I thought this would be useful to post here to inform those intent on commemorating one of Chuck yeager's aircrafts:

John Ballman
(Login jballman02)
HyperScale Forums
99.3.108.228 Contacted General Yeager via email here is his reply September 6 2011, 10:43 PM


Here is my email to C. Yeager, his reply is after mine.

General Yeager,
It has come to my attention that scale model kits or
decals dealing with any aircraft i.e. "Glamourous Glennis" are at
risk of being sued by your Foundation. One case, for example
"Pegasus Hobbies" created a 1/18 scale model of the X-1 with
markings of the historic 1947 test flight. I understand that
"Pegasus Hobbies" received a cease disist letter from you. So the
compnay removed the markings that made the kit notable and Modelers
such as myself were scratching their heads wondering why would
"Pegasus" do such a dumb thing? Now we know. I guess you are well
aware that all that zooming and booming , the aircraft, your career,
your pension is all at the expense of the U.S. tax payers. (I also
collect a retired military pension.) I am dismayed at how far a
person has to go to collect a buck. I get the cashing in on ones
fame thing, but how far a you going to push this? I just feel in
regards to my hobby, your actions have diminished it. Your story
will stop being told by the Aerophiles who build or produce the kits
and decals. Scale Modeler displays at contests or events will be
devoid of your aircraft out of fear that if a picture is taken and
your foundation finds out, a letter will be generated. General, I
asking you to reconsider your position on this matter.
Respectfully,
John Ballman, USN (retired).


Chuck Yeager's reply:



Thank you for your email. You didnt answer the main question: Why
should Pegasus profit?

Why wouldn't Pegasus just pay the going rate for the use of General
Yeager's wife's name?

Although it isn't relevant-Mrs Yeager was not paid by the government.

Further, altho it isn't relevant, the monies usually go to supporting
aviation scholarships.

Sent from phone

C. GCYI

Thread here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1315345333/The+huck+eager+Situation+Is+Enuff+to+Make+---

I wish I had the imagination to make up stuff like that...

Gaston

He has not made himself very popular with the warbird crowd either as a result of comments made in one of the aviation periodicals concerning the continued flying of warbirds, he think they should be placed safe and sound in museums.

This has been ongoing for over 7 years now.

If I recall correctly, Marge Bong attempted to sue Revell years before all this Yeager stuff over the use of her name and image on the 1:32 Lightning in her husbands markings but it..

"lost in court when the ruling said that the fame of her husband's plane and the fact that it had been used in many many publicity photos put it in the public domain."


I guess Yeagers wife has just got better lawyers, and if the articles online about her are to be believed, has got plenty of experience in lawsuits.

"She also apparently made a steady income filing small-claims suits, say those who do not like her. From 1988 to 1998, she was involved in more than 40, most of them as plaintiff, according to the private investigator's report. They include claims against airlines for losing her luggage and against a cell phone company for static on the line."

Nige

Glennis Yeager died in 1990.

But his wife's name wasn't "Glamorous Glennis" - that was the X-1's name. How can he charge for that?

Yes, Glennis died in 1990. The wife he has now is called Victoria and, I think, the real culprit here, not Glennis.

Mr Yeager's private life has now become a soap opera, but what do you expect if you marry an actress half your age, First Yeager's children sued unsuccessfully to gain control of his holdings claiming Victoria only married him for his money, then he sued them successfully for not running his pension fund properly. For example, his daughter used money from the fund to buy a big house and then sold it later for a small profit - one million dollars. She was made to pay it back to the fund.

So what would happen if you made your own decal of his nose art and he saw your completed model on the Internet? You would not be profiting from it.

There's the word "gold-digging" missing from in front of "actress." There are trustworthy actresses, if you know where to look.
Edgar

This is STUPID! Sueing over a name written on a peice of government property by a government employee while on the clock, which is considerd defacing government property. Next thing you know , the government might sue a model maker because they are missing 3 rivets on a M1A2 or something just as dumb. I really hope, ( key word is hope) that the courts have better things to do than waste time and tax dollars on stupid people sueing over stupid things. Maybe if it cost the people who brought forth these wasted law suits with a healthy fine for wasting the courts time they might stop these circus shows. Now I understand why it is taking the court over a month to get me a copy of a disposition and still have to call every week wondering where it is. They're too dam busy with stupid things like this.

This reminds me of 20 some years back, when aircraft companies, real aircraft companies, mind you, were afraid that a model of their aircraft, if it harmed someone, say, oh....I don't know...you swallowed an engine, that they could be sued. Held liable for any medical costs incurred by the ingestion, literally of said part!!

Is there nothing off limits to make money? Finally the problem took care of itself but this sounds like more of the same to me. Too, too bad. It really is. Russell

I would venture to say that I don't believe that you can copyright nose art placed on Government Airplanes. Under US copyright law the Government, or those doing work commissioned by or for the Government cannot copyright their work. I think that a strong case can be made that a Lt. telling his crew chief to paint this on his aircraft constitutes work commissioned by or for the Government. My guess is that Pegasus simply decided that it was easier to not do the nose art than to possibly wind up in court. I don't know for sure, I am not a lawyer.

My impression is that the General's "golden" years haven't been so golden. There was an article from the New York Times a couple of years ago by a reporter who flew in a small plane with Yeager. He wrote about how he had looked forward to it, and how disappointed he was that it was basically an unpleasant experience. Frankly I came away feeling sad for him. Just my opinion.

Wow! I’m kind of at a loss for words on this one. Nope, wait I found them! Maybe modelers need to replace the current board members of the foundation for starters. How does one get on such a board in the first place?

Royalties to companies is the norm this day and age regardless of how frivolous or petty the situation and modeling manufacturers for the most part have complied making it even harder to get rid of it at this point.

Last I heard Mike Bass was the driving force behind a bill proposal in 2007. H.R. 607(Congressional Level) protecting toy and model companies from just this sort of nonsense but other than a few sponsors and sitting in committee it is now dead and would need to be reintroduced. Maybe modelers should take a more active stand. It’s pathetic the whole situation came to seeking congressional intervention. I do not have much faith in congress doing anything correctly at this point in history.

If you really want some version of Glamorous Glennis then do it! If the decals are not available someday because of this nonsense then break out the computers, fine tipped brushes, some artist oils and get creative. The foundation and its backers can take a flying leap.

All the best,
Brian

Hi all

Judging by the artwork for their new 1:144 kit, Dragon look set to be releasing "Glamourous Glennis" in all her glory...



All the best

Rowan