Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[Neil]

I'm not even talking about the forced assimilation of the French people outside of Quebec (mainly in Manitoba, and Ontario) following the Confederation, as these were technically crimes by the Canadians, not the British, even though we were a colony at the time.

Forced assimilation wasn't a crime, and really isn't today either.

As for Acadiens, their fate was inevitable.  In times of war, the state can do as it pleases to ensure the safety of its territory.

[Neil]

meh... if Civilized nations didn't conquer and destroy the Barbarous then world would consist almost exclusively of the Barbarous. Furthermore I will assert that none of the "First Nations" of Canada were the first nation to occupy the land and the many generations of previous civilizations occupying each land had been genocided by the present "first nation" (scare quotes this time). To dip into the fetid pool of post-modernism, I consider it a grossly hegemonic imposition of Eurocentricims to treat the American Indians as innocent naïfs without worldlyness nor an ability to take responsability for their actions. No culture ethnically cleansed by "Imperialist Anglo-Canadians"!!!!1111oneoneoen didn't ethnically cleanse and/or assimilate a previous one.

Fate, is that you?

No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.

You belong to a people that steals peoples money and then drops ash on them.

Also, your attitude towards land, as if it can be 'stolen' is laughable.

[Neil]

The Acadians moved to Louisiana didn't they?   No offense to Canada but they have alot more fun than you guys do.

They were scattered all across the 13 colonies, although many did eventually end up in Louisiana.

[Barrister]

No, I am Viking. I belong to the only civilized people in the world to dominate it's country without ever having stolen it from anybody.

You belong to a people that steals peoples money and then drops ash on them.

Now this, this I like.

[Ideologue]

Is the Winnipeg Jets logo supposed to be a stylized Hornet?

It is the RCAF Roundel, with a stylized CF-18 Hornet superimposed, but it is also made out to act as a compass rose (check out the two-tone effect on the jet) as a subtle nod to the ownership company, True North Sports and Entertainment.

Apparently the Jets are giving $1mil over the next 10 years to some military charities, presumably as part of getting permission to use the roundel.

Do you have to get permission to use a roundel or other government image?  I mean, they can't be fraudulent, but that's a different thing.  I thought they were public domain.

For that matter, does Northrop-Grumman own the rights to artistic recreations of F/A-18s (or GM, that of a Camaro)?  Maybe they do.  If so, that would explain why the outline is off a little bit (in addition to your explanation, anyway; but e.g. the tail section is if I'm not mistaken slightly wrong).  But I could certainly see an F-86 Sabre in an air combat comic, had I lived in the 1950s and read books about the Korean War, and I see F-22s in comics today.  Are they violating copyright to do that?  Did TW need to arrange to use images of the Raptor in Green Lantern?

This is probably a basic pair of questions, but I've never really been much into IP law.

Those are some pretty basic questions.  My knowledge of IP law doesn't go any further than a single IP class in law school, but I think I can answer that.

I believe the RCAF would own the trademark to the RCAF roundel (although being a Crown entity does complicate it somehow).  You could use that image in a variety of means under fair use doctrine, but to wholeheartedly incorporate it into your for-profit corporation's own trademark?  No way that's fair use.

Even if I'm wrong, I doubt very much you'd want to pick a fight with the RCAF in any event.

As for the F-18... yes I think they own the trademark rights to the image.  I'm pretty sure an auto manufacturer owns the rights to the look of their own vehicle, so one company can't just go ahead and create a knock-off of another company's vehicle.

Comics are probably covered under fair use, as they are an artistic representation.

The fighter in the Jets logo does resemble the CF-18, but I have read they deliberately did not want it to be a precise copy of any fighter that Canada has flown, or will ever flow, just to keep it more timeless.

Cool.  Yeah, I never even took one IP law class.  You are: expert.

For the car images I'm pretty sure GM owns the image of the Camaro, for example. Video games license the car images as necessary, or alternately go through a fairly thorough process of making "close enough, but nonetheless different" vehicles.

I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements).  Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although as Beeb says military aircraft portrayed artistically in a military operation may fall under an exception, and likely actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well.  I mean, I doubt the producers of Black Hawk Down paid Sikorsky or American Motors (beyond what they paid for actual Black Hawks and Humvees).  And surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress ).

So it's maybe a little dissonant that you need to license the images of objects for a video game, when Stanley Kubrick need not for an equally fanciful, equally profit-driven venture.

[Barrister]

I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements).  Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although military aircraft portrayed in a military operation may fall under an exception, and perhaps actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well.  Did the producers of Black Hawk Down pay Sikorsky and American Motors?  Surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress ).

Movies / tv / books etc. is all fair use.  You can hardly make a movie or tv show without displaying any number of manufactured products.

Even in a computer game... I suppose you could try and argue fair use there too, but for the most part that's a fight you don't want to get involved in.

[Ideologue]

I was pretty sure that was the case for automobiles (e.g., I know that's why some obvious cars were missing in games from the Gran Turismo franchise, even though in some cases I'm not sure which way the money flowed for the licensing agreements).  Presumably that would apply to aircraft as well, although military aircraft portrayed in a military operation may fall under an exception, and perhaps actual cars purchased to do actual stunts might as well.  Did the producers of Black Hawk Down pay Sikorsky and American Motors?  Surely the producers of Dr. Strangelove did not seek out Boeing's approval (well, maybe they did--while their shit did indeed break, Boeing probably didn't make that part, and Strangelove is still a pretty good advertisement for the effectiveness of the Stratofortress ).

Movies / tv / books etc. is all fair use.  You can hardly make a movie or tv show without displaying any number of manufactured products.

Even in a computer game... I suppose you could try and argue fair use there too, but for the most part that's a fight you don't want to get involved in.

I thought maybe it was a test of "prominent display," perhaps.  So, say, the make and model of all the cars in New York in Independence Day don't really matter, they're not the focus, whereas in Strangelove the B-52 is presented as one sexy piece of deterrence.

[grumbler]

Good Queen Liz isn't Queen because of some right of conquest.  She is Queen because we chose her ancestors to be the sovereign, and because we continue to choose to have them as our sovereign.

I really think you should read some history before you make these kinds of pronouncements, because they are silly.

The crown of the UK (and therefor Canada) has descended from The Conquest by blood.  Various acts have decided which of the blood descendents of William the Conqueror took the throne, because of some silly belief that Hod favored sons over smarts, but nobody chose Elizabeth II's ancestors out of a crowd and made them the sovereigns.

The House of Hanover came to the throne because Electress Sophia of Hanover was the grand-daughter of James I.  James I inherited the crown because he was a great-great grandchild of Henry VI, who came to the throne by right of conquest in reality, but in law because he was the great-great-great-grandson of Edward III, who was the great-something of William I.

"We" didn't chose anything.  Royals are as silly a concept as there is.  Barring lawyers.

[Neil]

"We" didn't chose anything.

We didn't, but the MPs did.

Royals are as silly a concept as there is.

No more silly than elections.

[Valmy]

I think the the fact that viper isn't even getting the support of Valmy, Republican of Republicans on this is somewhat telling.

Monarchs as a national mascot of sorts is kind of cute.  They remind me of Bevo.

The Monarchy in Britain itself is shit with all the money and stuff it controls but I guess it is something that keeps Scotland and Wales and England together. 

But in Canada it is absolutely toothless and Canada might as well be a Republic.  It is sort of like declaring yourself a Monarchy because Jesus is your king or something.  The only acceptable Monarchy is where there is no monarch present.

[Valmy]

The crown of the UK (and therefor Canada) has descended from The Conquest by blood.

From an even more ancient conquest.  The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.

[Grallon]

From an even more ancient conquest.  The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.

Tcha!  All these parvenus are laughable.   Britain is a province of Rome.  There simply has been a 1600 years gap in tenure.




G.

[Neil]

From an even more ancient conquest.  The Crown of the UK (and probably most of the population of the UK by now...) is descended from Cerdic the Saxon from Henry I's wife Matilda I believe.

Tcha!  All these parvenus are laughable.   Britain is a province of Rome.  There simply has been a 1600 years gap in tenure.

The line of emperors has been broken, and Rome doesn't even rule Italy anymore.

[jimmy olsen]

Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.

with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself.  You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign.  I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea.  They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity.  For fuck sake, what's next?  The Royal Post Corporation?  The Royal Canadian National Bank?

If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire.  They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).

I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces?  They will have tradition now   They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.

I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past.  I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.

It would much better for the UK, the Dominions and the world if they were all merged into one country. 

Same language, nearly identical parliamentary systems of government, nearly identical culture. There's no point in them being separate countries, distance doesn't mean anything anymore. 

[Barrister]

Canada is no longer a colony, but she is, however, still a Monarchy.

with a foreign Monarch, from wich we should seek to distance ourself.  You can't be truly independant if your head of state is foreign.  I now understand better why English Canadians see Quebec's independance with such a bad idea.  They themselves can't get over the fact that Canada is a seperate nation from England and need to re-assess their attachment to the crown at every opportunity.  For fuck sake, what's next?  The Royal Post Corporation?  The Royal Canadian National Bank?

If the Canadian army corps can't existe without reminding everyone that they are really the Queen's army, might as well not have a distinct army and merge it back with the British Empire.  They have that military tradition wich seem so important (curious that no soldier ever talked about it when you asked them what kind of problems they face or what they need to be done differently).

I'm pretty sure all those veterans without pension or without decent care will feel better now that they are part of the Royal army
I mean, how can it not solve all the problems the Canadian Armed Forces faces?  They will have tradition now   They will be anchored to the past and everyone will be constantly reminded we are still a British Colony, a part of their mighty Empire, governed by a foreign ruler.

I believe a country should look to the future, not constantly look at the past.  I tought the Conservatives clearly understood that, but it seems they really don't grasp something that simple.

It would much better for the UK, the Dominions and the world if they were all merged into one country. 

Same language, nearly identical parliamentary systems of government, nearly identical culture. There's no point in them being separate countries, distance doesn't mean anything anymore.

Slight 'problem' there Tim.

India.

If you were going to merge the Empire together, you could either merge only the "white" parts of it, like Canada, and Australia, and accept that the Empire was fundamentally racist, or you could merge all of it and accept that as the most populous part by far that India would dominate the whole enterprise.

The British Empire was the most enlightened and noble empire the earth had seen to that point, but it was still fundamentally at odds with modern liberal principles.