PDA

View Full Version : What is your opinion?



mmd
08-30-2003, 12:59 AM
Since most here enjoy the parry and thrust of good debate, but seem to find it difficult to find a topic other than American politics to exercise upon, I thought I'd toss a boat-related and current subject into the ring for a few rounds. A court case is brewing in Halifax over the Bluenose II that balances on an interesting point - who owns the rights to the image of the Bluenose II? Let me explain ...

History

The Bluenose II was built in 1963 by the Olands family, brewers of Schooner brand beer. They wanted the boat to promote the beer and to provide a corporate and private yacht. After a few years of this, the Olands decided to cease ownership of the ship and sold it to the Province of Nova Scotia for a dollar.

Old-time fishing schooners had a life expectancy of twenty or thirty years. Bluenose II has been sailing for almost twice that time, and during her lifetime her maintenance sometimes suffered at the hands of governments that wanted to cut costs. She finally reached a point a few years back when it came time to decide whether to scrap her or rebuild her. This was a hot topic for a while, but it was finally decided to rebuild her.

A public trust - the Bluenose Preservation Trust - was set up to raise money for the rebuild, oversee the reconstruction, and to administer the operations of the ship after her re-launch. They were charged with the on-going day-to-day operations of the ship, as well as to raise funds for the eventual replacement of the ship with a Bluenose III. The Trust gets an annual budget from the province to run the ship, and they raise money for the savings account through chartering the ship, selling memorabilia, and soliciting donations. The province wanted out of the ship business, and the Trust was set up to take care of it for them.

The Current Situation

A tourist-oriented business in Halifax has been marketing "images" of the Bluenose II (I'm not sure what the "images" are; I suspect photographs, tee-shirts, mugs, etc.), but has not received permission from the Bluenose Preservation Trust to do so. The Trust feels that this is infringing on their sole right, as the administrators of the ship, to market the Bluenose II, images included. The Trust told the business owner that he must pay a licensing fee to use the image of the ship, but he has refused. They want the Provincial Solicitor General to place a cease-and-desist order on the touristy business under threat of possible criminal charges. The business owner says that the image of the ship is as much public property as Government House and the Peggy's Cove lighthouse and therefore open for exploitation by the private sector. The Trust maintains the position that they, as administrators of all the affairs of the ship, must protect and exploit all sources of revenue from the ship, including commercial distribution of her image, to ensure adequate funds for the maintenance and eventual replacement of the ship.

The Question

Should the commercial useage of the image of the Bluenose II be free to all who wish to make money from her, or should the Trust be able to collect licensing fees from all who intend to profit from the use of her image in order to maintain funding for her?

Donn
08-30-2003, 07:25 AM
I guess it would depend to some extent on the Trust's original charter. If there is wording that grants it these rights, then license fees should be charged. If the charter does not spell out such controls, then you'd have to go to comparable charters for Trusts on other government properties for precedent.

Common sense tells me that it isn't proper for someone to profit freely from an enterprise that has been financially maintained by others.

Art Read
08-30-2003, 11:40 AM
On the other hand... What's to stop 'em from taking a picture, with their own camera and film, as she passes by the waterfront and using it as they will? Kind of like "paparazzi" making their livings taking shots of celebrities sunbathing nude on the "Cote d'Azure"? The celebs may not "like" it, but they can't stop it, and they DON'T get "compensated" for it. I think both practices are pretty shabby, but what are you gonna do? That said, The "tourist shop" owner is probably being short-sighted. A little placard next to his display stating that all sales go towards the maintenaince and preservation of the historic "BLUENOSE II" would probably be worth more in the "goodwill" it would generate than whatever pitance of his proceeds the organization would ask for it's blessing...

Harry Miller
08-30-2003, 01:27 PM
Does the trust then get to collect all the dimes in the country? smile.gif

mmd
08-30-2003, 02:32 PM
No, the image on the dime is the original Bluenose, not Bluenose II.

Hughman
08-30-2003, 09:09 PM
I don't think the Trust will prevail. It and the vessel are supported by the public, and these photos sound like fair use images.

Keep us informed of the outcome.

htom
08-31-2003, 01:22 AM
Tourists taking photos are not the problem. I suspect that the problem is that the company is selling t-shirts and mugs with photos either cheaper or better (or both) than the trust is, cutting into the trust's (that is, the public's) business.

My guess is that in American law the Trust would prevail, as it seems the Trust would have the ownership of the "person" involved, and thus can have some control of reproduction for sale of images of the person. Photos of celebraties by paperatzi are "news", but these are not such photos. Photos by tourists are not typically reproduced for sale.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-31-2003, 02:17 AM
One of the relevant questions here is whether government is in the business of preserving and MAINTAINING heritage. I believe that it is. There is a greater good in making sure that tradition and history is there for future generations to examine. Canadian federal and provincial politics have never been very supportive of such a philosophy, and it shows. Many european countries discovered almost too late the price of ignoring heritage icons and sites, and they have scrambled in the last couple of decades to catch up. We need to do the same. HOW we fund the structure of heritage sites is a good question, and typically trusts have been the modern solution. Sadly, this often happens so that provincial and federal bodies can contribute too little funding on a one time basis, then wash their hands of any further responsibility. Shame.

I don't find a whole lot wrong with local industry benefiting from the image and prescence of the ship. I find it wrong that the trust has to scramble to preserve any method of revenue generation in order to keep the Bluenose shipshape and sailing.

ion barnes
09-01-2003, 03:46 PM
The Trust should be in control of all promotional aspects of the Bluenose II. If a T-shirt co. whats to use an image, it should appply to the Trust and expect to pay a royalty. I admit that its a very gray situation, just how gray is probably the ultimate question. In other similar issues it fall to the defendents side but where a national symbol is involved? hmmmm. It never ceases to amaze me how a good, a really good arbitrator can cut through an issue so that both parties get a piece of the pie. I vote for the Trust. Ion

George Roberts
09-01-2003, 04:48 PM
No one is ever right in court. The winner is simply the guy with the best argument.

I would argue that the copyright/trademark to images remains with the beer company. If the T-shirt people want to use images of the boat, they need to compensate the beer company.

Hopefully those rights were transferred to the trust.

mmd
09-06-2003, 01:55 PM
In a wonderfully wacky twist in this story, The Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported today that the Bluenose Presevation Trust (the folks who want exclusive rights to the image of the Bluenose) has ordered postcards and playing cards from Tall Ships Art Productions (the company that the Trust is sueing for trademark infringement) after they had launched the lawsuit against the private company! The Herald said in the story that the orders are not large, but the owner of Tall Ship Art Productions is, to say the least, somewhat taken aback. The Bluenose Preservation Trust chairman was not available for comment.

Better'n watching soap operas, sez I. :rolleyes:

Matt J.
09-08-2003, 09:55 AM
Jenny and I were aboard the Bluenose II in Bermuda, June 2000. I still think about that beautiful vessel. We also bumped into the Captain in a bar in Hamilton – he was such a nice fellow. Taking time out, talking to a couple of newlyweds with stars in their eyes knowing they were talking to THE Captain of THE Bluenose II.

On one hand, I think the ship is so nearly public property, that it’ll be tough to avoid others using her image.

OTOH, IMOO, I think it’s a shame that so many things like this are decided in such a legal way, that technically this, and unfortunately that… seems like Bluenose II should be maintained, restored, and, if necessary, replaced. She’s a real gem, and an incredible artifact of history, though “only” a replica. Somehow I think our neighbors to the north will take care of this ship, or at least I thought they would.

Why can’t the company offer a portion of Bluenose II profits to the trust?

brian.cunningham
09-09-2003, 10:03 PM
I dont' know the answer to your question.

But I've been on her, and whatever it takes to keep her in shape is worth it.

[ 09-09-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: brian.cunningham ]