Thanks for your reply DGates,

Indeed :-) there are so many films featuring AF1 where much worse things happen to it.
I was wondering if the filmmakers got an approval for it, I doubt it too.

VMP

It's my understanding that "titles" are not able to be copyright protected.

No, that would be trademarked.

I want to say that government names can't be trademarked, but their logos can. IE NASA's logo is trademarked, but not the name,

@TheHappyFriar

Ah, so replace that little star logo on the left near the tail?

cdn.poskyarchive.com/747-200/Liveries/United%20States%20Air%20Force%20One%20-%20VC-25A%2029000.jpg

That is the United States Air Force logo ;Roundel':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force

What about the American flag? :-D

In the feature some 'agents' will be stealing info from Af1 and also take down the pilots.
The Af1 itself will be unharmed :-). Basically all age friendly scenes.

VMP

Toys have that little star logo. They have for years (I remember some army toys my dad playing with having the logo).

I'm sure you'll be fine.

From Wikipedia:

The official NASA seal is reserved for use in connection with the NASA Administrator. It is used in more formal traditional and ceremonial events such as award presentations and press conferences. According to NASA Headquarters, the seal should never be used with the NASA insignia, since the two elements are intended for different purposes and are visually incompatible when seen side by side.

Like most images produced by the United States Government, the insignia, the "worm" logo and the NASA seal are in the public domain.[citation needed] However, their usage is restricted under Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 1221.[8] These NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters.

TheHappyFriar, I gave my dad an AF1 desktop model as gift this year for his birthday and indeed it too has that logo:
http://www.silentthundermodels.com/skymarks/images/skr5005.jpg

dxdy,
Ah that's interesting!
The Af1 doesent have the Nasa logo as far as I know.

But if their shuttle should be in the scene: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/reproduction_guidelines.html


VMP

I just posted that Wikipedia piece as an indication of how the government would handle trademarks. I do believe the American government cannot copyright works, but I don't know about trademarks.

From Uncle Sam's very own website (USA.gov):

"A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties. It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work.

"Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:
+ Reproduce the work in print or digital form;
+ Create derivative works;
+ Perform the work publicly;
+ Display the work;
+ Distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."

Some caveats:
+ Almost everything created by or for a government of one of the 50 states is also automatically in the Public Domain, but the states operate under a slightly different set of laws, so best to check in each case
+ Though nearly everything the government creates or publishes is in the Public Domain, there are some exceptions. The most famous has always been the Smokey Bear wildfire safety character, which is Copyrighted
+ Government agency names and logos (seals) are not technically Trademarked, but they are covered by other specific laws that, in practice, function like Trademark protection. You generally cannot use those names or seals without the government's permission
+ The name of a country cannot be Trademarked, unless the country name can be shown to have a meaning separate from geographical identification. Here's a bad example: if you invented a type of straw hat, you might have been able to Trademark "Panama Hat" 150 years ago (it's too genericized of a term nowadays)
+ All of the above applies mostly to fictional projects; for news, documentary and other nonfiction projects, other factors come into play (like Fair Use)

Most important of all: I am not a lawyer, and you should check with someone who is. But maybe this will get you started on what questions to ask.

This isn't entirely true. Before I retired, I was a Senior Software Design engineer. Among the many trade magazines I received was "NASA Tech Briefs". NASA used to have many research facilities all around the country that developed unique and patentable technology. Anyone wanting to use NASA's patents, had to first obtain a license from NASA. The patents weren't public domain simply because NASA was an arm of the federal government.

Caveat: IANAL, but, i suspect that while the item that has been patented is under license control, the actual patent paperwork itself may in fact be public domain. Anyone can go search the patent, read it, print it, produce what it describes. They just can't market it or give it away or profit from it, or cause the patent owner to lose profit, brand identity, or product ownership, without the license.

The U.S. patent office patents are all public domain to research and review. That's how patent attorneys find out if something can be patented. And, like you said, once an item has been granted a patent, it can't be marketed or distributed without permission from the patent holder. Unless of course you're a mega-corporation with more patent attorneys on retainer than most companies have regular employees. Then you can fight the patent holder in court until you either get their permission, or drive them into bankruptcy. For example David Sarnoff & RCA vs. Philo Farnsworth.

Just out of curiosity, how did we get on the subject of patents?

The OP wanted to know if he'd be infringing Copyright by using the name of the country in his video; that evolved into a conversation about government agency logos and whether they are under Copyright.

Not to be argumentative, but for the benefit of anyone coming along later and consulting this thread for information about rights and clearances for film and video: when it comes to using images of real-life objects and images in (non-news) films and video, creators need to pay attention to who owns the rights and what has to be done to obtain Clearance for that use, or alternatively, whether they can make a Fair Use argument.

But filmmakers/video-makers seldom come up against patents (and by "seldom," I actually mean "never," but I went with "seldom" to give myself a little wiggle room in case I've forgotten something).

--JK

:-).
Indeed, mentioning America, USA and using the flag in General.

Also it comes to how the government accepts/tolerates such an important (American presidential) object being portrayed in a film or altenative storytelling. The feature I will be making is a 'fictional' story, like X-men etc. So it could be allowed/tolerated more easily, due to the story being more of a fantasy-like story.

But what if people use it in a realistic documentary, or conspiracy theory where they portray the aircraft and the president in an evil way?

Also what I mean is that for example when you want to make a video here in the public streets (here in the Netherlands, Europe) with an actor dressed as a cop you have to get permission for that. Also the government strictly tell you on paper that you are not supposed portray the police in a negative way.

That is probably to avoid confusion for the public that it is not a real cop doing crazy things.

So beside the trademark, how holy or protected is the AF1 and how far would the government (owner of AF1) go to protect its good name when filmmakers put it into their stories (which may portray it in a bad way)? Well same could be said about the white house I guess.

Just as an example: could a filmmaker get a letter from the government after the film release that they are unhappy about the portrayal of the AF1?
Like other members stated above the Af1 has been portrayed in so many films (where it even explodes).

So I was wondering if the previous filmmakers got some kind of no-claim approval for using the AF1. Or a guidline how it should and should not be used. Or maybe it falls under the Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment stuff and such an approval is not needed :-).

Maybe only a lawyer can anwser these questions, but I was wondering how you guys would deal with it.

My feature being a fictional story I will be adding the 'All persons fictitious disclaimer' at the end:
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer

VMP

[I]"
Not to be argumentative, but for the benefit of anyone coming along later and consulting this thread for information about rights and clearances for film and video: when it comes to using images of real-life objects and images in (non-news) films and video, creators need to pay attention to who owns the rights and what has to be done to obtain Clearance for that use, or alternatively, whether they can make a Fair Use argument."[/I]

Patents and copyright protect the owners against use "in commerce". They protect works not things.
I cannot for example open a restaurant with McDonald's Golden Arches on it without the permission of McDonalds, that would be use "in commerce". I can build a McDonalds restaurant as a set complete with the Golden Arches and shoot an entire feature in it that makes a fortune at the box office. That is NOT use in commerce.
Another example: I take a photo of a bookshelf full of works protected by copyright. The photo is my intellectual property which I can sell. The art within the books is protected by copyright, the physical book isn't.
That's not to say that it's a free for all, there are instances where we can easily breach other peoples copyright unless we're careful. I shot a dance performance piece that took place within an art installation. The installation itself motivated the choreography of the dance. The choreographer was most certainly using another artist's art. For that we did ask permission and did attribute the work to the artist.
The same can apply if you're using others art as part of yours. For example an anatomical chart that a doctor is using to illustrate a point in a commercial production.

Bob.

Just to remind everyone, I Am Not a Lawyer. But Bob (farss), with all due respect, it's pretty clear that you are not a lawyer, either (at least not in the US).

"I can build a McDonalds restaurant as a set complete with the Golden Arches and shoot an entire feature in it that makes a fortune at the box office. That is NOT use in commerce."

You'd better be sure your E&O (Errors and Omissions) Insurance is paid in full, Bob, because once that feature hits theaters (whether it's a box office smash or a bomb) you WILL be hearing from attorneys for McDonald's Corporation. Unless, that is, you had McDonald's Corp's permission to use that McDonald's--with its Trademarked McDonald's signage and "trade dress" (of course, you not only would have obtained McDonald's Corp's permission, you'd have charged McDonald's for the privilege of appearing in your film! That's "product placement," and it's no longer an inconsequential component of movie budgets in Hollywood).

"I take a photo of a bookshelf full of works protected by copyright. The photo is my intellectual property which I can sell. The art within the books is protected by copyright, the physical book isn't."

If the "works protected by copyright" are visible in your photo, Bob, it's a distinction without a practical difference. Yes, the physical photo of the books is your intellectual property, but if the copyrighted works of others are visible, your photo is "encumbered," a legal term that means you must obtain Clearance for those works or your photo infringes those Copyrights. If you're taking a photo of a shelf full of books and the only thing we see are the spines of those books, well, knock yourself out. And good luck selling the photo!

Same is true of video clips. Despite the insistence of millions of YouTubers ignorant of Copyright Law, you cannot just grab somebody else's video clip and use it in your own video without permission. The phrase "No Copyright Infringement Intended" has absolutely no legal meaning. "Intent" is not a test for Copyright violation (See: Excuse, Ignorance of the Law is No).

Depending on the video clip or photo you choose to use, the Copyright owner might not--
A. Find out about your use, or
B. Care that you've infringed their Copyright, or
C. Have the time or resources to pursue a case against you, or
D. Be aware that your use is infringing
--but your attorney is going to advise you that counting on A through D is a lousy risk and your insurerer is going to cancel your policy if you do. And the network will definitely not accept Delivery of your show if the binder full of paperwork you hand them does not include signed Clearance forms for every clip, image, location and other intellectual property that's visible in it.

Yes, people on YouTube infringe every second of every minute of every hour of every day and don't get sued or pulled-down (though some do). That doesn't make infringing non-infringing.

Also, the Copyright regime itself is massively out of sync with the digitalization and democratization of media, and needs to be completely reworked to reflect reality. That doesn't mean we can ignore it. (In the US, the people who've demonstrated the least understanding of Copyright as it functions in 2015 are the same people who've demonstrated the least understanding of media as it functions in 2015: members of Congress. Conveniently, they're also the people with the power to change Copyright Law.)

Of course, no one advocates being neurotic about this stuff if you're producing a wedding video, or a church production, or anything similar that you might sell to a very limited clientele. But it's incorrect to say you're at no risk, and the examples Bob gave are just two in which a little knowledge might cost you a lot of money (or your film or video being pulled from wherever it's being sold).

Again: applies to fictional works; daily news operates under a slightly different paradigm

Resources (just a few; sorry, mostly United States law here):

Copylaw
(Facts, lists, explanations in blog-format by an Intellectual Property attorney)
http://www.copylaw.org

Digital Media Law Project
Legal Guide
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide

Entertainment Law Resources by Mark Litwak
Entertainment industry attorney with a long history of making knowledge, resources and sample forms available free of charge on the web
http://www.marklitwak.com/resources.html

Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law
Discusses issues in terms of cases currently in the news
http://harvardjsel.com

IP Law Blog
By an IP Attorney; "...a forum to discuss copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, false advertising, licensing and promotions, and sweepstakes"
http://www.theiplawblog.com

Media Law
By a First Amendment attorney; may be of use to documentarians
http://medialaw.legaline.com

Media Law Prof's Blog (Louisiana State University)
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog

Wired Law
(Maintained by an attorney; a directory of media legal resources and a library of sample forms)
http://www.wiredlaw.com/links.html

And for those who'd act as their own lawyers (you know what people say about their client):

Film Contracts
A collection of free production-related sample contracts, forms, schedules, budgets, checklists, etc
http://www.filmcontracts.net

Printable Contracts
This collection of free sample forms and contracts is not production-specific, but contains some types of legal documents film- and video-producers might use
http://www.printablecontracts.com

lajeffk,
Thanks for the insightful info and handy links!
I am going to go through them.

VMP