"CBS news segment on model kit licensing" Topic

Last night on the national news, CBS did their closing segment on aircraft manufacturers going after model kit companies for royalties. It was a human interest story, so not real big on the issues. One of the talking heads was a twelve-year-old lad, who had the cleanest and best lit basement workbench I've ever seen in my life—surely his mom got involved in that one. He was also not surly and inarticulate, which was nice.

The head of Revell pointed out that US tax dollars paid for the design, and he wasn't going to fork over "up to 10%" to the 1:1 builders. None of the defense contractors agreed to be on camera, a point that was made explicit. They said they were merely "protecting their copyright" and that it wasn't about money. Even the 12 year old saw through that one.

Since the topic has appeared here before, I thought it was interesting to see it picked up on national news.

Some nice shots from the IPMS competition, too.

The head of Revell make the truly salient point there. The designs of those aircraft and for that matter all the equipment made under government contract belongs to the people. It, the design, was paid for via our taxes. The Copyright should belong to the U.S. Government as the commissioning agency. If the idiot government procurement people waved that to the contractors they should be held accountable.

I imagine ultimately this will have to go before the Supreme Court for a ruling. That does not bode well considering their recent pro-business rulings.

Revell is a business, too.

Revell is a twee lad in knee pants next to Lockheed Martin.

Next thing you know, Norway will be trying to assert their copyright to all likenesses and representations of Vikings. Quick — lock up your 1/72 historicals!

Good lord. The greed of a company that makes $2 USD billion per stealth bomber is appalling.

Hi

Back in the 20s and 30s, the U.S. approach for aircraft and other equipment was to issue a spec and BUY A DESIGN. Then, put out bids to build the aircraft. This ment that Boeing's first fighter was designed by martin.

the governement asserted that once they bought the plane, the design was THEIRS. A curious wrinkle was that Boeing learning from building someone elses design, later produced the same aircraft with different "prototypes". One set got sold to the government as the F4B/P12 series, and the others got shopped around the world. The Japanese, for instance, purchased a "Boeing 100" and make it as the "Nakajima A4N". There were only minor differences between this aircraft and the Boeing F4B-2 for the Navy.

Rocky

HEAD OF REVELL?? WHO??? WHERE??? YOU mean there actually was a real person??? What's their email, what boards and forums are they watching, are they going to be alive in a few years, forget all this copyright BS are they going to keep their TYW stuff alive or what?? What about the rest of the figures? DID they claim the 17pdr kit from Matchbox? Where are they? Does he speak english? MORE INFO PLEASE! BITTE!!!

I believe the exact person was the president of Revell's US operation. He had a mustache. He was not happy about the idea of licensing. He spoke American English in a flat midwestern accent. However, he failed to tell the audience how they could best contact him with suggestions for future products.

If Revell takes this to court, the aircraft design companies are going to lose, because they have never pressed this point before. Toy manufacturers have been making models of real military vehicles for over a century. The precedent of prevailing practice is in their favor, and that holds weight in court. The only hope for the aircraft manufacturers is the passage of a new law… and that's not gonna happen.

Besides which, the guy from Revell is right. The designs are work-for-hire, and the public is doing the hiring. Instant public domain, pal!

"Good lord. The greed of a company that makes $2 USD USD billion per stealth bomber is appalling."

Yeah but how much of that is actual profit?

;)

"Yeah but how much of that is actual profit?"

Don't know about the stealth bomber, but when they sell what essentailly is a hammer with a fancy parts name for hundreds of dollars, I would imagine a lot of it is profit.

Pete, thanks for the note on that. I have a CBS station on my cable up here in Canada and was watching TV last night – wish I'd seen it. It sounds encouraging, though.

Ok, so next we will be paying royalties for the WWII and Modern Micro armor I have?

Here's a link to the story:

link

The "model guy" is named John Long and he is identified as CEO of the Revell Group.

Realistically if the fee went to the government to help pay down the debt I wouldn't have a problem with that.

But for a company to profit from a taxpayer financed development that is crazy.

Revell will LOSE. Trust me. This has already happened in the model railroad industry. Both Union Pacific and CSX that I know of require royalties for use of their logos on all models, plus they must approve your products and your company before allowing the product to be made. This applies to the smallest garage cast resin buisness. Norfolk Southern might be doing this as well. The National Model Railroad Association tried to fight this but lost; I was a bit involved but from a distance, thankfully.

Check out Union Pacific's form all manufacturers must fill out. This is what Revell and others can expect to be doing.

PDF link

BTW auto manufacturers are also placing restrictions on model manufacturers, saying what can and can't be produced and the size of the models.

Ok, so next we will be paying royalties for the WWII and Modern Micro armor I have?

If it were up to Lockheed, yes, that be the case. The designs of the WW2 vehicles could be viewed as copyright of the companies that built them, which means you would owe General Dynamics a nickel for each Sherman tank you wanted to build. And now that copyright extends for far longer than ever, you can expect your kid'll pay that nickel too.

Sounds ridiculous? The same thing happened in model railroading, starting with Union Pacific, who claimed ownership off all trademarks of the "fallen flags" it subsumed over the years. CSX followed suit, and suddenly models with markings from those companies cost an additional 5-10% simply to pay for the royalties. Small companies simply stopped making products out of fear of having UP lawyers wanting their pound of flesh.

And yes, this would go to the defense contractor, who you can be sure is not going to pass the savings along to Uncle Sam.

I'm not sure Revell loses. Take a good look at the licensing form from Union Pacific — they're talking about "logos and trademarks." For example, the Super Chief markings, but not the cars themselves.

I think that, if the model companies don't mention the company or their logo, and stick to referring to the vehicle's official government designation; they might be OK, in the context of the Railroad licensing.

Whether Lock/Mart decides to use some other argument is another question.

Apples & Oranges. Railroads collecting on the use of their liveries is a totally different animal than defense contractors copywriting their designs. I don't know who would win in a ing match between Revell and Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc…, but if both sides press the issue, I'd bet on the deeper pockets to win (i.e. NOT Revell). The model railroad industry vs. Union Pacific has NO bearing on it, though.

Totally agree. Unless some of the Revell kits have decals to represent the plane as a prototype or test version with the company logo on it, I don't think the RR example works for this case.

By the way, does Revell pay royalties to the automobile manufacturers for all the automobile kits?

Later,
Markus

Having spent a year in the B-2 SPO (the Air Force office that runs the program), I can tell you that Northrup-Grumman was "doing all right" when it came to profits on the B-2 bomber and all the extra stuff that went with it.

What about non-US defence contractors (BAE, Mikoyan, Shenyang, etc.)? Do they demand royalties for their designs?

I can see if a domestic model company could get away with not having to pay royalties, as it was developed by taxpayers money. But what if the company did not pay any of those tax dollars? Would it be fair to make Revell pay a royalty for every F-16 model they make and not be able to charge Trumpeteer?

"Good lord. The greed of a company that makes $2 USD USD USD billion per stealth bomber is appalling."

"Yeah but how much of that is actual profit?"

***********About 1.95 billion of it. The U.S. Airforce and the black ops budget footed the bill for all R&D on the Stealth so it is not rolled into the cost of aircraft.

The stealth bomber is a crock that can already be defeated. New radars are using cell technology to watch for mass disturbances in their fields. Both China and Russia are deploying them. American stealth tech is quickly becoming useless against any but the 3rd world. Even the Serbs were able to rig up a cell field detector system they used to bring down a 117.

For what we spent on the B2 fleet and on its yearly maintenance we could have bought a fleet of 20 Space Shuttles. Or 10 super carriers with their battle groups and fighter wings and keep them in space or at sea for the maintenance cost of the B2 which is astronomical.

Or we could have built band new buildings for every high school in the United States. Or replaced one in three Elementary schools. Or we could have built 1000 new miles of 8 lane interstate highway. Makes you think…

What's this rubbish about schools and highways? Why worry about infrastructure when we can…..oh, sorry, wrong board. :D

"Apples & Oranges. Railroads collecting on the use of their liveries is a totally different animal than defense contractors copywriting their designs"

Exactly. Logos are not public domain; they are paid for an purchased by the company. (For that matter, so are the trains.)

But LockMart, et al, did not pay for or purchase the defense plane designs. We did. We own 'em, we just pay them to build 'em.

Besides which, somebody at LockMart needs to have their head examined. Where do they think their future aerospace engineers are coming from? That's right, the 12 year old kid building models of every cool looking aircraft he can find. Shut off that kid's supply, and you risk losing his future interest in your brand of engineering. Stupid move, all the way around.

Hmmm… who can we slam about this? We need LockMart's e-mail…

There might be an upside to all this. It might encourage kit makers to focus on sci-fi and pulp designs. Having watched porcco Rosso last night I would love to have some of the planes from that flick scaled for 28mm.

Parzival said:

'But LockMart, et al, did not pay for or purchase the defense plane designs. We did. We own 'em, we just pay them to build 'em.'

Doesnt sound like design infringement is the issue. The article talks about trademarks.

Boeing/Lockheed etc are businesses, Revell/tamiya etc are businesses.

Revell makes money from their intellectual property. Revell has to pay.

Whats the problem?

Whats the problem?

I think the problem has to do with history — the fact that the vehicle is part of it. For example, if LockMart wants a cut of every Raptor model built, I'm inclined to be on their side — but if they go after somebody for making a Blackbird model, I'm not. I become downright cranky if they ask for money from somebody making a P-38 model.

In the case of the Lightning, we're talking about something that's long finished its normal product cycle; there's nothing left for them to protect!

I can see the class action lawsuit now, on behalf of modelers, who wish to recoup their percentage on the royalty payments paid by modeling manufacturers.

Afterall, they are likely citizens who have paid enormous taxes to build the military birds, and deserve their fair share of the profit from that.

As is common, cash awards will not be given out, so I will take my reimbursement in a coupon for a free, lifesized F-16 parked at my local airport, and available for my use at any time.

I will take my reimbursement in a coupon for a free, lifesized F-16 parked at my local airport, and available for my use at any time.

Me, too! And I'd like mine in a glossy red, please. Or perhaps chromed all over…

Of course, it will be made of styrene…

Well, read this news about trademarking a design. This is only a snippet of the article. So maybe Boing can claim their designs are trademarked? GMC does make model manufacturers sign a liscencing agreement, which is how they are now preventing anyone from manufacturing models of their vehicles smaller than 1:64 scale—"choking hazards" they claim. BTW I think this all stinks for the hobby, especially since I will never be able to get a Chevy pickup truck in HO or N scale. My favorite railroad was a Chevy user. Ergh.

Friday, May 13, 2005
DETROIT – General Motors Corp. and AM General Corp. won a four-year federal battle to keep a toy military vehicle off the shelves that the companies called a "knock-off" of the Hummer.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow issued a permanent injunction ordering Lanard Toys Inc. to stop selling its CORPS! ATK Vehicle because it infringed on Hummer's trademark design.

Following a three-day trial in March, a jury ordered Lanard Toys to pay $1.3 USD million because the company "used the trademark intentionally knowing that it was an infringement." During the trial, Lanard's chief designer said in a video deposition that he had copied aspects of the Hummer.

Meiczyslaw said

'I think the problem has to do with history — the fact that the vehicle is part of it.'

Good point, but technically speaking 'Mickey mouse' is part of 'history' too, and everybodys childhood, and you dont see Disney giving that away do you?

The planes may be long gone from the skies, but the intellectual property remains, and so does the opportunity to make money.

Welcome to corporate America and user pays.

This issue has been going on for about ten years. The only reason that it is an issue now is that there is a bill before congress that deal with this in particular. Being that I am writing this at 1:45 am right at the momment I am a little too tired to look up the bill. Maybe some enterprising person can find the exact bill name. Incidentally this store was also carried on CBS radio today too.

My favorite "scuzzy" defense contractor had and still has to be Fairchild-Republic for the A-10 a/which they agreed to for a very large price. As part of the contract, Republic was asked to supply basically all kinds of operating manuals and illustrated parts breakdowns at a very hefty pricetag. Republic, may they rot you know where, supplied totally UNREADABLE data. Unfortunately some Air Force logistics official signed off on the data as being received in useful shape. Consequently, the courts ruled the air force had to pay Fairchild twice for the chance to have them deliver the data which they should have produced in the first place.

In an ideal world, every lousy A-10 in the inventory would have imploded spontaneously without loss of life just out of pure shame over that piece of chiseling by a "patriotic" defense contractor.

It just proves the point if you ever aspire to be a villain, always think big-time and never be a small-time crook.