EFF forces Lockheed to withdraw trademark claim on B-24 bomber

Great news: The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Corynne McSherry arm-twisted Lockheed Martin into giving up on their crazy attempt to stop people from posting 3D models of the WWII bombers that they built at government expense, claiming a trademark in the design:

Last month we told you about Lockheed Martin's effort to use trademark infringement claims to cause the removal of digital images of classic military aircraft from TurboSquid, a stock images site. The central mark at issue was the term “B-24,” which Lockheed managed to register as a trademark for use in connection with scale models of airplanes. We sent an open letter to Lockheed’s licensing agency, demanding that they withdraw their improper objections. We're pleased to report that Lockheed has decided to withdraw its claim, and TurboSquid is putting the images back up forthwith.
This is a good outcome, but the problem remains. Because online communication and commerce often depends on intermediaries like TurboSquid, who may not have the resources or the inclination to investigate trademark infringement claims, it is much too easy for trademark owners like Lockheed to ignore fair use and shut down legitimate content. And not every target of improper claims is going to have the resources to push back.

Link (Thanks, John!)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Copyfight • maker

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Argon

Yay EFF!
Flashman

What made this all the more difficult for EFF is that Dick Cheney has trademarked the word ‘Liberator’.
pauldrye

What made this all the more difficult for EFF is that Dick Cheney has trademarked the word ‘Liberator’.

Well, at least we can still make models of the B-33 Worstpresidentever.
Takuan

I could make a list of the words he’s earned
Anonymous

This is a good outcome, but the problem remains.

Give the USPTO a division with the rights to oversee and enforce self-sustaining* fines against those who aggressively and wrongly pursue IP protections.

*The USPTO division’s budget would be replenished by handing down fines based upon its expenses on each case. If a fine wipes out a company, too bad. That’ll be a lesson to MPAA, the music industry, the FCC, and all the other effwads out there who clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits against single mothers for wearing a profane logo on TV without permission.
Jake0748

Pauldrye – I think it’s the B-43 Worstpresidentever.

I know I should be cynical enough to ignore this kind of B.S. But how the hell can the jerks at Lockheed think they could possible own all the rights to the image of a WW2 bomber? It was a piece of equipment that was financed by US taxpayers, designed, built and flown by people (most of whom have passed away by now) in the service of the country. How on earth can it be considered a piece of property owned by one company?

This kind of “intellectual property” bullshit is so far out of hand… god I’m sick of these greedy fuckers. aaarrrrggghhhh.
Anonymous

Just to correct the history here.

Lockheed Air Force Plant 4 at Forth Worth, Texas, built 3,034 B-24s during the war. Just as the Boeing B-17 was built by different manufacturers (including Lockheed Vega), so too was the Consolidated B-24. Quality control between manufacturers varied and Lockheed was known for superior quality. I have talked with an airman who went to work for Lockheed after the war because he claimed that the Lockheed B-24 he was flying during Operation Tidal Wave saved his life.

Also, Lockheed Martin today sells a diecast B-24 model in their company store.

I am not defending LM’s trademark infringement claim (I am an avid Turbo Squid user), but I felt that incorrect history was being posted here and needed some correction.
Bucket

I’m kind of confused as to how Lockheed wound up thinking it owned the B-24 in the first place.

(Caution! Aerospace geeking ahead!)
The B-24 was made by Consolidated Aircraft, later renamed “Conviar”. Convair was bought by General Dynamics, who then sold most of what was left of Convair to McDonnell-Douglas, and shut down the rest. McD-D then shut down the remaining bits of it a few years later, and were then themselves bought by Boeing.

Also, a real B-24 (from the Collings Foundation) has been flying over my house all week. I’ve been snapping pics whenever I get the chance.

Check out their schedule, they might be showing up near you:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm
mikelotus

Bombs away Lockheed. Bring on the P-38′s next.
Cupcake Faerie

My dad was a navigator and bombardier in a B-24 during WWII over Europe. He said flying in one was like flying in a tin can. One time in the Alps they were taking flack from machine gun nests located higher than they were flying. He’s lucky (and so am I) he made it out alive.
Anonymous

#8 It’s rather more insidious than this. They never made any LEGAL claim to the form or image of the B-24. THEIR lawyers weren’t dumb enough to try this. They merely registered “B-24″ as a trademark for scale models. They could as legitimately registered “C-25″ or “D-26″ or “W-324″ as a brand of scale models. But then they used their registration send out letters that IMPLIED that somehow they had rights to the image and form of the WWII bomber to which the USAAF had given the designation B-24. I’m not sure that lockmart was ever IN the scale model business, so their registration was IMHO PURELY an attempt to extort licensing fees from model companies