Army sells Ist Division insignia to Sears

[BigBlue75]

I'm a Navy veteran, not Army, but this ticks me off. I don't like this one iota.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419945,00.html

The U.S. Army is on the defensive after it admitted to licensing out use of the seal of the historic 1st Division to fashion retailer Sears for their "Fall 2008 Collection," Politico.com reported.
The Army revealed to lawmakers Monday it sold use of the division’s storied “Big Red One” insignia for a line of Sears sportswear. Its Web site said the Pentagon (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419945,00.html#) finalized the deal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419945,00.html#) in June 2007 through a licensing program (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419945,00.html#) authorized in 2005.

[The Old School JPS]

I'm a little confused; the federal government can't copyright, so couldn't anyone use that logo?

[misterbluecat]

That is sort of selling out everyone who was ever apart of the Big Red One. The insignia means alot to those who wore it, even more so considering how the division was forged in blood during WW1.

[TransientAlum]

Leave it to Casey...

Will no one ever just simply fire the guy?

Agree whole heartedly to the above.

[TransientAlum]

I'm a little confused; the federal government can't copyright, so couldn't anyone use that logo?

This gets a little weird but the image belongs to the government, it is an "official" image. No copyright needed.

[RP_McMurphy]

The Army has gotten softer than butter on a hot Kentucky summer afternoon. Army Strong blahhhhh.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

How is this bad for the Army? They get some money from licensing out the logo. It could also potentially make the Army seem more hip to young folks (providing the clothing with the logo is deemed cool by the kids it's being marketed for) which could boost enlistments somewhat.

Seems like a win-win situation for the Army to me.

[Catligula]

How is this bad for the Army? They get some money from licensing out the logo. It could also potentially make the Army seem more hip to young folks (providing the clothing with the logo is deemed cool by the kids it's being marketed for) which could boost enlistments somewhat.

Seems like a win-win situation for the Army to me.

Because some things are more important than money?? Its not like they couldn't make and sell some Army shirts without using THAT particular logo. I'm not even in the military and I think its a bunch of crap.

[capitolkatnorm]

I understand you're an old Navy guy but I have some Ranger friends who would like to demonstrate the error of your ways in thinking the Army is soft. The majority of troops who have been deployed in Iraq/ Afganistan for the last 4+ years are proudly wearing the Army insignia- this might have been an opinion you should have kept to yourself.

[oruacat2]

Speaking of the Rangers, this is the second time I've been this disappointed in the US Army - the first was with the stupid decision to allow EVERYONE to wear the once-elite black beret, prompting the Rangers to switch to khaki/tan to maintain their distinct look.

I understand it was for the purpose of increasing morale, but really, aren't there more substantive ways than a uniform change?

KD

[TransientAlum]

Speaking of the Rangers, this is the second time I've been this disappointed in the US Army - the first was with the stupid decision to allow EVERYONE to wear the once-elite black beret, prompting the Rangers to switch to khaki/tan to maintain their distinct look.

I understand it was for the purpose of increasing morale, but really, aren't there more substantive ways than a uniform change?

KD

At least the Rangers were bright enough to buy theirs in the USA vice China huh? :big_grin:

Sheesh, how many sailors we got here anyways?

[The Old School JPS]

This gets a little weird but the image belongs to the government, it is an "official" image. No copyright needed.

I'd like to know more.

[BigBlue75]

At least the Rangers were bright enough to buy theirs in the USA vice China huh? :big_grin:

Sheesh, how many sailors we got here anyways?

Quite a few, but what's that got to do with anything? :confused:

[TransientAlum]

I'd like to know more.

Its an official insignia. Soldiers are authorized to wear it after becoming affiliated with the unit. Selling the insignia wholesale really demeans what it means to have earned the right to wear it.

[TransientAlum]

Quite a few, but what's that got to do with anything? :confused:

Everything ;)

[oruacat2]

Its an official insignia. Soldiers are authorized to wear it after becoming affiliated with the unit. Selling the insignia wholesale really demeans what it means to have earned the right to wear it.


Watch - next on the auction block will be the Screamin' Eagle (my old unit) and/or the AA of the 82nd ABN.

KD

[BigBlue75]

As I've already said, I'm a Navy veteran, but I am adamantly opposed to this. As TransientAlum said, that patch is more than a piece of cloth. It represents a lifetime of service to our country and it's something that must be EARNED. It would be the same thing if the Navy decided to sell the rights to the SEALS logo. This is NOT good!

[surveyor]

Selling the rights of such insignias are concerning, but IMO, it's also concerning that the Pentagon is conducting such in order to raise $$$$ outside of what's appropriated by the government.
The concern would be that does the Pentagon get to use these funds without scrutiny since it's not part of their normal operating budget?
Hopefully, such funds are still under government oversight.

[TransientAlum]

Selling the rights of such insignias are concerning, but IMO, it's also concerning that the Pentagon is conducting such in order to raise $$$$ outside of what's appropriated by the government.

It suggests a mercenary attitude doesn't it?

Perhaps the Navy should begin to charge for services rendered when at sea as well huh? Put a credit card machine on the bridges of the ships or set up a paypal account. :icon_mrgreen:

[surveyor]

It suggests a mercenary attitude doesn't it?

Perhaps the Navy should begin to charge for services rendered when at sea as well huh? Put a credit card machine on the bridges of the ships or set up a paypal account. :icon_mrgreen:

Or expand on the shuttle service they provide for the Marines, lol. :icon_biggrin:

Taxi's for hire at sea!!!

[TransientAlum]

Or expand on the shuttle service they provide for the Marines, lol. :icon_biggrin:

Taxi's for hire at sea!!!

Marines = Navy's police force = Rent a Cops :icon_mrgreen:

[capitolkatnorm]

without specific legislative authority all funds received are subject to Federal appropriations authority controls- meaning- they can acquire funds by leasing bases, vehicles, providing support personnel for things like films, documentaries, research work-etc. but the money is just like other federal appropriations and can't be spent for unauthorized purposes-

As an Army vet- vietnam 2d LT-- I see all kinds of folks wearing Army insignia on shirts, coats, hats and no licensing agreements- how bout Micheal Jackson with Army insignia.

so I'm kind of pragmatic- If Sears can make the Army attractive like the NASCAR vehicle, or uses it to portray Army values or improve the image - and because people already wear the stuff without any licensing agreement- you can go on the Mall here in DC and buy a Big Red One patch- well the money can go to improving welfare of troops, housing needs, and being creative in how to supplement appropriations- it's a little quirky but not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

[surveyor]

Thanks for the clarification WRT funds oversight. :thumbup:

[oruacat2]

Next they'll be knocking-off the Girl Scouts' cookie business to raise funds.

[TransientAlum]

Next they'll be knocking-off the Girl Scouts' cookie business to raise funds.

A clear mission the Air Force could be challenged in handling. :icon_surprised: