and makes me think that maybe some of these unseen copyrighters are just going that step too far. My father was a sailor - and fought in many famous N engagements of WW2 ( see - I avoided that trap!). My neighbours will be delighted however, as I have now removed the singing of "In the Navy" from my ukulele repertoire - a small mercy!^&grin

I'm left wondering whether at some point - someone will attempt to copyright the use of the English language Alphabet next - in which case we are all stuffed!

Copyright Law is indeed complex - and thankfully, often restricted to the various Countries that have made them (so far). Many - as this example shows - are just absurd.

Just my own opinion, by the way. johnnybach(c).

 

[jazzeum]

Johnny, your limited use may be acceptable and may qualify because of its limited nature.

Generally, a person has the right to their name and likeness during their lifetime, generally called the right of publicity. That means you can't use those without a person's consent. Toy soldier companies seem to ignore this restrictions repeatedly. Use of the Royal Couple's and Brad Pitt's likeness come to mind. However, since the amounts sold are small, the violations probably escape detection by the individuals involved.

The right to publicity is different than copyright. The former is governed by state law whereas the latter is a matter of federal law.

After a person is dead, the use of a person's name or image is not as clear. However, at least 12 states in the US confer a right on the use of a person's likeness or name after death; Priscilla Presley successfully lobbied the State of Tennessee to confer a right on the use of Elvis' image so that his image could not be used without her permission.

 

[johnnybach]

Johnny, your limited use may be acceptable and may qualify because of its limited nature.

Generally, a person has the right to their name and likeness during their lifetime, generally called the right of publicity. That means you can't use those without a person's consent. Toy soldier companies seem to ignore this restrictions repeatedly. Use of the Royal Couple's and Brad Pitt's likeness come to mind. However, since the amounts sold are small, the violations probably escape detection by the individuals involved.

The right to publicity is different than copyright. The former is governed by state law whereas the latter is a matter of federal law.

After a person is dead, the use of a person's name or image is not as clear. However, at least 12 states in the US confer a right on the use of a person's likeness or name after death; Priscilla Presley successfully lobbied the State of Tennessee to confer a right on the use of Elvis' image so that his image could not be used without her permission.

Hi Brad - yes, I thought as much - as I was making a tongue-in-cheek point about the Glen Miller band that I made for myself ( and NOT for sale). After all - if I hadn't told anyone - how would the copyright holder ( or their legal representative's have ever known?). Thanks for clearing a few things up - however silly they seem.

So....... there is apparently State Law - as well as Federal Law in the USA. Another seeming absurdity to me. Surely a Law is either universally applied in a country - or it isn't. Stepping over some imaginary line on a map seemingly exempts a perpitrator from commiting an offence????

Crazy!

And as for the idea that once someone is dead - someone else can continue to exert their will over others - well, we too have the 70 year rule in the UK - which is again widely flouted towards the end of the 70 year period.

As the Frontline example illustrates - all that happens is that small scale production of interesting figures is halted - at least until some legal period of time elapses - though by then almost certainly, few people will care. Production ceases - and nobody makes a profit - either manufacturer, or the Estate - and the World is a poorer place for it - unless you take into account lining of some legal pockets a benefit!

I did wonder why Frontline production of this set never reached the prior-stated limited number of production sets - Now I know.

I rest my case, M'lud. jb

 

[jazzeum]

It's not really crazy because copyright law relates to protecting your interest in works you create, whether written works, paintings or recordings, whereas the right to publicity relates to your person, i.e., your name or likeness.

Copyright is a matter of federal law whereas publicity, which is related to but distinct from the right to privacy, is always a matter of state law.

It may not make sense to you but to me it's quite logical.

I don't know about the 70 year law in the UK but I suspect that's related to copyrighted materials coming into the public domain. That's a different issue. I think I may have previously commented on that.

 

[Vicknor]

So, the MoD retains copyright over all military insignia for 125 years and the Oz government sues you if you call it an ANZAC CAKE, but not if it's an ANZAC SLICE

In defence of the TS industry, Wiki lists the following;

"s30A.—Caricature, parody or pastiche Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche is not an infringement of copyright."

A get out of jail card for the business?

 

[jazzeum]

I'm not familiar with Australian law but "fair dealing" sounds like the equivalent of our "fair use" and fair use would not include selling materials for which you do not have a license for profit.

 

[Vicknor]

So, the MoD retains copyright over all military insignia for 125 years and the Oz government sues you if you call it an ANZAC CAKE, but not if it's an ANZAC SLICE

In defence of the TS industry, Wiki lists the following;

"s30A.—Caricature, parody or pastiche Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche is not an infringement of copyright."

A get out of jail card for the business?

We're doomed

"Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events. "