Worst Museum Policy?

[alan turner (RIP)]

The uniform worn by Admiral Horatio Nelson on board HMS Victory when he was shot and killed in 1805 at the battle of trafalgar. Officers uniform is the officers posession as they pay for it themselves, it is not issued by the government.NMM =national Maritme Museum.

 

And you know steveo thats the one act that stops me wearing any sort of Military uniform if I could get one to fit that is.

[steveo578]

alan turner

And you know steveo thats the one act that stops me wearing any sort of Military uniform if I could get one to fit that is.

If I may I will reply to this section first. The uniforms act (see my post in Why do you wear military uniforms? page 2 of 29-12-2009 ) forbids a person wearing a uniform of HMF for the purposes of impersonation -it does not prevent wearing of HMF uniforms in re-enactments, stage plays etc i.e. any reasonable and legitimate purpose, even to the extent that guidelines by the CPS (and there is a CPS officer in almost every Police stations custodial suit) would frown upon an officer detaining for example a builder, student or tramp-whatever found wearing an article of British military uniform- it is generally the act of attempting to gain some form of "advantage" generally pecuniary that makes the offence.

 

Specifically a Napoleonic war naval admirals uniform would not even come under the jurisdiction of the 1894 Act as in 1805 there were no standard uniforms for that rank (Nelson a well known self publicist and fashion peacock was notorious for his blinged up garb). The 1894 act exists to prevent the impersonating of a current mode of garb - but obviously will include abuses such as wearing medals improperly -"to the annoyance or distress of the public" as in the recent November 2009 case, which was dealt with as a public order offence. Turning out as a 19thC Admiral might upset "Admiral Car Insurance" but it's not going to fool anyone into thinking that you are a commander of a current naval battle group.:nut:

 

 

…….Officers uniform is the officer’s posession as they pay for it themselves,

No relevance it’s 205 years at least since Nelson commissioned his taylor to cut his threads, couturiers, for example Carolina Herrera enjoy the standard 50/70years after death coverage under copyright. An officer’s uniform despite being paid for by the officer is worn at the pleasure of Her Majesty the Queen under the terms of his/her commission and under warrant by enlisted men.

 

 

The uniform worn by Admiral Horatio Nelson on board HMS Victory when he was shot and killed in 1805 at the battle of Trafalgar.

 

As I said in my post #25 yesterday unless the uniform of Nelson at NMM is covered by a special act of parliament such as a Letter Patent there can be no breach of copyright as copyright does not exist, in George III time it was much easier to obtain such a Act of Parliament, but as the NMM wasn't even constituted until just prior to WW2 as it was opened by Her Majesty the then The Princess Elizabeth- one of her first official functions, an act (Letters Patent) dating back to George III would not exist for NMM but could exist for another organisation.

 

As to whether a car or tank can fall under copyright or more to the point whether an individual museum can claim a copyright is very debatable and as I said previous my opinion has no more validity than anyone else’s -only a Judge or Commissioner can give a ruling- but this is my opinion.

Copyright

Various conventions Berne 1888 and Vienna 1956 apply. Copyright originates through intellectual work -for example writing, artworks, music etc it is the right of the originator of the work and need not be registered, its publication is proof enough, it lasts for the life time of the originator and persists for 50years (70years since 1987 and in the case of Peter Pan perpetually -1988 Callaghan Act, which is a wholly exceptional case). An author (originator) of a work may sell, gift or dispose it to a 3rd party, however an orphaned work (i.e. originator dead no next of kin) cannot be "scooped up" by a 3rd party.

Patents.

Tanks have been patented in the past -for example our old friends at Vickers did this with commercial designs. Patent runs for a determined period -in the 1st instance 20years with an option for limited renewal thereafter. It has to be registered each year or it lapses and another can step in and "scoop up" the rights within a certain criteria and time period- you cannot trawl around looking for long lapsed patents that is in effect in the public domain in the hope of wringing fees out of a manufacturer. Patents can be sold disposed or abandoned like any other type of property. The renewal is the reason why a design of a commercial weapon such as the recently mentioned 10-5inch Armstrong guns in Norway, always date to the Ist January of a given year.

 

The problem with trying to claim copyright on a tank would be the complexity of the item. A Vickers commercial tank for example could have components from other parties- motor by Ford, gear box using Wilson patents, weapons, mounts and TMs from RGF -possibly under Crown Copyright (similar but different time parameters and generally covers only written works including the king James bible) brakes perhaps by Bendix and suspension Horstmann even the armoured plate can be covered by rights. Above all the purchase of an item made under copyright or patent does not confer rights to 3rd parties -for example, buying a Cd or software does not give you copyright.

 

Both Copyright and Patents can be gifted into the public domain -biggest example probably of all time Tim Berners-Lee, the originator of the internet did this.

 

Trade marks and Image rights

 

What some museums attempt to do is to claim spurious image rights. Image rights are linked to Trade Marks which have to be specifically registered and are perpetual rights if the trade mark is used -if lapsed or abandoned for more than 5 years it is regarded as reasonable for a 3rd party to re-resister it although generic terms in common usage may not be re-registered, hence the continuous spats between US and EU systems over the term JEEP (which I think has to be written in a particular script in the EU to qualify). An example of a TM is the term "Tank Museum".

 

Image rights; Madonna, Paris Hilton, Princess Diana, Ferrari and Churchill are all registered TM, let's ignore the first three (please:-() Ferrari is covered by image TM rights (for the black stallion) and as the originator of the mark and titular designer of the cars Enzo Ferrari died in 1988 the styling is still covered by copyright as will be active patents if any, so you can't set up a production line producing 250s or whatever -unless Ferrari OKs it:shocked:, in the US (but less so in EU) even a scale model impinges on this, hence it was many years before a CH47 was produced as a kit as Boeing objected. The Churchill family are quite protective of the name of W.S. Churchill and without a doubt that annoying nodding dog is a nice little earner- however they seem quite sensible with regard to other matters I doubt historical usage of the image incur a rights payment -certainly they haven't asked me for a payment for using the name on pics of A22s I have published.

 

So finally if a museum wants to prevent images of their treasured tank whatever being published they must make it plain and undisputable that photography is not allowed or that permitted photographs are allowed only for private use and –that the rules are displayed in such a way that no reasonable person could not see and understand the prohibition or restrictions, so no small print:shocked: and the prohibition and restriction only apply within enclosed premisses owned or leased by the organistation and that reasonable steps are taken with regard to privacy to prevent photographing through fences into open yards etc.

 

Steve

Edited July 4, 2010 by steveo578
addition of previous post reference