Legality of a Hatsune Miku aircraft livery in the US and EU / Netherlands
<p>Assuming that I am an average citizen, however I</p>
<ol>
<li>Own a plane</li>
<li>Have the ability to put any image onto it.</li>
</ol>
<p>What is the legality of putting Hatsune Miku as aircraft livery? Hatsune Miku is trademarked, however, Miku herself is under the creative commons attribution noncommercial 3.0 unported license</p>
<p>I am specifically looking for legality inside the United States or the European Union</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-states-container">united-states</a></p>
<p>I am going to answer based on US law. But many of the principles would be similar in many other countries. In particular the law in the EU is similar.</p>
<p>There are two separate issues here, trademark rights and copyright.</p>
<h2>Trademark Rights</h2>
<p>Trademark law provides protection against the use of the mark &quot;in commerce&quot;. This means using the mark to identify  or advertise goods or services. It does <strong>not</strong> provide any protection against use <em>not in commerce</em>.</p>
<p>Specifically <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1114" rel="nofollow noreferrer">15 USC  1114</a> (part of the Lanham Act, the main US Federal trademark law) provides, in relevant part:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—</p>
<p>(1) (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or</p>
<p>(1) (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the plane was being used commercially, using someone else's trademark would be infringement and could lead to a successful infringement suit. But if it is not being used to provide or advertise a service or goodsm there is no trademark issue.</p>
<h2>Copyright</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 106</a> specifies the exclusive rights that a copyright owner has. One is to make copies, another is to make derivative works. Unless fair use (or fair dealing in the UK) applies, one needs <strong>permission</strong> from the copyright owner. Without such permission, copying is infringement, and can lead to an award of damages.</p>
<p>However, according to the question, the image has been released under a CC-BY-NC license. That grants permission, under certain conditions. One condition is that the image (or text) not be used for commercial purposes. If the plane is purely private, not rente out, these conditions seem to be complied with, so there is no copyright issue either.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the statements in the question, there seems to br no IP issue here. Be sure that there is no commercial purpose, and that the CC license was issued by the actual copyright owner.  A brief consultatuion with a lawyer might be wise.</p>

united-states copyright european-union trademark