SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

MODELS and SOCIETY,S INTERFERENCE

834 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
Posted by ajlafleche on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:43 AM

Speaking of Harley and copyright/trademark issues, in the mid 90's, they attempted to trademark the sound of their exhaust but dropped the case in 2000 .

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Remember, if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Neenah, WI
Posted by HawkeyeHobbies on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:04 AM

Mfrs have gone as far as to trademark the shape of their products. If it even resembles their product they will now go after those who used it without permission!  Even when a model manufacturer leaves off the logo on the hood of a truck, the shape of the grill can now cause them grief due to this new trend to trademark shapes.

Thanks Chrysler for starting this with your Jeep grill.  General Dynamics has even sought to do it with the shape of the F-16's outline!

There are those out there trademarking words and commonly used phrases. I kid you not, my wife wrote a business piece and using technology to search for said words, the holder of a commonly used phrase demanded that we either remove it or pay a license fee to use it.

Gerald "Hawkeye" Voigt

http://hawkeyes-squawkbox.com/

 

 

"Its not the workbench that makes the model, it is the modeler at the workbench."

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM

Even the recent release of the 70 plus year old Opel Blitz truck by Tamiya was affected...nothing on the box reads "Opel Blitz" and the logo is misspelled on the model... 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Neenah, WI
Posted by HawkeyeHobbies on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:37 AM

The biggest reason you don't see such logos included in or on the model kits we build is its a different generation at the helm of these companies who own the brand. The sense of entitlement of what is ours is ours and only ours and anyone who wants to use it, must pay for said permission and use it as we say.

The holders/owners of such brands have been conditioned that this is the way businesses do things in today's market. Except they often don't understand the missed marketing opportunities that they could have by the restrictions and fees they demand.

A good example of how a company can make more from their branding than their products is to look at such companies as Harley Davidson. Even during their most dismal years of motorcycle sales, their brand sales were soaring. Anything bearing their brand and trademark was something consumers wanted.

Another example is when the TV show American Chopper came about, though the show quickly gained an audience, they (the Tuttles) quickly branded themselves and took steps to put that brand on clothing and other things. Even before the show was popular, little boutique shops started popping up in places where motorcycles and the show wasn't even a popular thing, yet the consumers had to have these products because they were fashionable. This is where the money came from which made as Senior said...made Junior a millionaire.

During my years as a kid, more of the brands which we are talking about were on the toys and such which, and here is where the missed opportunity exists, imprinting the brand onto the next generation of potential customers.Typically from what those in the industry tell me, the amount they end up paying for the license doesn't cover the attorney's fee of the brand owner to process the application.

 

Gerald "Hawkeye" Voigt

http://hawkeyes-squawkbox.com/

 

 

"Its not the workbench that makes the model, it is the modeler at the workbench."

  • Member since
    August 2008
Posted by tankerbuilder on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:48 AM

I do agree about the beer and tobacco thing.What I never understood was pulling the boat when there might,ve been a non-Tobacco or Beer sponsor willing to take up the slack. Although I must say this. "MISS BUDWEISER" was a winner more than once. I have now, been TOBACCO free twenty eight days.I started on the darned things when I was twelve and now i am sixty eight. To many years and to much money wasted. I learned though , stubborn as I am .Good point though, It,s an insidous addiction that messes up your health and makes everything smell like a barroom. Haven,t had a drink for five years now either! I do agree about the bans of the sale of these things to minors.Why can,t we just get it with a different sponsor and I do miss the FIRESTONE and MICHELIN logos on my model car tires too!         TANKERbuilder

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
Posted by ajlafleche on Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:17 AM

The courts and government responded to the demands of the owners of the brand names which are copyrighted. have you noticed that some entertainers have a copyright mark next to their names? The pro sports teams work hard to keep counterfeit products off the street. The logo belongs to them, they get the profits from their use/display, not someone using the logo. There was a news article on TV about how many terms the NFL copyrighted in reference to the SuperBowl, restricting the local pub owner form using these terms to promote his/her busines on Super Bowl Sunday.

Since every sponsor wanted his or her pound of flesh for use of a decal on a 1/24 NASCAR vehicle, and Ford or Chevy wanted their cut as well, down went the likelihood of accurate NASCAR models.

Some tire companies did the same, so the molding on the sidewalls get mispelled.

As far as beer and tobacco sponsorships, two things converged. One was the logo/copyright issue noted above and the belief that our hobby is aimed primarily at children. Parents felt that any representation of a beer logo constitutes advertising/promotion of the product and these were initially banned form schools, creating a strange situation that would have precluded a high school student from wearing a t-shirt earned at a Natural Light Half Marathon to school. Eventually, to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol by minors, a good thing, logos from these products were banned from "toys" and products aimed at children.

s

Remember, if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:16 AM

Times have changed. At first, putting brand names on other products was a form of free adverstising. Get the name out on all sorts of items to build brand recognition. It's good for business.

Once the name becomes "known", the brand name itself becomes valuable. For example, when Revell and Monogram merged to become Revell-Monogram, the Monogram name was eventually dropped even though Revell was actually absorbed by Monogram because Revell was a more internationally recognized modeling name brand because of the success of Revell of Germany.

Much like mainstream products like beer, soda, transport companies, their names become valuable. Once the name itself is worth money, then they become more protective of their label so it only goes on items they approve of. They also can charge a company to put the name on the merchandise and get both free advertising and make money by letting that company use their logo.

As far as beer and cigarettes on models go, that was more of a law and push by Congress not to market to children. As a parent of six children, I'm glad they didn't get exposed to Joe Camel or think that they needed to drink beer and smoke cigarettes to be cool.

  • Member since
    August 2008
MODELS and SOCIETY,S INTERFERENCE
Posted by tankerbuilder on Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:06 AM

This hit me while I was doing some E-Mailing this A.M. There are instances where I can understand the interference of the courts in our little world . Now, that doesn,t mean I agree with what they,ve done.

The points made sometimes were valid. I as a manufacturer for instance, would insist on a royalty fee for my product after approval by the folks who have designed and engineered it for me.That way I could make sure you are getting the best representation of my product for your money. I would NOT ask for that if the GOVERNMENT (taxpayers) paid for the product. Why? Well, the name of my product would be everywhere for free, so it,s moot to me.

Now ,there are drawbacks here too. the big for-instance is the decals in a kit .We,ve lost some good kits because of some meddling by the folks who try and sometimes succeed in making rules that ruin the hobby.

Here,s a for-instance.Years ago the model stock cars and racing boats (remember  the boat ,( " MISS BUDWEISER "? ) had beer and tobacco sponsor decals. I don,t think I,ve met even one modeler that got drunk thinking about getting drunk or even bought the product because of the model. Do you? anyway , my twelve year old didn,t buy or get beer or cigarettes because of the names being on the product !

That action immediately caused those products to be pulled from the shelves everywhere. Now , I can,t even find that boat ! If I did it would be priced so high( with original BUDWEISER livery) that I couldn,t afford it anyway.That,s wrong in my opinion. Why didn,t A.M.T. and the rest , just get WORLD WIDE MOVING or MAYFLOWER to be agreeable to putting their name in decal form and then bringing the boat back out.They did sponsor those type boats and cars too.

Well , there,s my rant for today. Take care and I,ll catchya later.   TANKERbuilder

 

 

 

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.