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

[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.

[Neil]

I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.

I don't really think that's true.  I just think that 'colonial' is a buzzword for bad for most intellectuals, especially on the left.

[Valmy]

"Colonial masters"?  Canada was not some African nation or something.  And even if they were the Canadians are overwhelmingly the Colons not the Algerians.

[Grallon]

Title: A colonized country.
I don't think the word "colonized" has the same meaning in English though.
Still en excellent text.  From a Federalist journalist in a federalist newspaper, before the usual accusations occur.

I read this this morning.  And yes, Anglo Canadians being what they are - the popularity of this move doesn't surprise me.  In fact I'm pleased since the more Canadians move in another direction then Quebecers, the easier it will be to bring the latter around and leave this federation. 




G.

[Malthus]

It's hilarious, if sorta sad, to see the Quebec contingent going apeshit over such a matter. We live in a monarchy, and always have - since, as is well known, the monarch is purely symbolic, what's the beef?

Of course the army would rather have better supplies and equipment than a new name. Point is that a new name doesn't cost anything much, whereas new supplies and equipment does - it isn't an either-or choice.

Contrary to the hysterical bombast eminating from Quebec, most in Anglo Canada are not rapturously applauding the move - they simply don't care very much either way. Because it isn't something worthy of much caring, as it changes nothing.

 

[HVC]

Ya, in the anglo sphere there this is nothing. It's a "feel good story" only in so far as it ties in with a proud past. beyond that it was forgoten by the next day.

[Valmy]

only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.

The Kingdom of Portugal?

[HVC]

only in so far as it ties in with a proud past.

The Kingdom of Portugal?

:p

If you want to, ya. longest alliance still in  existance, IIRC

[dps]

The article goes on with the Foreign Minister removing all paintings by a famous Canadian (Quebec) artist to replace them with protraits of Queen Elizabeth 2.

Wow, that's a really, really petty complaint.  Where is he removing them from by the way?

Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore (back in the day, they had some far more legit complaints, but those have pretty much all been addressed).  Viper is usually above that sort of thing, though.  I thought maybe Grallon had hijacked his account or something.  Maybe Viper is drunk or ill--the English in a couple of his posts was pretty bad, whereas usually it's as good or better than that of most of us.

[Barrister]

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.

[Grallon]

Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...

And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.

What's Canada?  A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. 




G.

[Valmy]

I just like having both sides here to voice their opinions.  The Flems bashing the Walloons is such a comparative drag without Walloons around to bash them back.

[HVC]

Typical of most complaints that come out of Quebec anymore ...

And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.

What's Canada?  A cart being pulled by 2 horses going in opposite direction. 




G.

The horses are going in the same direction, but there's a tiny (but very loud) fly trying the aggetate the french speaking horse

[Valmy]

And a typical torrent of clichés and prejudices from the neighboring country, whenever the people of this one don't pull in the same direction.

Heh like we get much better from you guys.

[Jacob]

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.

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.