Copyright Shield Designs ?

[Marcus Hortensius Castus]

It would seem to me, and perhaps I'm a simpleton or just naive, but the Ancient Reenacting world is too small to be burdened with bickering over things such as this.

If indeed I was at an event where someone had an identical shield design, my first thought would be "Maybe we can join forces and present a better appearance this weekend." This I believe was alluded to on page one. Of course, I know I enjoy making my own shield designs, but some people don't have the creative mindset others do. So to copy a shield design would come as "Well, they know what they are doing..." and a simple gesture such as "Why don't ya'll add this to the design to make it different" would do.

[richsc]

device is broadly recognized as belonging to or representing a specific Club and under that circumstance a third party believes that they are contracting with the original owner

Talk to the shield???

This isn't Coca Cola. Whatever shield design the 20th uses, no one confuses the shield with Matt Amt. And gee, if we changed designs tomorrow, no one would mind either. This is a ludicrous argument.

What is true is that you can copyright images of your unit, and control the use and dissemination of those. You can't pass of a photo of someone else as your impression, in that Hib would be right.

[Magnus]

It is, at the very least, rude to copy another club's shield device.

Ask.

But technically it's not your shield device. Unless you've seriously re-worked an ancient design...but if you've copied one then you don't have ownership of it. Period.

The real and serious problem arises when the device is broadly recognized as belonging to or representing a specific Club and under that circumstance a third party believes that they are contracting with the original owner when instead they are talking with a copycat. Even if no money is involved there can be other legal issues.

That's a lot of egotistical poppycock. It stems back to original ownership of an ancient design...no modern organization can claim it as their own. Second, there isn't any group in N. America that holds such a level of celebrity. Maybe, maaaybe Legio II AVG or the ESG in England... certainly not here. In anycase anyone copying a shield device usually does so for the visual appeal of it, not because of associating with another reenactment club. That would imply that there is some kind of status in doing so, and let's face it...this is a hobby. Not like you're allying yourself with Microsoft or Ferarri. Anyone who actually is worried about such things probably needs to re-examine their philosophical outlook on what clearly should only be considered a hobby.

I believe that I've made this sugestion before: RAT is the ideal organization to be a sort of "Herald" for Roman re-enactment... in a passive advisory role of course... a place to "register" a shield device to make it easier for new clubs and groups to avoid copycatting. Establish a club shield design database...

That will never happen. It seems you can't seem to grasp the idea that ancient scutum emblems aren't subject to copy right, and therefor impossible to "copy cat". But why would you even propose something like that? It's elitist and monopolizing. As though IX Hisp. is somehow more important than other groups out there. As if. :lol:

Only the Sith deal in absolutes. 8)

[Libitina]

I can understand being peeved if someone else uses a design that your group use. I can imagine it's irritating and if they branched off from your group then I think it's rude and unoriginal.

However it doesnt really affect anything does it? I mean, from a "member of the public" point of view they'll notice the design during a display but 99.9% are not going to remember it the next day, let alone at a different event months or years later.

If it were me and the other group were local I'd have pleasant words. Then a few not so pleasant. And if it still bugged me I'd change to an even better design

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I didn't realise the XIIIIth GMV had copied Dan Paterson?
I had always been of the understanding they had used it because it was recognised to be the XIIIIth's scutum pattern :?

[Paullus Scipio]

Whilst I am somewhat less forthright than my Canadian colleague, I would have to agree with the core sentiments he expresses - the idea that somehow you can 'register' ( and please, not at RAT !! ) and 'own' a historical shield emblem is highly offensive to many ( including me !) and, frankly, ludicrous.
The informative posts here have emphasised that one cannot do anything at all to 'enforce' self-proclaimed 'rights' to certain emblema, so anyone may copy with impunity, and blow the 'owner' a huge P P , yet others blithely ignore this !
The idea that organisers of an event might be fooled into dealing with the wrong group is also a ludicrous 'red herring'...most organisers wouldn't know what a 'shield design' was, still less that they were unit identifiers....and BTW, even that is not proven to be the case !
Treat imitation as the sincerest form of flattery !...I do ! Copies of versions of Roman shield designs that I have first published accurate drawings of appear in illustrations, on re-enactors shields and all over the Internet...and I take great delight that others have liked them sufficiently to copy...and BTW, were Dan Peterson( and I am sure he wouldn't dream of such a thing! ) or anyone else seek to assert proprietorship over the XIV Legion design, I might have something to say about such a claim, being how I was (AFIK) the first to make the tentative identification and publish it, more than 30 years ago !!

But I do agree it is courteous to ask a club etc if you are going to exactly copy their design........however, in all those years, no-one ( and there are many who have) has ever asked me for permission to use....and I couldn't care less.... 8) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

I didn't realise the XIIIIth GMV had copied Dan Paterson?
I had always been of the understanding they had used it because it was recognised to be the XIIIIth's scutum pattern

No. Yes. What I said was that Dan had encouraged or assisted Deepeeka (or so I'm told) in recreating that shield blazon BECAUSE it was known to be the XIV GMV design, and he'd chosen that as the legion he was with at that time. I think that's one that started in Germany, but is also represented in the US, and maybe elsewhere, too.

But some other group using that same stock, off the rack shield, or making one like it on their own doesn't bother Deepeeka, nor should it bother the 14th wherever they're found. That's what I meant.

[Robert]

Oooohhhh, I just love these copyright debates! (Part deleted)
This is a serious hobby to most and I am pretty sure some groups (edited) leached a lot of their precious "knowledge" from the sites of other groups all over the world. When you turn re-enactment into a business, please get an art designer, make your own fantasy kit (designer segs, the new craze!) and shield emblems, get copyright on the whole bunch and kindly leave (edited) the fora of those dedicated to sharing knowledge of the ancient Roman empire between friends. This sort of petty strife clouds the enjoyment of all those dedicated to what this whole re-enactment business is about: having a good time, entertaining ourselves and the public and getting a deeper understanding of a gone civilisation. Enough said, I've had my say and will leave it at that. Roma victor!
(yes, I know its crappy Latin, its also totally out of context and used in a way as to redicule)

[Praefectusclassis]

Roma Victor

Robert, you do know that's incorrect Gladiator Latin, right?

Otherwise, guys, focus on the discussion and keep it civil or we may have to clobber you over the head in a way that shields won't help (with or without copyrighted designs on them). Personal attacks are NOT ALLOWED. Some members may want to consider editing their posts.

[Musivarius]

Ooooh this is fun :wink:
Ok I'll add a bit here regarding the thoughts on museums having copyright as this may have some bearing on the issue.
I looked into museum copyright of items they posess and spoke with a very nice lady in the UK Copyright Office.
Copyright exists for the life of the artist or 70 years after their death. Therefore no museum, in the UK can claim copyright on say a mosaic in their collection, (though most seem to be under the impression that they can). They can however claim copyright on an image they've taken. So I can't copy from a postcard bought at the museum, I can copy from a photo I've taken, if I have permission to take it. If I don't have permission to take a photo I could always do a drawing.
Incidentally I do have copyright on any copy I make.
The point of this is, in the UK a museum dosen't have copyright on ancient art etc that they have, and that's according to the Copyright Office.
Lawrence

[Paullus Scipio]

Quite right Lawrence, and anyone who reads my original post on the subject will see why...... D

[Tarbicus]

A bit OT, but you might be interested to know there's a museum curator who is under the illusion that the museum holds copyright on a helmet, and permission must be given to reproduce the helm. The museum isn't even a private one.

[richsc]

One example is Nova Roma's flag: that design is copyrighted. Initially some thought that they were trying to copyright the SPQR, but it just comes down to the original configuration, particularly that this combination of letters, colors and graphics did not exist before, or even that concept of a flag/drape.
I think that's why Hollywood tweaks so much of their costumes so that this can be copyrighted, and, that it cannot be vulnerable to prior art accusations.

[Bran ap Maclou]

A bit OT, but you might be interested to know there's a museum curator who is under the illusion that the museum holds copyright on a helmet, and permission must be given to reproduce the helm. The museum isn't even a private one.

This particular point interest me a lot. In France, a great national museum asked our late antiquity forum to stop publishing photographs from pieces taken in the museum.

But to take photographs is not forbidden and the only owner of rights on the picture is the author of the picture not the subject except if it's a real person able to recognize herself or a piece of private life (then they have the right to ask money or to forbid the publication which is also a problem in term of expression freedom) or military or state safety purpose which are exceptions.

Still according to french law, you must ask an authorization to the author or owner of the rights for the use of any picture that you use. But it's confusing because when you write a scientific article, you are allowed to use anything publically published (even on the internet) if you mention the origin of sources in bibliography (in a limit of 10% of a same source for french scientific community).

So, either all scientists and a lot of book writers are outlaw, either you can freely use a published image if you mention the origin according to information and expression freedom. So, we are in a sort of odd mess that I try to make clear but it seems that our law is not really handy to be clearly respectful.

Sorry, I'm totally out topic but perhaps not totally. The french law anyway grant us the right to publish any photographs in "private circle". So, I asked recently the question to know if a forum with password is the private circle. No answer at the moment ! The french law also say that the only responsible for unlegal materials on a forum are the owners or admin of the site. They have the duty to control everything instaneously (which is a bit impossible)...

Ok, that's french law but it is inspired by european directives and international agreements, so I guess that in other western countries this should not be so different.

Regards

Greg

[Tarbicus]

The museum I mentioned is in Germany, which is strange given the co-operation and help another gave in the past. The copyright lasts for 70 years, the item is almost 2000 years old, the creator is dead and tracking down his descendants is tricky :wink: Contrast it with another museum who were very helpful and gave a lot of information, hence the Krefeld Italic D is available - they even have their own now.

Of course, this begs the question - can a military item be copyrighted at all? There's no evidence of it being a creative endeavour, but rather it's actually a utilitarian device that was manufactured en masse, and possibly even paid for by the taxpayer.

Do films have to design and build their own cars for filming? - no.

I'm quite stunned and amazed that such institutions should even attempt to stifle their exhibits in such a way.

Here's an example of how mad this can become:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/de ... pt.artnews

Egypt wants to copyright the pyramids and other ancient artefacts. :roll:

There has even been a symposium on this very subject which would be of interest, to see what conclusions were made: On Scrolls, Artefacts and Intellectual Property (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement):
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/script/newscrip ... events.htm
It's in a JSTOR article: HERE
And And available at Amazon