Finnair to re-paint Marimekko livery A330 due to copyright violation

Finnair will be re-painting its Airbus A330 OH-LTM with the blue-forest livery based on the Marimekko print Metsänväki (“Forest Folk”), unveiled earlier this month. Read the story here.

As per the airline

We introduced the Marimekko livery with the Metsänväki (Forest folk) print on May 7, as a part of our cooperation with the Finnish design house Marimekko. On May 29th, Ms Kristina Isola, who was the designer of the Marimekko pattern we used in our Airbus 330, admitted that she had used the original work of an Ukrainian artist Maria Primatshenko as the basis of her design. Ms Isola apologized for this and said she regretted it deeply. The news came as a surprise to both Finnair and Marimekko, who had introduced the pattern to their selection of designs in 2008. Ms Isola has worked for Marimekko for decades.

Finnair immediately took action and we had the pattern removed from our aircraft, as we take intellectual property rights very seriously.

The airline also has an Airbus A340 painted with the Marimekko designed Unikko (poppy) print, and will continue to use it.

Finnair will also continue its cooperation with the Finnish design house and use tableware and blankets, specially designed for it, by Marimekko.

Our cooperation with Marimekko continues, and we have introduced the tableware designed by Marimekko especially for Finnair use into our aircraft in mid May, and one of our Airbus 340s is painted with the iconic Unikko (poppy) pattern by Marimekko. The case with the other print used in the aircraft was very unfortunate, but it does not impact the good cooperation we have with Marimekko.

Read more »

Wall of shame: NDTV steals my picture of a crashed Kingfisher Airlines aircraft

Theft of intellectual property.NDTV has joined the my "wall of shame" by stealing my picture of a Kingfisher Airlines aircraft VT-KAC and displaying it on a story sourced from Agence France Presse (AFP) without taking my permission or even acknowledging my intellectual property rights.

The NDTV web page in question is here. A screen shot is posted just in case NDTV decides to change the page.

NDTV using my picture of VT-KAC without my permission or giving me credit. Screen shot taken on Dec 20, 2011.

The original picture is here.

On its Facebook page, NDTV claims "NDTV - India's most credible source of news".

Dear viewers and readers of NDTV please note -- in a ringing endorsement of its high and ethical standards, its in-depth and painstaking research and broad knowledge of the aviation industry  knowledge, the picture used to highlight a current story, of Kingfisher Airlines, is of VT-KAC the plane that crashed at Mumbai in November 2009 and was subsequently written off. The picture being used in 2011 is of an aircraft that was scrapped in 2009. See the DGCA investigation report and photograph of the crash here.

This is India's most credible source? Somehow this claim rings hollow does it not?

In 2009, this same NDTV and its editor Ms. Barkha Dutt who used all their legal and financial clout to sue an Indian blogger name Chyetanya Kunte for defamation on a post he wrote. They hounded him in to submission. (Full details in this story here. Or just google it).

Wow Mr. Kunte actually defamed the editor and an organisation which blatantly indulges in the theft of intellectual property. Oh, it was unintentional was it? The bold copyright notice in my picture establishing my IPR, just happened to be "unintentionally" erased in the process of cropping. How does one defame one who has no shame?

Burkha Dutt who has also been involved in the Radia tapes scandal is the same person who used her bully pulpit at NDTV to question the ethics of bloggers and whether we should be regulated.






To the readers of this article, I ask, and invite comments on what should be the regulation, law, and punishment for this self-appointed bombastic queen of hypocritical actions.

Update

As if this was not enough, I found out some more plagarism by NDTVProfit. This video at timestamp 1:57 uses this photo of mine without permission. It also appears to use photos from others as well, with or without their permission is not known.

Read more »