EFF Takes Up The Cause Of Bogus Trademarks On Military Hardware

from the don't-make-a-model-of-a-b-24-bomber dept

Mon, Apr 14th 2008 1:19am — Mike Masnick

A few years back, we highlighted one of the more ridiculous examples of "intellectual property" claims stretched to ridiculous ends: defense contractors were claiming intellectual property rights over the designs of military hardware and were demanding that model toy makers pay up. Despite widespread criticism when this first happened, they're still doing it. The EFF is now hitting back against Lockheed Martin for forcing digital images of a model of a B-24 bomber offline using its trademark on the B-24. As the EFF notes, this particular trademark should never have been granted, as it's completely reasonable to be able to accurately describe what sort of plane it is using the government-given name for it. The EFF has now sent a letter to Lockheed Martin politely requesting it change its position on this matter. Anyone want to set odds on Lockheed Martin changing its mind?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: b-24 bomber, eff, intellectual property, military hardware, models, trademark

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SteveD, 14 Apr 2008 @ 2:48am

Public Image
I can't see public image being very high on the agenda of a defence contractor, somehow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 14 Apr 2008 @ 3:38am
  
  Re: Public Image
  Perhaps you don't know much about the military and the contractors that work for them. Image is everything, perception is reality and all the above takes precedence over getting the job done right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SteveD, 14 Apr 2008 @ 3:50am
    
    Re: Re: Public Image
    I don't, so could you explain a bit? Why are military contractors worried over what the public think of them? The public arn't their customers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jake, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:01am
      
      Re: Public Image
      Defence contractors are like any other contractor in that regard, I suppose; if they get a bad rep for their attitude, people are going to start thinking that maybe the government ought to take its business elsewhere, and expressing that opinion to their elected representative. At the very least, it might lose Lockheed-Martin at least some of its political influence and maybe tip the balance slightly towards its competitors.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TheDock22, 14 Apr 2008 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Public Image
        if they get a bad rep for their attitude, people are going to start thinking that maybe the government ought to take its business elsewhere, and expressing that opinion to their elected representative.
        
        You obviously don't know how the government works. Their contracts will ALWAYS go to the lowest bidder no matter what the public thinks. That is because the majority of the public doesn't want to pay any more money in taxes. You can't have both worlds on this one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jake, 14 Apr 2008 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Public Image
        Perhaps, Dock, but bad publicity still plays into Boeing's hands on this one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheDock22, 14 Apr 2008 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Public Image
        Not enough for the government to do anything about it. They are too busy fighting wars and bickering among each other for votes to really care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Public Image
        You obviously don't know how the government works. Their contracts will ALWAYS go to the lowest bidder no matter what the public thinks.
        
        Bull. You seem to be the one with a lack of understanding. Contracts are often written in such a manner that only one company will qualify no matter what they bid. That is, if bids are even required, which they aren't in the case of no-bid contracts. That little beauty has been used quite a bit in Iraq.
        
        I used to work for a major defense contractor and was involved in the proposal process. I can tell you that the most important requirement for getting a contract was having the right contacts. In fact, if you were ex-military with procurement contacts you could get hired into a management position with little to no relevant experience or education. "Contracts through contacts" was the business model and it worked very well. And bidding is really no problem when you're the only bidder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 3:58am

Why is it then
That all the other model-types get permission to use the likliness. Go into a hobby store and find a model of a '72 Stingray - I'd be willing to bet that you see that somewhere on the box, Chevrolet has given permission. Why is this any different??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:10am
  
  Re: Why is it then
  Go into a hobby store and find a model of a '72 Stingray - I'd be willing to bet that you see that somewhere on the box, Chevrolet has given permission.
  
  What make a '72 Stingray special?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: Why is it then
    "What make a '72 Stingray special?"
    
    Don't you mean, "Who makes a '72 Stingray special?" It was a Chevy & Corvette venture. Answer, "Both".
    
    At ant rate, lets get back on topic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is it then
      Don't you mean, "Who makes a '72 Stingray special?"
      
      No, I meant what makes that model special in that the commenter referred to it in particular instead of models in general. As if though special rules about box printing applied to that model and I was wondering why that should be. Actually, I suspect it was really a "weasel clause" so that if anyone challenged him on it he could just say "I only said so for '72 Stingray models".
      
      At ant rate, lets get back on topic.
      
      Who made you the moderator?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- comboman, 14 Apr 2008 @ 5:05am
  
  Re: Why is it then
  Because the government didn't use taxpayer dollars to commission Chevrolet to design the '72 Stingray. Defense companies don't own the designs they create for the government, the government does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: Why is it then
  That all the other model-types get permission to use the likliness. Go into a hobby store and find a model of a '72 Stingray - I'd be willing to bet that you see that somewhere on the box, Chevrolet has given permission. Why is this any different??
  Has something changed? I used to build models as a kid and none of the boxes had any such "permission" on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FLyfish, 14 Apr 2008 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Why is it then
  My taxes didn't pay to develop the Corvette.
  
  This isn't just images, they (Lockheed) went after UBISoft and 4C for including the P38 in a flight sim (IL2 Forgotten Battles).
  
  They get rich off our taxes making aircraft and then want royalties from their fan base. I hope the EFF wins this one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCsSuck, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:51am

What makes it different
is that the government owns the tech data package on those items. we could take the data rights and move the line to say, boeing, and there would be no problem. That doesn't happen because lockheed is all geared up to produce these things and boeing would need a new assembly line. But the fact remains, it's usually a competitive solicitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2008 @ 7:36am
  
  Re: What makes it different
  "...lockheed is all geared up to produce these things..."
  
  That would seem like rather wishful thinking on Lockheed's part. :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 14 Apr 2008 @ 5:47am

I don't see how they claim any infringement at all. He used the plane's name to identify digital images of it. Is Lockheed Martin claiming that they're the only ones in the world who can publish images of this plane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Aitala, 14 Apr 2008 @ 5:59am

Scale modeling...
Unfortunately this kind of things is also happening in the scale modeling hobby... companies are claiming copyright on military designs and logos on race cars. Its helping to kill off a hobby that is already in trouble because of an aging demographic.

Eric Aitala
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Valle, 14 Apr 2008 @ 6:21am

Scale modeling
As I understand it, works made by the U.S. Government are in the public domain. Since the plane was made under the a U.S. government contract for the government, the design should not be copyrighted.

At least, its how understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SpammersAreScum (profile), 16 Apr 2008 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re: Scale modeling
  Uh, no. If you develop something under contract to the US Gov't, the contract usually gives the Gov't ownership of the result. However, government-owned =/= public domain, although it appears some people believe it should.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MLS, 17 Apr 2008 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re: Scale modeling
    For the sake of accuracy, the USG does not as a matter of course obtain "ownership" of any rights that may be available as the result of work product created by a contractor or subcontractor under a contract with the USG.
    
    But for a couple of very minor exceptions that virtually never come into play, all rights are retained by the contractor or subcontractor who actually performed the work giving rise to such rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 14 Apr 2008 @ 1:40pm

Why
Why can anyone copyright something paid for by tax payer dollars? It is absurd as parts of the atomic bomb being patented. This is just another example of how the government is setup to perpetuate the survival of large corporations, while trampling citizen's rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 14 Apr 2008 @ 2:28pm

"What make a '72 Stingray special?"

last year before the catalytic converter was implemented?

*walks away feeling stupid as usual*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avatar28, 14 Apr 2008 @ 6:15pm

Didn't we got through this a few years back with the F-29 and LM claiming ownership of the name and Raptor trademark, etc. They were demanding royalties for it's use from the various companies making games until the USAF stepped in and stepped on a few necks and asserted it's ownership over all related designs and trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MLS, 14 Apr 2008 @ 6:36pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, the USAF had a knee jerk reaction about 8 or 9 years ago when it learned that Lockheed (at its Skunkworks division) was claiming (and legitimately so) trademark rights in the products it sells domestically and internationally. That reaction was quickly dissipated once the USAF learned a little bit about trademark law and that the registration of the trademarks in no way impacted it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]