4sh its and giggles

[GiantFlyingRobots]

Nice explanation of the difficulties of dealing with Boeing Supah. Just another reason to stay well clear of these flying buses, when contemplating future projects.

Jester you couldn't pin it on me, when the FBI, CIA, NSA or Boeing's legal dept bust down my door, they wont find a single image of the aforementioned flying buses anywhere on my hard drives.

[Jesters-Ink]

lmao, but they would look

[gamary]

lmao, but they would look

Do it, Jesters. They won't find anything on his drives, but he won't have a door anymore. Then he can send us a picture for laughs.

Or alternatively, I'll send you a picture of my (ex-)door.

Sue me. (Thank god, I didn't sign. I can still walk in downtown Seattle.)

[anadc4]

Boeing claims ownership of not only the name and designation of their airplanes but also outlines and shapes of their products. Where you could get away with drawing a B-52 as its name and designation are owned by the USAF (Who doesnt give a rats ass and puts this sort of stuff in the public domain where it belongs) and as it was designed under a government contract its outline is not boeings property either. Using the term "Boeing" on a print of a B-52 will get you in hot water. Drawing and selling a Boeing airliner will get you in trouble for sure if they catch wind of it.

Another problem with airliners is that the logo's on them and their paintscheme's are often trademarked property of the airlines so they can sue you all they want too for making money with their logo without their permission.

If despite all this you fancy drawing some pretty "Boeing 777 Northwest airlines" profiles feel free to do so, remember sending the finished article to boeings legal department for laughs

This is a myth. Boeing’s power to stop artists, authors, journalists, cartoonists, and film makers from using its name, trademarks and products is zilch. The US and most other countries protect freedoms of press and artistic expression.

Boeing's trademarks, including the shape of the 747, and its company name are protected in a commercial sense only. People can't use Boeing's trademark or name to infer that the product they are promoting is a Boeing product or has the endorsement of Boeing.

So put a 747 in your artwork by all means but don't put it on a baseball cap and try to sell it.

Same applies to airlines and their logos. Just don't cut and paste logos from their websites (their copyright) or from airliners.net (photographer's copyright)

[Supah]

This is a myth. Boeing?s power to stop artists, authors, journalists, cartoonists, and film makers from using its name, trademarks and products is zilch. The US and most other countries protect freedoms of press and artistic expression.

Boeing's trademarks, including the shape of the 747, and its company name are protected in a commercial sense only. People can't use Boeing's trademark or name to infer that the product they are promoting is a Boeing product or has the endorsement of Boeing.

So put a 747 in your artwork by all means but don't put it on a baseball cap and try to sell it.

Same applies to airlines and their logos. Just don't cut and paste logos from their websites (their copyright) or from airliners.net (photographer's copyright)

Yes well quite but for all intents and purposses:

1. Selling a profile of a boeing product will get you sued.

2. Using anyones logo without prior permission will get you sued.

3. Boeing has agressively sued artists (and won and thus created Legal precidence) and won.

[anadc4]

According to US trademark law, permission is required only if the artwork is produced for commercial purposes, such as on merchandise or in an ******isement. A legal precedent was when Chrysler did not want its logo used in trading cards because it had already licensed another trading card company. But anyone can paint a picture of a Chrysler car with the Chrysler logo and not get sued.

Use of trademarks in a artwork that is art for art's sake is fair use. One only has to view Andy Warhol's work to see that. Warhol even went as far as making a Batman movie without the permission from DC Comics. As long as he showed it in an art environment - a gallery or art cinema and not a commercial theatre - it was OK.

It is fair use that allows newspapers to use Mickey Mouse's image and not get sued by Disney, even when used with a story that Disney might not want published. It is fair use that allows newspaper cartoonists and graphic artists to use logos in a context that is critical of the trademark owner. There are limits of course. Using trademarks in **** is sure to get you sued but that has more to do with bringing the company into disrepute.

I cannot find anywhere an instance of Boeing suing or blocking an artist or a book publisher or a photographer for showing photographs or profiles of its planes. All I can find is hearsay. What I can find is that Boeing says you cannot copy its logo (right click. save) and use it. That is all about artists copyright. If you want a Boeing logo, draw it yourself. That affects all who cut and paste.

[anadc4]

What a weird auto censor. The first stars were for ******, or ad, like in a newspaper and on TV. Never knew that was a rude word. The second stars were for ****, rude movies with men and women in them.

[adlabs6]

Yes, we added the ad related text to the filter in response to some spammer activities. We hoped to remove the incentive to post such, but for ad it seems to get in the way more than it helps.

I'll see about removing it.

[adlabs6]

Testing... advertisement!

[anadc4]

Thought it might have been a rude word in a language other than English.