Licensed heralds

prohibited from taking a picture of a piece of UP equipment and when I do that picture falls under my copyright.< The UP was trying to charge for published pictures and they didn't care who took it.

Depends on where you take the picture from. I am a regular volunteer at the Portola Railroad Museum in Portola CA. I am a qualified Brakeman, Fireman and Conductor, I am also the PRM Layout Co-Chairman. We have a written, posted and enforceable policy at the Museum that photos may not be taken for commercial use without Museum permission. We don't say anything about the railfan who comes in takes his shot and send it to magazine or a website, we do say something though when it shows up as prints for sale on someone's website or whatnot.

You certainly have the right to control who's allowed to enter your own property -- and the right to make and enforce rules as to what they can do while they're your guests. But that has nothing whatever to do with copyrights or trademarks.

As to pictures taken of trains in actual service and in public view, it's more that a little disturbing to discover the number of people who've somehow come to believe that corporations can license or control the use of privately taken photographs, just because those trains bear the names and logos of their owners.

Even worse, there are some who think that it's somehow "illegal" to poke fun at public corporations with caricatures of their trademarked or copyrighted images. 'Tain't so, Magee! Last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in place, but sometimes it seems that we're turning into a nation of sheep.

JR Hill

No argument here. I was simply stating PRM photo policy

I'm a bridge engineer, and most of our business is with federal and state governments (naturally). In our case, our designs remain our property--- even after we deliver the plans to the government. (But then again, we are providing more of a service rather than a product.)

I'm sure DoD contracts would be treated likewise -- anything not explicity spelled out in the contract as being turned over to the government remains the property of the contractor who built the product. Think of the analogy of buying an automobile... if youy buy a Ford product, you don't automatically get the right to use and sell the Ford logo on others things you make... Ford still owns that.

If we wanted to I guess we could try to negotiate to get that right when we negotiate the contract to purchase a new car. But as an individual, neither you nor I have the clout to do that and would probably be laughed out of the car dealership. But someone like the DoD has a lot more influence when buying a couple of dozen fighter planes, and they can include that right in their contract.

"Mark Mathu" wrote in news:A9Sre.11382$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

There are lots of variations on this theme. If a government contractor develops a product specifically for the DoD, funded by the DoD, even if the DoD subsequently rejects that product, the contractor does not own the rights to the product. It is in the public domain.

For the last 10 years I have worked with a computer database system that came to market just this way. In the late 1960's the DoD contracted with TRW to develop a computer database system to track inventories of parts for helicopters. One of the principal designers was a gentleman named Richard Pick. DoD ultimately rejected the project. Pick left TRW and continued developing the software for commercial use. He was only able to do this because the DoD's rejection of the design left it in the public domain. The design, after extensive enhancement by Pick, was copyrighted by him, then licensed to many other firms. Today, the two largest derivative products are owned and marketed by IBM.

If Ford builds a car to my spec and puts my name on it, I would still own my name and the "spec" and anything built to it ... don't ya think?

Some contractor my own the patent/etc .. to the vehicle but, the "military" designations should remain with the military. The contractor/ designer/??? can keep all the contractor/designer/??? designations.

what? are they hiring brain-dead lawyers?

While that is a possibility, it's only one of the reasons it might not be used. Depending on the defense being used it might not work to the overall advantage of the case.

Lawyers can get overloaded (even good teams) with "things to try". They may not want to try too many things and confuse the case.

I'm not a lawyer but, I'll pretend I know what I'm talking about. It seems to me that the "failed to defend the marks in the past" is the line that would work best. BUT, there could be other considerations that are not being mentioned in this discussion.

NO, I don't know what they are or might be, if I did I'd mention them.

There is a lot of wishful thinking going on with this issue. I wish that they lose the rights to the fallen flags (at least the ones they haven't defended for 10+ years). (But, I also wish I'd win the lottery ... so I guess I should buy a ticket?? *8^)

Paul