007 - LICENSE TO FILL
Brilliant my friend! 🤣
Something I always wanted to clarify. 007 Magazine was handed a completed volume which had been produced for EON's approval. All the design work was carried out by our very own master forger Acacia_Avenue without whose input, Famous Gun would probably still be a pile of 100 A4 pages with an equal amount of A4 colour photographs? With respect to Graham Rye, all he did apart from funding the printing of an already completed printed volume as a magazine, was to put 007 Magazine branding on it because how can you edit a subject this large when you have no knowledge of weapons? so apart from the odd tweak it was published pretty much as it was written and the writing is one of the things it was criticized for "Mark Hazard is no Leslie Charteris!" is a comment which springs to mind! .... No he most definitely is not! My terminology has however like a fine wine matured with age and like Famous Gun 007 The Armoury is a work that both myself and Rob are incredibly proud of!
A sneaky peak of what 007 The Armoury brings to the table!
That’s fascinating info regarding the armoury: I guess it makes sense that they have chosen to own the weapons but not want the hassle of having to store them securely
Re:007, that’s not how the trademark works. Especially if you look at the many trademarks for 007 that Danjaq have filed (it’s really not untrademarked), you’ll notice many of them specifically say that they relate to the character of James Bond as created by Ian Fleming, and that’s what this book is. These are big companies with clever lawyers, they’re not really going to make mistakes: finding other things called that isn’t proof and won’t get you off in court. Not that it would ever get there because I suspect a lot of the unofficial books probably get through on goodwill from Eon. My guess is your sample spread above probably would be fine as you are illustrating a point you’re making with the image of Brosnan, although adding a credit may be safer.
20 years ago they turned a blind eye to sites like this one using their imagery, but when several forums released snippets from the unreleased Die Another Day’s script, they got very strong warnings to remove anything they own or be shut down. They do own this stuff.
You can use 007 in context with James Bond without infringing the trademark. You just can’t add the 7 gun logo bit. I’ve looked into this extensively for a couple of unofficial publications. They filed a C&D on the Goldfinger Files book. But they didn’t pursue it when challenged as what they own is very specific. They don’t even own the image rights That’s MGM
Just because someone has done it isn’t proof that you can: it just means that any potential case hasn’t been pursued. As I said, a lot of this seems to be covered by goodwill. If you read the trademarks it’s all there.
This is far from the only one, and look at the range of materials it covers. Ski wax, for one.
But I suspect there may be an aspect of journalistic analysis which allows it.
Trust me. Eon pursue things like this with absolute venom. They have no goodwill towards projects that aren’t officially authorised.
Trust me, they don’t. I know for a fact they’re fully aware of very trademark-infringing stuff (I literally know of a product in particular which has been handed to Ms Broccoli herself), I think if it’s low volume they don’t bother to get involved.
If it’s big or it takes the piss, then obviously they will take action. Judging by other books out there I would imagine this one will be fine.
But it would not be advisable to take the word of any bloke on the internet, or to use some adhesive as proof: I’d want to speak to someone qualified if I were John.
Brilliant. So you agree Donk using it should be fine too then. Not that he is anyway. I forget the point why he raised it now.
What are the things you refer to that are very trademark infringing?
As it’s a trademarked term I would guess that using in the title of the book may not ideal, but it may be okay. Still probably best to get professional advice though.
I have this from the horse's mouth at EON back in 2012. Their brand, their copyrighted brand is 007 utilising the gun as the 7 as first visualized by artist Mitchel Hooks in 1962 on the DR. No US posters. I was given clear guidelines of what I could and could not do before an endorsement. As an example when labeling the chapters, I could write in standard font Live and Let Die but if I substituted a knife for an "I" as it appears on the posters that is a copyrighted logo. If endorsed 007 The Armoury would without doubt have utilised the copyrighted 7 on the cover along with the all important copyrighted embossed 60th Anniversary logo. The fact is with very few exceptions, the book is a collection of photos of one individual's personal inventory, not EON's!. The text is composed of the memories of technicians who worked on the Bonds revealing details which may or may not have been known before? All the production images used are copyrighted but said rights are listed on the third page and it is a pretty long list at that as it also covers all the non-Bond productions which are included. Where known a photo may have for example: photograph Greg Williams etc down the side of it. This was a very well researched 12 year project where all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed. Most recollections were confirmed by a third party before those recollections were put into print.
As there are any number of fan magazines and lucrative fan art side hustles that show no sign of slowing down, I think there's some merit to the idea that Eon frequently doesn't bother with the "little fish" (to paraphrase Thunderball).
In the filmed realm, the equivalent safety net you're looking for here is "fair use." Documentaries are made every year which use film clips, actors likenesses, poster art, etc., and are published under fair use. Fair use itself is a nebulous concept - https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ - but the way it works, believe it or not, is a production company will be contracted to make a 60-minute doc about, say, Mel Gibson. The doc will use absolutely copyrighted film clips and sources owned by other entities. At the end of the assembly, a fair use attorney will review it, suggest any changes that might help the fair use argument, and issue an "opinion letter." Distributors (in this case a publisher) require this fair use opinion letter, as it pushes the endeavor into acceptable risk (i.e., if a fair use attorney opinion letter is issued, your insurance will cover the cost of a possible lawsuit) and they can air/publish the work. Nothing is guaranteed, but this is standard practice at the moment in non-fiction television production.
And it varies from country to country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is very likely being abused at present, but what that creates is a "drop in the ocean" situation in which the corporations can't keep up, so the little fish go about their way. We all remember the '80s stories of Disney suing daycare centers to take Mickey Mouse murals off their walls, but the internet has made chasing every such infraction a mathematical impossibility.
The only gun-centric book, concerning a franchise that is 50% held by a single family? Might be a different story. Especially since you're on their radar from reaching out to them.
20 years ago they were bang on it, and in fact this forum was shut down due to a TWINE script leak 🤭
I really hope EoN aren’t too harsh about people using just ‘007’ in things……
(nervously looking at the forum’s name and biting fingernails)
He's been skillfully "filling" since Dr. No. 😆
So when do we start the book's interest/reservation list?
I've always thought this website was Ay Jay Bee Oh Oh 7, ie: letters with only one number, no? 😱
Are you certain? I remember CBN and Mi6 were shut because of DAD: I'm sure I remember the Moneypenny VR scene being one of the scenes I read. Or do you mean TWINE leaked as well?
They were bang on it because parts of the script to their new multi million pound film had leaked: that's on a totally different scale to someone writing a little book about the tailors of Bond in the past, because it was their main current project being harmed and obviously they're going to defend that vigourously.
I am 100% certain, they even had magazines remove images of Brosnan promoting TV's, had shops in London remove signage.
There have been leaks on all Brosnan and Craig films apart from NTTD and by that I mean script leaks.
This forum had someone posting TWINE leaks, pictures of the script pages from what I remember.
Do I think Donk should move forward ? well he is a very good friend and he knows what I think 😁
Christ I’ve just realised my phone number contains a registered trademark
And your pants, a registered skidmark 😁
I didn‘t know that they where registered.
The rectum scale 😁
I feel certain too, perhaps it was two separate incidents. It seems to be too far back to google for any info on.
Certainly if you look at AJB in 2001 it was still using EON imagery, so it looks like the one I'm thinking of where they ordered the Bond forums to remove any official imagery & logos was for DAD.
What do you mean about shops removing signage?
There was a shop in London that had film titles advertising their cloths, photos were taken and signs removed.
Fook off, they’re only dirty if they stick to the wall.
Oh right, you mean something unrelated? I thought you meant that was part of the thing with the Bond sites being punished for printing the DAD script pages.
Here's AJB at the end of November 2002, after it had been told to take down all copyrighted imagery.
Yeah, here's AJB in May 2002 (lots of pics and logos from the films all over the place), it goes down for maintenance in September, is back in non-infringing form in November.
So from that it certainly looks like it's the DAD script leak that was the one that did for the fan sites.
Click that link and its like going back in time 😂
I'll take that as a "yes, you're right" then 😉😜
Well, I remember it as TWINE but with my failing memory it could have been DAD 😁