PDA

View Full Version : Lockheed Martin



Dexter2999
04-30-2008, 03:22 PM
I received an email about a topic that has been posted on here before. It concerns Lockheed Martin and some over zealous lawyers sending out cease and desist letter concerning 3d models of planes made by the company. The claim is that the likeness of the plane or image is copyright.

Well, a thought occurred to me in that Lockheed Martin is but one company with finite resources. What if the 3d community banned together to set them on their ear?

What I propose is this, every capable artist model a Lockheed Martin aircraft and make a modification of your own. Then copyright the image. Conceivably, with the thousands of artists out there all of the modifications/permutations of existing aircraft could be tied up. Thus preventing the company from continuing to alter current designs and force costly ground up redesigns or forcing them to negotiate with copyright holders.

Sarford
04-30-2008, 04:03 PM
They'd propably then pronounce all those designs 'orphant', pay the copyright office some money to make up phoney owner searches, fire their whole design department and use all those designs for free. :D

frantbk
04-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Seeing that Lockheed can't own any of the Military jets what does it matter? The Jet itself is the property of the U.S. Government, which means that the Jets are owned by the American people. In other words you are building what the American people have paid for, so how can Lockheed talk about copyright law when they only have patent rights to the technology used to make the jet, not the jet itself.

voriax
04-30-2008, 06:21 PM
Lockheed Martin don't just own the patent on how to make the jet, they own the copyright of the design. Of course there is a design copyright. Hence when somebody from outside the company makes a 3d model of their jet, using their design, and then sells that model, they are infringing on the copyright. Other companies don't mind (ie car companies if you sell a model of their car), but obviously lockheed took exception to this one guy and decided to take action.

If anyone here was paid by the government to design a character that was used in a service announcement on TV, then somebody blatantly ripped off your character design and sold it to third parties, would you sit back and let it happen? I doubt it. You put your hard work and creative effort into it, and technically you own the copyright unless you signed it over to the government (which obviously Lockheed hasn't done in this case). So if you saw someone using your ideas to make money, and you get nothing out of it... Well I know I'd do something about it.

I work in a company that uses licensed intellectual property. Every single company that sells an image of a product or character or anything, rigidly protect their copyrights, to the point that if you design anything even close to that IP and sell it without their authorisation, they'll be on you like tigers. Apart from protecting their own property, they want complete control over how their property is perceived, ie: if you get something wrong on the design, you may alter the entire look of it and hence alter the public perception of it.

Hopper
04-30-2008, 07:00 PM
If you're not selling confidential designs to the Chinese or Iraqi's, I'd send a letter back with a picture of your @ss with two words... "Bite Me".

That's laughable.

I suppose I can't post pictures of the uhhhh PUBLIC Air Show I went to last year with a pack of F-35 jets.

Make sure no one's playing a joke on you man. I suppose they sent a letter to everyone that has ever posted a picture on the net of one of their jets that they don't own.

And yes frantbk, you couldn't be any more correct. The DOD owns everything about that jet with the exception of "consolidated components" which is basically electroncs patents, fuel components, etc..

Wickster
04-30-2008, 07:11 PM
Interesting. When a hollywood film features military planes, the producers usually pay the military who rented out those planes and not the company that made it, am I correct? So why would Lockheed send out lawyers to the 3D community? Would it be for design purposes...like some underground military forces could build a plane on their own using 3D models of their planes?

That's an interesting email indeed.

Hopper
04-30-2008, 07:32 PM
I did a little research. I talked to a friend of mine that works for Boeing. He laughed. His response:

"Did he verify authenticity? I just don't see that happening in 'real life'. <laugh>... We don't have any stake in these systems when they are finished. The military owns just about everything. If they hadn't specifically ordered it, we wouldn't be selling these at WalMart that's for sure".

CMT
04-30-2008, 08:08 PM
IF they actually own the design, then I can sort of understand them wanting to protect their property and not having others exploit it without their consent.

But for them, it's kind of like Marvel or DC clamping down on people selling their own prints of Superman or Spiderman. These people even do it at the comic conventions. Yet Marvel or DC doesn't do anything about it because they know that these guys are making peanuts on it.

But I guess that Lockheed Martin has every right to do it..... It just seems a bit silly at this point. It's not like they are missing out on a huge industry where they could stand to make a ton of money.
-----

Just now found a link regarding LM's licensing info. This is interesting.
Licensing info (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/LicensingInformation.html)

And here's a pdf of what they allow artists to do for free... Looks like they don't care for the peanuts after all. I can understand their position with print runs over 6000.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12024.pdf

frantbk
04-30-2008, 08:19 PM
Lockheed Martin don't just own the patent on how to make the jet, they own the copyright of the design. Of course there is a design copyright. Hence when somebody from outside the company makes a 3d model of their jet, using their design, and then sells that model, they are infringing on the copyright. Other companies don't mind (ie car companies if you sell a model of their car), but obviously lockheed took exception to this one guy and decided to take action.


I haven't bother to read all of your post, but if you read the Aerograph I by Jay Miller you will find out that much of the design was based on Nasa wind tunnel test, so much of the copyright stuff you are talking about is bunk. The fact that the Jet was designed to U.S. Government specifications based on the F-X concept formulation Studies of 1966-1971 precludes outright copyright ownership. Lockheed can't even deny you the use of F-16 or FIghting Falcon because the F-16 is government issued (based formula of the 1966 congressional mandate) Fighting Falcon is a U.S. Air Force designation. Whatever Lockheed is doing the guy had better fight back because Lockheed is on shaky ground.

frantbk
04-30-2008, 08:29 PM
Interesting. When a hollywood film features military planes, the producers usually pay the military who rented out those planes and not the company that made it, am I correct? So why would Lockheed send out lawyers to the 3D community? Would it be for design purposes...like some underground military forces could build a plane on their own using 3D models of their planes?

That's an interesting email indeed.

Federal law prohibits companies and people from owning almost all of the supersonic jets (some subsonic jets can be owned F-5, A-7 if you can find them) of America. Buying military jets for scrap requires specific area's of the jet to be torched (landing gears, wing joints, tail sections) go to the DRMS Defense Reutilization web site for specifics on U.S. purchase of aircraft. The question is what kind of model did this person build? All military concept aircraft are not covered by copyright because the U.S. government has had to okay the building or funding of the concept, and if the concept is for a foreign government it has to be issued through the DOD/MLC.

frantbk
04-30-2008, 08:32 PM
IF they actually own the design, then I can sort of understand them wanting to protect their property and not having others exploit it without their consent.

But for them, it's kind of like Marvel or DC clamping down on people selling their own prints of Superman or Spiderman. These people even do it at the comic conventions. Yet Marvel or DC doesn't do anything about it because they know that these guys are making peanuts on it.

But I guess that Lockheed Martin has every right to do it..... It just seems a bit silly at this point. It's not like they are missing out on a huge industry where they could stand to make a ton of money.
-----

Just now found a link regarding LM's licensing info. This is interesting.
Licensing info (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/LicensingInformation.html)

And here's a pdf of what they allow artists to do for free... Looks like they don't care for the peanuts after all. I can understand their position with print runs over 6000.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12024.pdf

But Lockheed doesn't own the design of the jet, they only own the technology process that they've invested in the making of the jet. The U.S. government owns the jet and the physical profile of the jet. Therefore the American people own the jet.

Hopper
04-30-2008, 09:21 PM
LM has 0 ownership of these jets or anything in it, around it, on it, under it, or near it. They can own patents on the "process" by which the product was made and individual components as long as those components were not designed for that specific application.

Bottom line - Someone's full of shlt and has a lot of time on their hands. File that email under "omgwtfkkthxbuhbye" and let's see some more models!

voriax
04-30-2008, 09:26 PM
I haven't bother to read all of your post, but if you read the Aerograph I by Jay Miller you will find out that much of the design was based on Nasa wind tunnel test, so much of the copyright stuff you are talking about is bunk. The fact that the Jet was designed to U.S. Government specifications based on the F-X concept formulation Studies of 1966-1971 precludes outright copyright ownership. Lockheed can't even deny you the use of F-16 or FIghting Falcon because the F-16 is government issued (based formula of the 1966 congressional mandate) Fighting Falcon is a U.S. Air Force designation. Whatever Lockheed is doing the guy had better fight back because Lockheed is on shaky ground.

The point of my post isn't specific to this case, if it's even a real case. I'm simply pointing out that any design of any product can carry a copyright, and the owners of those copyrights can enforce them if they choose to.

In fact, I'm copyrighting this text, so you better not quote me next time!

2008 Voriax

Hopper
04-30-2008, 09:45 PM
In fact, I'm copyrighting this text, so you better not quote me next time!

2008 Voriax

Oops! Did I quote that out loud! :-o

But you didn't read the fine print!!! :D


All copyrights held on this material are subject to blatant misuse and redistribution at will by any blundering idiot, Lightwaver, 3D artists (except Modo users), forum member, moderator, or mammal with opposable thumbs.

This copyright disclaimer is Copyright 2008 by the blundering idiot... and Lockheed Martin

frantbk
05-01-2008, 06:49 AM
The point of my post isn't specific to this case, if it's even a real case. I'm simply pointing out that any design of any product can carry a copyright, and the owners of those copyrights can enforce them if they choose to.

In fact, I'm copyrighting this text, so you better not quote me next time!

2008 Voriax

What we are trying to tell you that this isn't the case and Lockheed is blowing smoke. Not just any design of any product can carry a copyright. This comes back to a discussion that happened over at the Luxology forum. Someone over there tried to point out that before you can apply the copyright laws you have to know if the copyright laws apply to the problem. In this case the copyright laws do not apply.

Because NewTek owns the forum you had better read the disclaimer. I believe NewTek staked a claim of control over all content posted on their forum, so your copyright is probably not valid. Once again you have to know when the law applies and when it does not apply. :D :thumbsup:

frantbk
05-01-2008, 08:41 AM
If anyone here was paid by the government to design a character that was used in a service announcement on TV, then somebody blatantly ripped off your character design and sold it to third parties, would you sit back and let it happen? I doubt it. You put your hard work and creative effort into it, and technically you own the copyright unless you signed it over to the government (which obviously Lockheed hasn't done in this case). So if you saw someone using your ideas to make money, and you get nothing out of it... Well I know I'd do something about it.


Have ever read about doing business with the Federal government? The contracts are detail, and very specific about who owns the property. If you designed a character for a service announcement for the U.S. government then it belongs to the American people unless specified in the contract that you retain ownership (which I doubt you would).

As for the Lockheed issue. Lockheed doesn't and can't build their military jets unless there is a government contract. Lockheed can't by law just start building military jets just because they have a burr up their butt to do so. Lockheed can't built military jets for another country without Federal permission. Foreign countries can't do business directly with Lockheed for the purchase of, or manufacturing of military jets - they have to talk with the DOD and the DOD/MLC has oversight supervision of all military programs.

frantbk
05-01-2008, 08:47 AM
I work in a company that uses licensed intellectual property. Every single company that sells an image of a product or character or anything, rigidly protect their copyrights, to the point that if you design anything even close to that IP and sell it without their authorisation, they'll be on you like tigers. Apart from protecting their own property, they want complete control over how their property is perceived, ie: if you get something wrong on the design, you may alter the entire look of it and hence alter the public perception of it.

First, you need to talk with your companies legal department. I've worked at a lot of companies too, and I know that most people in most companies don't know squat about the real deals that the legal departments handle. Unless you are quoting your companies legal department then I'm not really interested in this.

Dexter2999
05-01-2008, 08:48 AM
As an update, when I went to research the letter, I found an article relating to the topic.
It appears that Lockheed Martin actually got a copyright of the term "B-24" the government designation and they use it in marketing the scale models of of the actual jets.
You can read the article here
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator

CMT
05-01-2008, 08:50 AM
I think everyone understands that LM can't just go around selling their jets to anyone or stockpiling them.

If that's all true, then why is LM sending those C&D orders? If it's so precise who owns what, why the antics?

If what you're saying is true, then either someone at LM is totally ignorant of the policies, or this C&D order whole thing is a joke. My bet is on the latter.

CMT
05-01-2008, 09:10 AM
I mjust missed your post Dexter. I guess it's no joke then. Seems like this a growing problem. The link at the top of the article links to a BoingBoing article which argues against why that should not be allowed to happen. And I totally agree.

Why should Photographers and illustrators be able to sell likenesses of products, but not CG artists?

voriax
05-01-2008, 09:35 AM
First, you need to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .. more blah .. I'm not really interested in this.

Dude, take a chill pill.
Frankly I don't really care about the whole sit, but it annoys me when people just go "oh man that big corporation can't do that to the little guy!", so I was trying to add a bit of perspective to the story.

Don't take things so seriously mate.

CMT
05-01-2008, 09:49 AM
I jumped the gun obviously about selling photos and illustrations of likenesses. My emotions spoke before my brain... this does seem a bit petty on the surface, but there's more to it.

You still need permission, but often it's given without the company asking for a cut of the profit, as demonstrated in LM's licensing policies.

And after reading over Matt Wisdom's counter argument, he makes some very valid points for companies to protect to take those types of measures.

frantbk
05-01-2008, 11:04 AM
As an update, when I went to research the letter, I found an article relating to the topic.
It appears that Lockheed Martin actually got a copyright of the term "B-24" the government designation and they use it in marketing the scale models of of the actual jets.
You can read the article here
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator

What I have to question is did someone built a 3D model and then post it as Lockheed Martin F-16? Because if they used Lockheed Martin with F-16 then they used the companies name without their permission.

As for the B-24 copyright; so what, 3-5 different companies built B-24's during WWII. You could claim your B-24 Liberator is one built by one of the other companies for the U.S. government, their copyright only covers the B-24 Liberator's built by Lockheed Martin.

frantbk
05-01-2008, 11:08 AM
Dude, take a chill pill.
Frankly I don't really care about the whole sit, but it annoys me when people just go "oh man that big corporation can't do that to the little guy!", so I was trying to add a bit of perspective to the story.

Don't take things so seriously mate.

We're still not talking about what Big Corporation can/can't do to the little guy. This is about the copyright law protecting the big corporation and if the people affected really have to listen to the "Big Corporation."

frantbk
05-01-2008, 12:32 PM
As an update, when I went to research the letter, I found an article relating to the topic.
It appears that Lockheed Martin actually got a copyright of the term "B-24" the government designation and they use it in marketing the scale models of of the actual jets.
You can read the article here
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator

Okay, from this article there isn't any ruling of law to say Lockheed Martin has copyright to B-24 that extends beyond the physical building of model replicas of B-24. Because Lockheed Martin is claiming that they own copyrights to "B-24" The U.S. designation of B-24 stands for Bomber-24. P-51: Pursuit Fighter-51 and F-16: Fighter -16. What I'm saying is that you could label any 3D model Fighter: -16 and Lockheed Martin doesn't have any copyright to your model. You could call your model U.S. Fighter 16 Fighting Falcon and Lockheed Martin is screwed.

Steamthrower
05-01-2008, 12:33 PM
When any of you guys actually gets a cease & desist letter from Lucasfilm for modeling an AT-AT, from Boeing for modeling a 747, from New Line Cinema for modeling Gollum, from Lamborghini for modeling a Diablo, just let us know. :D

Dexter2999
05-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Okay, from this article there isn't any ruling of law to say Lockheed Martin has copyright to B-24 that extends beyond the physical building of model replicas of B-24. Because Lockheed Martin is claiming that they own copyrights to "B-24" The U.S. designation of B-24 stands for Bomber-24. P-51: Pursuit Fighter-51 and F-16: Fighter -16. What I'm saying is that you could label any 3D model Fighter: -16 and Lockheed Martin doesn't have any copyright to your model. You could call your model U.S. Fighter 16 Fighting Falcon and Lockheed Martin is screwed.

That is pretty much what I arrived at after reading the article.

frantbk
05-01-2008, 01:01 PM
That is pretty much what I arrived at after reading the article.

I know I'm becoming too involved in this, but seeing that I have the books. Here's another bit of information: U.S. Figthers 1925-to-1980 by Llyod S. Jones "February 18, 1972 General Dynamics Model 401 received the official designation YF-16. The easies course of action (If you receive a Lockheed letter) is to contact your congressman and ask for the Lockheed internal model number for the F-16. Lockheed does not use F-16 in the contracts with the DOD, Lockheed uses a variation of the model 400 series that GD assigned to the F-16.

Now here is the counter argument to Lockheed's claim: Because the F-16 doesn't become the F-16 until the U.S. accepts the aircraft it is know as the Lockheed Martin model 400-whatever while being under the control/production of Lockheed Martin.

Therefore, Lockheed Martin only has the copyright to the internal designation of model 400-whatever. Unless Lockheed Martin switches there entire database over to F-16 for the model 400-whatever series; Lockheed Martin never produced an F-16. The model 400 series doesn't become an F-16 until it is accepted by the U.S. Government.