The Great Flight Jacket Thread (wearing/buying Leather, NOMEX, WEP jackets/patches)

[Flash]

Reading over this thread, there is much debate on the merits of the Wings-n-things patches, with no examples. As Typsy Gypsy still has no Navy license to make patches, and the Jax NEX personnel quitting, I pulled the trigger on the w-n-t embossed ones and figured I'd post an example of what they actually look like to let ya'll be the judge. I ordered the flag as well because I figured that was a requirement, only to learn that officially, the opposite is true. 'Course, there seems to be absolutely zero consistency in how anyone is wearing their leather, which is just fine by me. Personally, I'll probably just stick with the name tag.

I don't think a lack of license has stopped any patch manufacturer, ever. I don't even know if it is a thing.

It pays to dive into the uniform regs occasionally, usually to call the bluff of some Chief (along with their CSM/MSgt equivalents) or SWO with a stick up their ass about the wearing of flight suits and sundry items. It is also interesting to note when many seniors don't follow the regs like wearing leather jackets with SDB shirt and tie or patches on their leather flight jacket sleeves, which is certainly never noticed or commented on by sailors who've been dinged for uniform infractions and had to dive into the regs themselves.

 

[wink]

As Typsy Gypsy still has no Navy license to make patches, and the Jax NEX personnel quitting,...

What does this mean? The Navy now has a copyright on squadron logos and wings that requires a license to produce? Back in the day anyone could produce patches. We ran low for the coffee mess, we just went out into town and hired it out.

 

[not_the_lasagna]

What does this mean? The Navy now has a copyright on squadron logos and wings that requires a license to produce? Back in the day anyone could produce patches. We ran low for the coffee mess, we just went out into town and hired it out.

Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed Gypsy quite a bit ago and he basically just quoted me what's on his site:

"Gypsy here:

I have a new USMC IP License in place. This will allow me to get some stock back on the webstore. It will take a few days to tidy up and get things uploaded.

No Navy license at this time so I cant put any of those items on the site.
This Includes Pilot, NFO and Aircrew name tags. Thats all for now."

Someone who hates fun and wanted their cut and sent him a cease and desist maybe? Dunno, it's not like the squadrons are trademarked..


wack.

 

[wink]

Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed Gypsy quite a bit ago and he basically just quoted me what's on his site:

"Gypsy here:

I have a new USMC IP License in place. This will allow me to get some stock back on the webstore. It will take a few days to tidy up and get things uploaded.

No Navy license at this time so I cant put any of those items on the site.
This Includes Pilot, NFO and Aircrew name tags. Thats all for now."

Someone who hates fun and wanted their cut and sent him a cease and desist maybe? Dunno, it's not like the squadrons are trademarked..


wack.

Doesn't make sense to me. Squadron patches, wings and such have been in the public domain forever. It was a big deal when the USMC copyrighted their MARPAT precisely because it wasn't done before. Can't imagine webmaster paying a license to use the image of wings in the banner above.

 

[Flash]

Doesn't make sense to me. Squadron patches, wings and such have been in the public domain forever. It was a big deal when the USMC copyrighted their MARPAT precisely because it wasn't done before. Can't imagine webmaster paying a license to use the image of wings in the banner above.

Never heard anything like that before either, and I’ve dealt with plenty of patch vendors through the years.

And the digital cam was done before, by the Canadians of all folks, the Marines just put tiny little EGA’s in the pattern to make it ‘special’ and claim it as their own.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed Gypsy quite a bit ago and he basically just quoted me what's on his site:

"Gypsy here:

I have a new USMC IP License in place. This will allow me to get some stock back on the webstore. It will take a few days to tidy up and get things uploaded.

No Navy license at this time so I cant put any of those items on the site.
This Includes Pilot, NFO and Aircrew name tags. Thats all for now."

Someone who hates fun and wanted their cut and sent him a cease and desist maybe? Dunno, it's not like the squadrons are trademarked..


wack.

Wait - what? Wings are under copyright protection? Who came up with that idea and honestly who expends energy to abide by it? Thats crazy.

 

[wink]

Never heard anything like that before either, and I’ve dealt with plenty of patch vendors through the years.

And the digital cam was done before, by the Canadians of all folks, the Marines just put tiny little EGA’s in the pattern to make it ‘special’ and claim it as their own.

A little clarity. What exactly have you not heard before? Just going into town and having a couple dozen patches made up? Have to keep in mind my years were many before yours and things change. The whole fight jacket and flight suit commonality for one.

The only claim a patch vendor would have is if it was their artwork and the deal with the squadron specified the vendor held copyright to the images. If the design origination can not be determined (how many squadron logos go back to the 40s, and 50s if not early) or the designers did not claim any ownership, as was the case for my reserve unit, it is public domain. No license. You walk into a vendor, brain storm some ideas for a cruise patch or an aircraft sundown, and the vendor produces the artwork, sure. He owns it. But I can't imagine having to pay license to reproduce the Tophatter design for VFA-14, or the Fist of VFA-42. Lots a designs are drawn by squadron members or go back 50 years or more.

I understand the Canadians had digi cammo. Not the point. It was the fact the Marines have complete control over their pattern via copyright. That was unique, at least in the US military. Not sure about the Canuks.

 

[UInavy]

Only guessing here, but the Typsy copyright issues coincide *very* closely to when SWOs got their leather jackets and started looking for leather nametag makers. Typsy has definitely been recommended to them on other forums. I have zero evidence, but everyone loves a scapegoat!

 

[Flash]

A little clarity. What exactly have you not heard before? Just going into town and having a couple dozen patches made up? Have to keep in mind my years were many before yours and things change. The whole fight jacket and flight suit commonality for one.

The copyright thing in this case, and we aren't too far apart in age and in my ~20 years of dealing with patches I've never heard of a vendor ever having an issue with 'copyright' either with one exception.

The only copyright issue that I've heard of is with VAQ-209 and their squadron patch that some vendors had questions about, but apparently they have a letter (framed) supposedly from George Lucas saying they are allowed to use Darth Vader on their patch. Even then they didn't have a lot of issues.

 

[Griz882]

Wait - what? Wings are under copyright protection? Who came up with that idea and honestly who expends energy to abide by it? Thats crazy.

I don’t think they are. Military iconography is in the public domain so they are free to use.

 

[SynixMan]

SWOs allegedly narced on the Gypsy? Sounds about right, even if it's maybe possibly not true.

 

[UInavy]

SWOs allegedly narced on the Gypsy? Sounds about right, even if it's maybe possibly not true.

That’s the totally unsubstantiated rumor that I’m speculatively creating. Felt right.

 

[jmcquate]

Aerospace companies were threatening model companies a few years ago, but there were no issues from DoD over decals.

 

[Gatordev]

The only copyright issue that I've heard of is with VAQ-209 and their squadron patch that some vendors had questions about, but apparently they have a letter (framed) supposedly from George Lucas saying they are allowed to use Darth Vader on their patch. Even then they didn't have a lot of issues.

There's another restriction with HSL-60 and HSM-60. They had/have a letter from the NFL allowing for the use of the Jaguar logo. Unfortunately that restricts selling the patch/sticker publicly, which is usually asked for repeatedly at airshows. When HSM-60 was stood up, there was some question about whether they should reuse the patch or do something different so they could sell the patch. I'm not sure the question got brought up to the right level (it was a weird time at the squadron), so they just went with the same logo and got a new letter.

I don't believe HS-14 or HSC-14 ever had the same issue since they just had the lightning bolt.

But at the end of the day, be it Vader or a cat, neither restrictions are from the government, which makes sense since it's owned by the people.

 

[Flash]

There's another restriction with HSL-60 and HSM-60. They had/have a letter from the NFL allowing for the use of the Jaguar logo. Unfortunately that restricts selling the patch/sticker publicly, which is usually asked for repeatedly at airshows.

Reminds me of VMAQ-4 with the Seahawks and VMGR-452 with the Yankees, though I noticed that VMAQ-4's patch design dropped the official Seahawks logo as the years went by. Then of course are the Playboy bunny associated patches and tail art with VMCJ-2/VMAQ-2 (who even got creative with their CY tail codes after the official patch changed), VQ-1, VX-4/9's Vandy One and an SR-71 among others, not sure if they were 'authorized' or not but I know some VX-9 guys got in a little hot water for dropping by the Playboy mansion in flight suits right around when Vandy One was retired.