Revoking the Eagle rank

[LongHaul 10]

Packsaddle,

Turn the page. Special Regulations in my copy of the Insignia Guide (2005)it's page three. Third bold heading; Badge Swapping. I reprinted the entire paragraph word for word. It says that Article X of the Rules and Regs forbids "holding" of badges you didn't earn. I heard this before when an adult wanted to put together a collection of Eagle rank insignia and their foreign equivalents as a gift for a Scouter who had mentored more Eagles than I can count in over 60 years of continuous service. He was "retiring" due to health reasons, he had a number of heart attacks and his wife said she'd kill him if he didn't stop running all over the world playing boy scout. Anyway the word was we couldn't make the display because it was expressly forbidden by Corporate.

 

Trevorum,

So flagrant violation of the rules is OK? All rules or just some? Smoking is ok just dont inhale approach? I agree that the rule is a bit anal when it gets to holding rather than wearing but that same argument can be made by anyone on almost any disputed topic we discuss here. Choosing to disregard a rule shouldnt be confused with condoning its violation. Especially not by leaders.

LongHaul

 

[Trevorum 24]

So did "Corporate" "condone" or "disregard" it's own policy when it allowed Mr. Terry Groves (past president of the International Scouting Collectors Association) to display his personal collection of Eagle medals at the National Exhibits during the Jamboree last summer? Surely there must have been some member of National's U.P. at the Jamboree who realized the seriousness of this violation of policy! Golly! Do you think they knew about this egregious rule-breaking but just didn't see the problem with a Scouter collecting badges? And even worse - the staff members at the Collections MB booth were actually encouraging this type of behavior. What is Baden Powell's movement coming to when we allow such blatant scoffing of important rules and regulations?

[packsaddle 753]

Trevorum, another interpretation might be that if he attained eagle rank, he is entitled to own as many eagle badges as he can afford. Kind of like having more than one patch on multiple uniforms.

 

I guess (to bring this back to topic) this means that even if BSA could and wanted to revoke rank, if a person earned the medal they could keep it. I can't fail to notice that the contradiction of the letter of the regulation by the widespread practice of various collectors is by no means the only such contradiction between letter and practice. For badges and patches it might be the most trivial however. BSA obviously turns a blind eye as well...making them equally as unethical - it is, after all, THEIR regulation to impose.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hunt 11]

Another distinction needs to be made here, between BSA's rules and regulations, and the actual law. As I posted before, unless BSA makes the claim of patch ownership at the point of sale, the fact that it makes such a claim in some other document simply has no relevance to the ownership rights of the purchaser. MAYBE a court would side with BSA if the purchaser admitted he knew about this rule at the time of purchase, but I very much doubt it. It would be easy to prove that BSA will sell most patches to people who walk in off the street. On the other hand, if it really is a BSA rule that one is not supposed to even possess rank insignia to which one is not entitled, then I suppose it would follow that a Collections MBC should not recognize such a collection. I personally would not interpret the rules to mean that (I would not consider such a collection to be "use" of the insignia). If the rule really does mean to prohibit such collections, then I don't think it's a very good rule. Of course, I would wager that not one in a thousand Scouts or Scouters has even heard of the rule, so most rank patch collecting goes on in blissful ignorance of the issue.

Note: I did a little Internet research, and found that BSA has taken some steps to address this problem--for example, they objected when Destiny's Child wore altered BSA uniforms on TV, and similarly objected to other uses by musicians. They seem to have argued, however, that non-Scouts can't wear the uniform or insignia, not that BSA actually owned the patches. To my surprise, I also learned that BSA sent letters to Goodwill and Salvation Army asking them not to sell used BSA uniforms! (Supposedly the Destiny's Child uniforms came from a thrift shop, but I don't believe the patches did--they had "Trained" patches sewn on the collars.)

[Kaji 11]

Longhaul and PS: Based on your interpretations of the rules here, what do you think should be done?

 

My cousins' grandfather was a scout back in the 20s, made it to Eagle. Their father did like his father, and made it to Eagle himself. Their time comes around, and all 3 of them lost interest (I think the oldest might have made it to Star, if the others made it past Tenderfoot I'd be amazed). Does this mean that 2 full generations of scouting and hard work by their forebears becomes "contraband" when their father passes on?

[packsaddle 753]

'contraband' probably isn't an accurate term for it because the badges haven't been prohibited or smuggled. If BSA has a legal leg to stand on (and agreeing with Hunt, I doubt it) then under the right circumstances I guess they could try to take some legal action. Personally, I think the words are there for intimidation value and nothing more. I'll let LongHaul provide his interpretation.

[NeilLup 13]

If one goes to Google and looks up "Eagle Scout" and "executed" one gets hits for Leslie Lee Gosch and Arthur Gary Bishop both of whom were Eagle Scouts executed by lethal injection. There is no indication that the Eagle Scout award was "revoked" for these criminals. They met the requirements as boys and their later actions do not change that.

 

There may be other Eagle Scouts who are in this sad situation.

 

I am not an attorney but do work in the area of intellectual property. Normally, patent rights and trademark rights are discharged by a sale. In other words, absent a specific agreement to the contrary, one has certain rights granted by a trademark or patent and those rights normally enable one to obtain more money for the sale of a good or service than would otherwise be the case. Having gotten that additional money once, the manufacturer has no further rights to that specific item. However, the purchaser is not entitled to make additional copies of the item or service.

 

So one would, I believe, be in strong position saying that they have rights to retain their BSA insignia, give it to someone else, sell it, bequeath it, etc. One would not have the right to make identical copies of it. Whether one could, for example, make and sell Xerox copies of an Eagle badge, I am less certain.

 

The same thing is true for copyrights. Having once sold the item, the author's rights are discharged to that specific item. But the purchaser is not authorized to make additional copies.

[Trevorum 24]

I agree with Neil's interpretation.

 

However, I suspect that BSA would have a difficult time in pursuing any case against someone who did in fact make identical copies of BSA badges. My understanding is that a trademark owner has to demonstrate vigilance in pursuing action against violations.

 

Illegal duplication of BSA badges (including the fleur de lis as well as "BSA") is currently happening in Hong Kong and has been brought to the attention of both BSA and eBay (one venue where the knock-offs are being peddled). Both organizations have declined to take action (for different reasons, I presume). I, for one, wish that BSA would pursue legal action against these foriegn outfits.