# hobby under fire???



## artic316 (Sep 12, 2000)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/27/eveningnews/main887340.shtml
This news article may affect the future of all modeling not just military.






improvise,adapt and overcome we are the brotherhood of modelers.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

The effects are limited to models of government projects.

If you buy a kit of a Ford or Ferrari, the royalty costs are already included in your cost for the kit. Cars are typically NOT government tax funded, but fully private owned product and trademark. Same goes for anything science fiction, commercial air, or character replica model subject. Will this make a big difference either way you cut it?

Probably not.

Companies will make product for which there is demand. Consumers have been all to willing for every other modelling subject to pay for liscenced materials. Also, many companies that liscence their image and product have an interest in the quality of the replicas. Sometimes we have to submit a mockup for approval before we can put something in production. This has encouraged me to take greater care with the accuracy and quality of my work.

But I do anyway.

The point is, let's keep this issue "in scale". Military subjects are one of the VERY FEW subjects that are NOT goverened by liscence and saddled with fees. I will continue to purchace, build, and display popular military aircraft along side my Star Trek space ships and anything else that catches my eye.

Now, if you want to discuss the threat to the hobby, look to our instant-gratification Wal Mart marketplace. I can't get my boy to finish ONE SINGLE MODEL KIT because it's simply easier to turn on the X-Box and kill some aliens instead.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Instant gratification is a relative term. My dad tried to get me into balsa-wood airplanes when I was 9 years-old. I never finished one of those either. I much prefered the "instant gratification" and more realistic detail of styrene kits. Just sayin ....


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Those airplane developers are just being greedy!  
They already get huge, bloated contracts to build our 
military aircraft. We have paid for them with *our tax dollars*!! 
They should give every taxpayer a free ride in those planes! :tongue:


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Didn't Union Pacific Railroad do the same B.S. "royalty fee" with Lionel Trains a few years ago?


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

And I'm just saying that Paramount has done it with every Star Trek kit ever made, Lucasfilm with every Star Wars kit, NASCAR charges for their name, Corvette is a registered property of Chevrolet, and so on.

Yes, on principle, a product developed as a public project on taxpayer money should not be, in itself, a "brandable" thus private right. However, any reference to the company name IS rightfully subject to fees. These are private companies that win government contracts.

In short, a F-15 Eagle is tax funded thus public domain, but a 747 is NOT.

What I'm objecting to is the overblown reaction that this one issue concerning one segment of the larger range of modelling topics is NOT going to change what we build or, even so much, what we pay for it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm firmly in the "my tax dollars have already paid for it" camp when it comes to military models.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Hal Bierman said:


> ......
> In short, a F-15 Eagle is tax funded thus public domain, but a 747 is NOT.
> ....


Actully, the 747 is open to the public domain since it and other aircraft were in part funded by the federal government. Airforce One and the space shuttle carrier comes to mind as well as other proposed uses for jets used by commercial aviation. Even the prototypes fall within this area.

In fact, the military does have the sole rights to all aircraft within the US of A. Those who went to the first Iraq war remember the commercial aircraft used to transport personnel and supplies.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

John P said:


> I'm firmly in the "my tax dollars have already paid for it" camp when it comes to military models.


Make Canadians pay! :wave:


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

Unfortunately, whenever these threads come up, people start inventing their own copyright and trademark laws. The 747 is NOT public domain. The F-15 is NOT public domain. Frankly, they should be but they aren't so let's not invent our own version of the law and try pass it off as fact. As stated in the linked article:

"The defense giants do hold trademarks on planes like the F-15, F-16 and the B-17, and they say if a model company uses their planes to build replicas, it should pay royalties. "

I'm not defending it. The whole idea stinks. But THAT IS THE LAW as it stands and we can't pretend otherwise. Correcting this problems requires legal action.

Here's is what it says on the box of the Italeri F-22 (and I'm looking at the box right now): "F-22 RAPTOR (TM). F-22 and Raptor are trademarks of the Lockheed Martin Corporation and are used under license to Italeri SPA".

So let's not invent imaginary copyright law to suit our wishes.

This is a very REAL issue and I do get annoyed by people who dismiss it. Industries don't generally fail as the result of a single issue. The naysayers will say that licensing "hasn't killed the industry yet" or they will claim that the cost is relativley minor. That is true but it's also not very relevant. I can tell you from experience that the success of a business can often be measured by single percentage points. I've been involved in ventures where a 4% increase in cost shut me down. 

Businesses usually fail under the collective weight of a series of financial obligations. A 2% payroll tax won't kill them. A few points for royalty fees won't kill them. The legal retainer bill for a decent attorney won't kill them. People who haven't been involved in operating a business can always pick out individual costs and say, "Big deal, what's two percent?" For them, two percent of a $50.00 item is insignificant. For somebody manufacturing the item, that two percent might be a big chunk of his profit.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

IMHO..this is yet another reason to kill all the lawyers, who make bucks off this kind of thing, and the other lawyers who are making the laws(but in who's best interest??)


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

the UP DID make a fuss over some Lionel locos using UP colors, so now the loco's of that type (Challenger 4-6-6-4) are done in the herolds of the other railroads that used 'em and we can forget about UP.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Y3a said:


> IMHO..this is yet another reason to kill all the lawyers, who make bucks off this kind of thing, and the other lawyers who are making the laws(but in who's best interest??)


Kill us off, and you can deal with your friendly, benevolent government and/or employer on your own. Have fun! :wave:


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Kill us off, and you can deal with your friendly, benevolent government and/or employer on your own. Have fun! :wave:


Gladly!

I'd happily deal with my government and employer without a bloodsucking shyster taking a pound of flesh.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Okay, it IS a good point that Lockheed builds the F-22, and Boeing builds the F-15, etc. That an actual privately-owned company manufactures these airplanes. It's still impossible to forget that those airplanes are then paid for by the US government, with money I gave them.

Grumble grumble.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Brent Gair said:


> Gladly!
> 
> I'd happily deal with my government and employer without a bloodsucking shyster taking a pound of flesh.


Enjoy being a serf! :wave: And when your lawnmower blade comes off due to substandard manufacturing since the manufacturer has no incentive to produce a safe product...well...we'll just leave that to the imagination.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Working on the F-22 at Lockheed Martin, I wonder if I can waive any extra fees?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I don't know about the licensing issues here (never researched them), but my best guess is that the companies do have rights to the use of their name and the shape of any products developed by them - subject to the regular "fair use" rules (ex. - Boeing wouldn't have much to say about a picture of a fighter built by them on the cover of a book about the Air Force - of course, the Air Force would have something to say about it if it's one of their pictures...  ). I'd have to check, but I think any copyright associated with something like a B-17 would be very close to expiration, if it hasn't already hit that point.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

In short, the only items a model kit company to NOT have to pay royalty fees for is something that was designed/ built by a company that no longer exists, or a design of their own.
Fokker? Fiatt? Messerschmitt? Heinkle? Porsche? Volkswagen? Mitsubishi? Nope; those companies all still exist.


----------



## pilotman (Oct 3, 2005)

*under fire*

It seems to me that military equipment builders, lockeed, general dynamics etc bottm lines arent at all affected by scale model replicas. they still get huge goverment contracts and are not reliant on retail commerce to do business.
Tapping into the private sector, ie. revell, testors etc is a new found profit maker. what they should understand is that small business runs on small profit margins and that a business out of business is no source for profit at all. Does that make sense? To much coffee today! :freak: :freak:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Seaview said:


> In short, the only items a model kit company to NOT have to pay royalty fees for is something that was designed/ built by a company that no longer exists, or a design of their own.
> Fokker? Fiatt? Messerschmitt? Heinkle? Porsche? Volkswagen? Mitsubishi? Nope; those companies all still exist.


That really depends on the age of the design - some of those companies are quite old, and have stuff that's probably public domain by now. Fokker's WWI fighters - almost certainly.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

#1. I don't understand why aerospace companies are fiddling with pennies. There's no practical way the licensing fees could make a significant impact on their bottom line AND the model companies be able to afford them AND sell the models at a reasonable price AND make enough sales to justify producing the model in the first place.

#2. I agree that the laws should be changed so that any planes (military or commercial) developed with taxpayer money should be considered public domain (at least after after 10 or fewer years) to the extent that replicas can be made of them.

#3. From what I understand, most car models are made without licensing fees due to the belief that the models help to advertise the car and/or the carmaker. What better time to develop brand loyalty than at a young age building car models? The tobacco companies must be envious of such open access to youngsters. IIRC, the fuss over the Jeep brand within the last few years has broken this trend and forced model makers to refer to the military jeep without the word 'jeep' in it.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

I'd hope the aerospace companies would see the licensing issue as good PR and grant the licenses without any royalties.

I do understand the intellectual property issue though. I'm not sure what models aren't licensed though: the Italeri example is licensed. 

What major model manufacturer isn't getting licenses for recreating a subject? Is Revell of Germany not getting licenses? Should the chinese companies?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

This may explain why I'm only seeing modern jet subjects from Italeri. F-22, Eurofighter, Rafale. I wiah Hasegawa would tackle the F-22, but noooo, we just have the mediocre Italeri kit.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I wonder if Hasegawa has to pay licensing fees to VW for producing a model kit of the Kubelwagen.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Steve244 said:


> I'd hope the aerospace companies would see the licensing issue as good PR and grant the licenses without any royalties.
> 
> I do understand the intellectual property issue though. I'm not sure what models aren't licensed though: the Italeri example is licensed.
> 
> What major model manufacturer isn't getting licenses for recreating a subject? Is Revell of Germany not getting licenses? Should the chinese companies?



If they didn't want the cash they wouldn't be asking for royalty rights. This is another example of "lets find every single way we can to generate $$$" I agree that these vehicles were funded via tax dollars, so should be public domain for modeling. It's not like I am selling 500 F-16's to Zaire for their Air Defense! I'm pretty sure they big boys still have the corner on that niche market.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Okay, liscencing is going to be a nail in the coffin of the model industry.

How many of us have bought how many Star Trek kits last year? Please don't go on about the RC2 buyout. That's not the point at all. RC2 is selling Lucas product now, and I know for a fact that Lucasfilm's liscence costs are far above and beyond anything or anyone else out there. For Episode I, it was a cool million on the table just to TALK about liscencing. The liscence percentage was on unit sold, and when we got most of the Episode I crap returned by WalMart, you can bet we didn't get one penny back from Lucas for our unsold product. But, hey, RC2 thinks the liscence fees from Lucas are well worth it. Apparently, so does Revell and Fine Molds.

The blood-sucking lawyer is correct. Liscence fees are a simple reality of the business. Boeing may have been tax-funded, but they paid their engineers to design, build, and make them fly. Intellectual rights must exist, or there would be no reason for competition in the military machine industry. Boeing builds a better product than Lockheed-Martin or vice versa, and that design belongs to BOEING.

Yes, it would be nice (I say this in my position at a model company that has to pay royalties and liscence fees) to have free access to tax-funded projects. But let me ask this: if we make a kit of a government funded missile (as we have done), is our replica of a tax-funded project subject to copyright laws, or is it free game since the original design was on public money? Are we making money using this likeness at the expense of the government funded company?

Liscencing protects the rights of both parties involved. We get access to the images, names, and likenesses of a popular subject on which we will make a profit because of that likeness. We are guaranteed production rights to use that likeness and name without being served a C&D for, in essence, stealing the property.

note: I accept the necessity of lawyers, and even like a few. Since I work for a manufacturer of HOBBY GRADE EXPLOSIVES, it's great to have that team of lawyers keeping us in business every day.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm only a blood-sucking proto-lawyer. Talk to me again this time next year... :tongue:

Licensing is always a tricky issue - and it depends a lot on whether or not the modeling industry is seen as a good promotion of their product (as is, from what I understand, often the case in the automotive industry), or just another way to bring in a bit of pocket change. IP is a crazy area of the law these days.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Glad you got the joke.

"I bring you down here to defend me, and the only one on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!"

...that's an easy one. Anyone?


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Folks LIKE an item and would enjoy having a model of it to display. 
A company would like to produce multiple copies of a model of the item that people like. A realistic fee to the owners of the original would be no problem. 

Lawyers should not be involved to the degree they have foisted themselves into everyday life. The "Lawmakers" are by and large lawyers themselves, and should be doing their part to make it so freelance scumbucket lawyers don't take advantage of us who just want a toy on our desk. These same politicians should be protecting us from unreasonable fees and costs because of lawyers. in short, lawyers cost everybody!

As an aside - All model building I do for lawyers is 5 times more than I charge others for the same exact thing. This is how I get back. They don't HAVE to have a model built by me, but if they WANT one, THEY PAY! same for most other high priced professionals.


The companies who DON'T want models made of their products (Union Pacific etc) will soon be forgotten for what they've done in the past. What are they thinking?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Good points!

There are some subjects which will be hot sellers like most of the_ Star Trek_ and _Star Wars_ lines but good gosh when companies are faced with getting charged with possibly huge licensing fees for more mudane subjects that model-makers buy but not in super-huge quantities, those models will cease to exist.

In the case of a military jet paid for completely with taxpayer money, it kind o' sticks in my craw that Boeing and others will be getting paid for free advertising for THEM and that I have to pay even MORE money to Boeing for a model of a aircraft program that I as a taxpayer in part OWN! As far as I'm concerned, Boeing and other companies get the _benefit _of the taxpayer and stay in business at least partly due to a _government commissioned _work.  

They may have the intellectual property license to the point they keep other _aircraft manufacturers_ from replicating their work in full scale (which is what patents and copyrights are really all about) but a plastic model does nothing to COMPETE with them and indeed HELPS them in all probability.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I guess the way to ruin the positive side of licensing is to take a Boeing 757 model or somesuch and do a diorama of one crashlanded on the runway, still in demonstrator colors or something.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Hal Bierman said:


> Glad you got the joke.
> 
> "I bring you down here to defend me, and the only one on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!"
> 
> ...that's an easy one. Anyone?


 Jurassic Park... One of the better lines in the movie!

It's a close second to "That's a big pile of sh*t....."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Jurassic Park... One of the better lines in the movie!
> 
> It's a close second to "That's a big pile of sh*t....."


 Which I started to laugh at until I realized that the pile was a lot taller than the belly of a triceratops, and a lot more voluminous than its colon could be. I had a reality moment intrude on my movie. It was Spielberg's fault for overdoing the doody-pile. Sometimes ya gotta know when to pull back on a joke to make it work.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Maybe it used the same spot every time to keep the area neat, 
and it just built up.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CaptFrank said:


> Maybe it used the same spot every time to keep the area neat,
> and it just built up.


 Until the pile was actually twice as tall as the distance between the ground and its ass. What, did it have a step-stool?  back atya.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Maybe it sat in a tree...?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Until the pile was actually twice as tall as the distance between the ground and its ass. What, did it have a step-stool?  back atya.


I think the pile o' stool was originally in scale with the beast but that _little _beasties (micro-organisms) got to work within the pile and caused it to swell several times its original size. :freak:


----------



## pilotman (Oct 3, 2005)

*dodo*

:lol: I just had coffee come out my nose, now I have coffee and bogers to clean of my keyboard. thanks, this thread was getting way to serious.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

pilotman said:


> :lol: I just had coffee come out my nose, now I have coffee and bogers to clean of my keyboard. thanks, this thread was getting way to serious.


Coffee and Boogers.. what a combination. I could be Cretaceous Dung Beetles (the size of Volkswagon Beetles...) making an all you can eat buffet?


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Maybe it was a Jiraffasaur pile?


----------

