BBI Email Response To "Killer" Markings.

[MightyMustang]

Hey guys I have to post this for those interested.

Thank you for your email regarding our Elite Force P-51 Mustang and comments regarding the accuracy of the markings.
Please be advised that our product is not intended to represent the actual aircraft as operated by Major Stephens.
Our Mustang product is licensed to Boeing as the holder of Trademark and the use of any individual aircraft markings and pilot names usually requires permission from the individual.
In the case of our product we have offered it with a fictional name and markings as it is intended only to be representative of the type.
We thank you for your comments and trust that this clarifies the matter.
Best Regards,
bbi Customer Relations - CL


This is the email BBI sent me when I contacted them about the markings on "Killer" their first release P-51D. For me this clarifies why the code letters and so forth were wrong. But I didnt know that a company has to get approval to use certain markings on a plane they produce. That amazes me guys because I now wonder if that is why we get so many marking discrepancies on some of the 1/18th planes that come out. I thanked BBI for the response because I wondered if the wrong markings were applied to "Killer" because they didnt give a hoot about accuracy. I was wrong it seems.

Like I said I just posted this for those who may be interested in why some companies dont get the codes on the aircraft they are doing right. It may not be that they dont care but because of laws they cant without permission.

[DocTodd]

Interesting, that they have to get permission from the pilots? That seems a little hard to believe but maybe that explains the inaccuracies.
Todd

[Quixote511]

Very true about liscensing---the airforce had to get permission to use Eddie Rickenbocker's shooting star logo. It is sort of odd how that works out. I used to sell nose art photos until I found out that the "artist" has dominion over the images for his entire life span plus his estate retains dominion for another 70 years. It is all just to legal for me.
Aaron

[hworth18]

I have talked with a certain manufacturer before about this...
The only licensing issues are with using the pilots name or image, NOT with the plane.. The plane is Govenrment issued property and what is painted on it cannot be copywritten.. That is why you may see Chuck Yeager's "Glamorous Glennis" P-51 (just an example), but you won't see his name anywhere..

I think we all need to keep in mind that these items are considered "TOYS".. They are NOT exact reproductions and therefore will not be totally accurate..

[Rogue]

Why not get as accurate as legally possible, and let the aftermarket do the rest?

[Boeing Bandit]

The information from bbi is correct and comments regarding "government issue" are not always the case. I can relay to you all as a fact that any use of the Chuck Yeager "Glamorous Glennis" without a license from the General will result in a suit. It may surprise many to know that the RAF has actually started licensing any manufacturer that seeks to use teh RAF roundel on any product. There are many such restrictions in the way of accuracy.

Creating a model or replica is not as simple as just copy what was done in the past without regard for individuals and there are many copyright, design and trademark issue to consider. Even the family of General Paton collects royalties on products that invove his name and image.

Things are not always as they seem to be.

[MightyMustang]

I cant really see Maj Stephens family wanting to collect royalties just because his name is on bbi's Mustang. BBI made the comment that it was not their intention to replicate the Mustang flown by Maj Stephens. Well they came very close! The name "Killer", the seriel number on the tail, the Ace Of Spades on the nose, thats close. The only thing they didnt do was paint the nose deep blue, have blue and white checker board pattern, and GQ. I dont think they just thought up that scheme and pulled it out of the hat. Someone had to have a photo to go by.

It was a good choice on bbi's part because you never see a 9th AF P-51 in 1/18th form. Its always Mustangs of the 8th AF you see done. Why? Because the 8th was so popular with the press in the ETO.

But again I highly doubt Maj Stephens family would have asked for royalties if his name would have been put on the bbi Mustang.

[tmanthegreat]

So then did 21c pay royalites, or get permission when designing some of their more accurate aircraft? I know they have corporate permission on such planes as the P-47, AH-1W, and F-104, but then one has the various other accurate schemes.

Whats been stated in the previous posts regarding the "Killer" P-51's markings may also be why we've seen various marking omissions, inaccuracies, and fictional schemes with some of the 21c planes.

Just as long as the aircraft looks realistic and isn't molded in neon colors then I'm happy

[vulgarvulture]

So then...is BBI paying royalty to the owner of Marine's Dream?

[vulgarvulture]

So then...is BBI paying royalty to the owner of Marine's Dream?

Let me re-phase: BBI MUST be paying royalty to this guy.

[MightyMustang]

So then...is BBI paying royalty to the owner of Marine's Dream?

Let me re-phase: BBI MUST be paying royalty to this guy.

I highly doubt they are paying royalties to the owner of "Marines Dream".

[p51]

They could, if the owner of Marines Dream copyrights the plane image.

[laughinggravy2]

It would be advisable for those truly concerned to research "copyright", "licensing", and "intellectual property" for starters.

Aside from the obvious nose art, any applied aesthetics, after mandated military treatments, can be argued as being "art" by the individual, and can be protected.