Darrin, you wrote:
"this is not a high school debate about whom is right or wrong in the world"
No, it is not.
But there are real issues here with real answers. It is also not just some "can of worms". The question of intellectual property rights is a major one at museums worldwide. Submarine museum managements tend to be amateurs on this score. Are photos of submarines and logos from submarines operated by museums and other institutions copyrighted material? Well that all depends. Are the images in the public domain? Generally if they were produced under US government contract or by individuals working for the US government at the time then they are in the public domain worldwide. That's US law. Note that this is not the law in other countries. For example, government documents and imagery are not public domain in the UK, and if you attempt to publish images or data from UK government sources (e.g. the Nautical Almanac), then you can be, and probably will be, sued by the intellectual property rights powers-that-be from the UK. What about images taken by private photographers visiting one of your subs? This depends on posted signage. If you post something that says photographs are for personal use and "may not be published without the express written consent of major league baseball" (or similar) then you can always go after someone who abuses images, and you will probably win legal damages.
The case of the logo commissioned by Paul in 1997 (according to him) should be a clear-cut case where the institution and the original artist do have copyright in the image. It is not legal for that online merchant to use it. It is also likely in this case that this merchant does not realize that this "skull with a torpedo through it" (very classy!) is a modern creation not connected with the original service of USS Cod. And as I noted previously, the solution is simple. Issue a cease-and-desist letter explaining the origin of the image and its copyright status.
And you continued:
"IMHO Paul is right about being upset because he believes that the COD is having money taken from then and he is RIGHT!!"
In the specific case of that commissioned logo created in 1997, yes. But otherwise it is quite absurd to suggest that people selling items connected with the legacy of museum submarines are "stealing" from the institutions operating and maintaining those museum submarines. These items (photos, logos, etc.) are in the public domain, and it is 100% legal for anyone to attempt to make a profit off of them. This is called capitalism, entrepreunership, and enterprise. Remember when those things were highly valued in America?
And by the way, you're worrying about chump change. There's a high likelihood that these are minor home businesses with negligible profit. As I noted previously, museum operations might do better to work with these folks. Get them to link to your web site for more information about the subs. Get them to state the specific terms under which the items are offered, clearly indicating that they do not represent your museum. Turn them into resellers for products that you've already produced. The great majority of submarine memorials and museums with submarines have a very low public profile, damn near invisible in fact, and most people are quite unaware that these submarines even exist in museums until they stumble upon them by accident. As for USS Torsk, I have met three people in the past six months who've been to Baltimore more than once who had no idea that there was a museum sub there. You folks need publicity any way you can get it.
And you wrote:
"on Epray right now have a model of the USS TORSK (SS-423) that is being SOLD from the P.I. you all know that little island in the South Pacific"
So what? Why in the world would this bother you?? Did you ever build model ships when you were a kid (or now even)? Did you ever have a model of a non-US ship? Was that a crime?? Of course not. There's absolutely nothing wrong with some merchant from the PI selling a model of Torsk. You should welcome the publicity. And perhaps someone in official standing in the Torsk organization could draft an email to him inviting him to link to the official web site of your organization in future listings, if any.
And you wrote:
"As far as I know there is NO money coming into TVA for that or for the 8x10 glossy pictures that are currently for sale"
Yep. It's called capitalism. You do not own Torsk. You do not own the history of Torsk. You do not own the public domain images of Torsk. If someone else can manage to run a tiny business selling such images, more power to them. You make the mistake of thinking of this economy as a "zero-sum game". In other words, if someone else is making money, then surely you are losing money. This is not at all true.
And you wrote:
"nor is any boat going to see the Bausch and Laumb TBT stand Bino's that are up for bid right now for 2K+ and it would have been nice for one of our boats to get this but I don't think that it will happen..."
Museums have confronted this issue since museums first existed: how do we acquire artifacts in private collections without paying exorbitant prices for them? One solution is to emply anonymous middlemen. That can work. National museums in some countries sometimes can declare such objects as public property and simply confiscate them by legal fiat. There are even cases of this under special circumstances in the US. If you think it's the way to go, you should write your congressmen and suggest that they pass a law making it illegal to buy or sell USN and other US military artifacts more that 25 years old, let's say, except when the buyer and sellers are certified museums. Then such items will become available to museums in large numbers and at good prices. Until then, it IS legal to buy and sell and own USN artifacts from the Second World War (and earlier). No doubt you own a few such items yourself.
And you grumbled:
"But for the folks like FER it is a moot point because they only really care about complaining about how little our boats are maintained and how they are interprited "
If you really care about preserving the legacy of historic submarines and the submariners who worked aboard them, you would not be satisfied with mediocrity. If the public at large is unimpressed with your work, funding will dry up and subs will be scrapped. Institutionalized failure, mediocrity lauded as success. Those things are your enemies -- not the people who actually visit museum submarines... and notice their strengths and weaknesses.
And you concluded:
"Again it is a moot point to be complaining about this, the crews that maintain our submarines are not recieving some if not all of the money from these sales and it stinks out loud because they need the money to preserve these boats."
I do understand some small degree of annoyance here, but you need to keep this all in perspective. Selling crap is NOT going to make the difference between preserving a sub and losing one. About half of the sub museums I've visited seem to have a "gift shop" selling mugs and t-shirts and keychains and other "crap" and I sometimes buy some of this crap if I'm in the mood. But this is minor money. You're not going to sink or swim on the basis of such trivial sales.
Again, those small-time online merchants selling photos are NOT criminals. They're not taking money from you. It's not a zero-sum game.
-FER
