why are we payin so much!?!!?!

Lets see you design and build lets say your OWN custom car, than Tamiya/Hot Wheelsg makes a Model of it and releases it and it becomes a HUUGE Seller and Tamiya/Hot Wheels make the bucks in a big way.

How will that make you feel?? Proud that someone else gets rich of YOUR hard work??

The reality in life is that royalties for using a copyright image or design often IS the major income for a company like DC Comics, Honda, etc.

Reproducing a companies OWNED stuff without their permission and paying royalties is pirating and copyright infringements.

Said that in why do you think that some companies CAN produce outstadning Kits like Tamiya, etc. because they work together with the manufacturer and spend a LOT of time in their private archives to research details, etc.

Tamiya at times gets the ORIGINAL product on their workshop floor and will work of that in Kit production.

It's one thing to work together with Ford or Ferrari but when you start talking about military aircraft and vehicles it's a whole other animal! We as taxpayers already pay for them to be built and now we have to pay another time for us to build scale models of them!
It's not that I'm cheap or anything but that's going too far.

QUOTE: Originally posted by balta1 It's one thing to work together with Ford or Ferrari but when you start talking about military aircraft and vehicles it's a whole other animal! We as taxpayers already pay for them to be built and now we have to pay another time for us to build scale models of them! It's not that I'm cheap or anything but that's going too far.

So Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, McDonnelDouglas, Lockheed, and so on have to give their patents and copyrights away freely.
Plus, many of the models that people want to build don't come from their own country(Tigers, Zero's, Lav-25(swiss),etc). So guys in those countries have to pay in order that you can build a model.

Doen't matter what the subject matter is someone OWNS that design and the rights to it, and he should be entitled to charge for the use of that design.
Agreed??

model museum, i understand your point. on some occasions, i can understnad requiring to pay a royalty. like you said, they often allow companies like tamiya or hasegawa, or revell to look into their archives and such. that i can understand paying for. but it doesn't have to be huge or ridiculously high price like with other products that carry their company logo.

i think now that i was a little too one sided when i posted before. these are models though, its not someone elses product like real NASCAR vehicles, or show blimps, or whatever. those vehicles are a ligitemate business, which generally, a model builder isn't. i can understand toys and all for movies. those things have something to do with their subjects, and its the movies that created those subjects. but (im just guessing here, dont mean to offend anyone) the model builder probably wouldn't care if the subject had home depot on it or some other logo. they just want to build the subject because of the opperator, or its a cool lookin build, or its won fame somehow.

the builder is just building for enjoyment. but with companies making model manufacturers pay huge royalties, its like making us promote their product by necessity. we become part of their publicity plan, whether we like it or not. and worse yet, we have to pay to produce their billboards with it. that just ticks me off.

balta1, exactly, heres what i mean. thats just what im against. we pay for their 1/1 scale product in the first place. if anyone is looking to buy it, then they'd be lookning at the real thing, not a plastic kit of it made by someone with no connections to the comapny whatsoever.

i like this. who else would like to discuss this topic? I think its important for our hobby. prices of models could kill it if they keep going up like this. please post your opinion, we could all benefit from it....

gringe88.

I agree with you that the modeler does not care what it is called or what logo is on it, at the same time I have seen companies go under because too many "unlicenced" copies of their products were produced.
The problem is a legal issue and NOT a model/hobby related issue.

I have been to Model shows where lawyers for companies like Marvel, DC Comics, Paramount, etc were walking around and handing out "C&D(Cease & Desist) orders" to dealers that had no agreement with them for producing kits based on their designs.

It is a problem and a discussion that has existed for years with no results so far.

If you think licensing fees are bad news, wait till you see what the price of oil is gonna do to the price of kits. Almost killed the Plastic Kit Hobby Industry back in the 70's.

Regards, Rick

If you build a 747 with Delta or TWA markings, why pay them to use their logo. It is a form of advertising. Who is going to benefit from having the kit in your own collection.

Years ago, airline companies used to allow their logo to be used on models. Why they started charging model companies for using their logo is unknown. It should be the other way around. Pay the model companies to produce a kit with Delta or BOAC markings.

It isn't always the vehicles, but more the markings that they carry. I used to race R/C cars back in the early 90's. At that time one of the most popular stickers for the bodies were the Tide #17 that Darrell Waltrip raced. Tide forced the company that made the stickers to quit making them. Even though it was free advertising for Tide, they made the company take them off the market since they weren't getting paid royalties.

Even logos like Ford, Chevy, Ferrari, etc. are trademarked properties. It's an infringement on their trademark to reproduce them for profit.

Money talks and every company has their hand out these days. The days of using anything for free are long gone. I agree that it isn't right, but that's the way it is. Companies will spend millions on advertising campaigns, and then whine about losing a few thousand in royalties from something like this when they are getting free advertisement to boot.

QUOTE: I have been to Model shows where lawyers for companies like Marvel, DC Comics, Paramount, etc were walking around and handing out "C&D(Cease & Desist) orders" to dealers that had no agreement with them for producing kits based on their designs.

I don't think that you can compare entertainment companies to military contractors. If Boeing starts to produce and sell plastic models based of their designs then I do agree with handing out C&D's to vendors not set up to sell their products. For example; if I decide to start making full scale B-2 bombers in my backyard and sell them I should be served with a C&D.
Most C&D's are given to vendors because they are competing with licensed vendors.
Another example would be the most dreaded of all C&D's...The George Lucas C&D. Lucas made the Star Wars universe all up by himself without taxpayer money so he should get whatever he wants for his license.
This is my case and I stand by it. I don't mind paying more money for a quality product . If you're going to charge me just because you designed it but used my money to fund the project... I say to you there is something wrong!!
Cost is only an issue in the absence of value!

QUOTE: Originally posted by balta1 This is my case and I stand by it. I don't mind paying more money for a quality product . If you're going to charge me just because you designed it but used my money to fund the project... I say to you there is something wrong!! Cost is only an issue in the absence of value!

I still don't fully get your point. How was lets say the F-22 funded by the tax-payers money??

Always thought companies competed with THEIR designs & research paid for by them for the right to produce a Fighter, Tank, Bomber, etc.
You giving you taxes to those companies or your goverment??

Can you explain to me how your taxes pay for the development of a fighter jet or similar.

Look up the RAH-66 Comanche project.

QUOTE: Originally posted by balta1 Look up the RAH-66 Comanche project.

Ok, will do so. still abit confused what the real fuss is.

I am NOT american and thus do not pay US taxes, you I reckon are and thus have NOT paid German, Japanese, etc taxes.
Yet, we both can build models of each others stuff.

How about stuff that was build for WW II, etc very few modelers today paid taxes for those as they often were born after the equipment was already in use?
So how does that affect the issue at hand??

It still does not address the OWNERSHIP of those designs and the associated copyright issues. Who OWNS the plans & designs for the Comanche, Tiger I, F-14, Zero, etc??

QUOTE: It still does not address the OWNERSHIP of those designs and the associated copyright issues. Who OWNS the plans & designs for the Comanche, Tiger I, F-14, Zero, etc??

It gets a bit confusing when governments are involved. The company actually owns the rights to the design, but the government decides what they can and cannot do with them. For example, a new fighter and all its associated systems might be designed for the government and then the government cancels the contract. The company can't just start building them and selling them to anyone who wants to buy them.

Additionally, the design and development costs for the prototypes are always recouped during production. If it costs $100,000,000 to design a prototype and the government orders 1000 copies, each one will have a big chunk of the development costs included in the price tag. So, in effect the tax payers DO wind up paying for the development in the long run.

MusicCity.

I understand that the development costs are part of the purchase price, same with any good you purchase.
Buy a Toyota and you pay for the development that happened in Japan.
Buy a Zippo lighter and a share of the money goes to IMCO to pay for the use of their patent/licence.

For me the point is still that the "licence holder" may it be Ford, NASA or the US goverment+Contractor controls how much they will charge and how people can represent their property(Kits, Die-casts, Toys, etc).
Not a question of fair, right or wrong.

It's simply the way business is conducted.

It may be the way business is conducted, but it is getting out of control.
While companies are protecting their rights the are getting richer, I don't mind them a profit but how much do they need to make.
When the Russians made their Space Shuttle, they got the plans from the public domain, meaning the government published them. They didn't pay a cent for them. Now if a model company wants to due a model of the shuttle, they have to get permission from every contractor and they only agree when they get their cut.
Something isn't right.
John

I’m not going to defend or condemn either position, but just wanted to offer some insight on a growing issue across the modeling industry. Licensing is a becoming an increasingly large part of the business world – everyone from Coke to McDonald’s to Ford to Boeing place a great deal of emphasis on their corporate image. Companies certainly do seem to be taking advantage of their intellectual property to build new revenue streams, but they are also quite concerned about how, where, and when their logo, designs, and images are portrayed.

Our sister publication, Model Railroader, is hearing quite a bit on both sides of the licensing argument. Here’s a link to an article on Trains.com that you may find interesting: http://www.trains.com/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/003/752uuuqt.asp

So while increasing the bottom line is certainly part of the motivation behind the licensing, protecting and preserving a corporate identity is equally important.

I can't hope to have any definitive input on this argument, but just as has been pointed out above, company image has a lot to do with licensing. Most public domain companies rely on a certain image, and wish to keep this image in it's original integrity. Licensing is one way of making sure that your product is going to be represented in a way that is acceptable to your company.
Having said that, I'm not certain how that can apply to companies, or more specifically, military vehicles that really have very little to do with public image and where a consistant and accurate representation may not be of an interest to the company. At this point, what other conclusion besides the 'bottom-line' can you draw?

Thanks all for replying and adding your opinion to this debate.

In re-response, i can understnad a company's concern for its image. thats what many companys are wholly built on. As Paul Schimdt said in that article in MR: " The company says the campaign has increased UP’s visibility and the potential for harmful trademark infringement. Unlicensed use of UP’s logos “had gotten out of hand,” said spokesman John Bromley. " (BTW, thanks Michael Ellis for bringing this article to attention.)
However, UP's representative also said that: " “This is not a money-making scheme,” Bromley said. “The fees are just to make sure that the logos are being used correctly.” "

there you have it. i can understand and maybe commend when a company asks for royalties on these basises, merely to protect their right t their name and image, but when they do it solely for the purpose of greed and financial gain, then i have a problem. if these companies are getting their whole profit out of royalties, then perhaps they should look at their product, and ask why it isn't making as much....

Music City- that's just what i was getting at before. you were able to back it up tho with some info. companies involved in work building weapons for the military are already being paid by the taxpayers, indirectly yes but still.

also, i some of you have said that image is something that companies try to protect tenaciously. but what about the mud and dirt they throw on each other, and what about that part in the constitution stating freedom of speech?? should we not be allowed to say as we please about companies. now, yes what would a modeler have to say about a particular company, other than it built this aircraft, or that car, or it sponsored this, good or bad? if the modeler is pointing out something that the comapny did wrong, and it is already public knowledge, (let's just say a faulty part in an engine which caused a crash) and specicifally points out that it was this part, and everyone knows who built it, then why are companies getting into such a fuss? everyone already knows, its not like its breaking news. really, whats the fuss?

It seems pretty straightforward to me, and a lot of the problem traces back to the fact that modelers prefer to build an EXACT replica of a 1:1 prototype. Someone usually owns the rights to that prototype's design, decoration, logos, etc, and they know that without their permission to use the design the model companies would have nothing to sell.

It would be different if we were willing to build something that's only sort of like the real thing. Consider building a P-52, or a #3.1 Earnhardt racer. If a model was clearly distinguishable from the prototype then I don't think the model companies would have to pay a royalty. However, to most modelers, myself included, the fun part of the hobby is building a miniature replica that appears to be as much like the real thing as possible. Otherwise, it's just a toy and not a model.

So put yourself in the royalty holder's shoes. If you owned something that another company had to have to make their product, wouldn't you sell it for as much as you could get? I mean, prices keep going up and we keep paying them. Evidently we haven't hit the point of diminishing returns. The fact that companies also get free display of their logos, etc, is just icing on the cake, though I suspect the extra soap sales Tide realizes from their NASCAR model logos only amounts to about 0.0000001%

QUOTE: Originally posted by gringe88 Music City- that's just what i was getting at before. you were able to back it up tho with some info. companies involved in work building weapons for the military are already being paid by the taxpayers, indirectly yes but still.

If that is the case than we need to appy the rule to ANYTHING bought with taxpayers money like police cars, fire engines, ambulances, etc.

I did not read this article, but would tend to disagree with it in that royalties drive the price up. Many companies set up licensing agreements in that the license holder will get a % of segmented profit so that it never becomes an expense to the model manufacturer. Although royalties are factored into the selling price, they would account for a very small precentage. What drives the price of a kit is the cost of materials, the initial ammortization of tooling, and supply and demand. Remember when the Revell Uboat first came out, it was $50 bucks and sold out, then the next prices were $75 to $100, then when inventories came back up, you can now get it for around $50.

Import tarrifs and taxes are another big factor, again why a Revell Germany F4 is 25% higher than the same kit from the US.

We as modelers set the price for models. I'm willing to pay 30% to 75% more for a model with clean molds, accurate details, custom PE, and imported from a small factory in the Swiss Alps, then I will expect to pay $150.00 verses a dime store model for $1.50.

I think we modelers are evolving into a highly technical, detailed oriented, quality driven society that will pay for what we expect, and that is why we are seeing more models that are $100.00 verses models on the discount store shelf for $1.50.

off my


Scott

model museum,
i suppose you're right. actually, yes, i agree with you whole heartedly in this idea. they too are paid for by taxpayers, just as military vehicles are. the thing is though, i haven't seen that many rescue vehicles fire trucks, or ambulence kits out there. im sure they're there, but they just aren't as big a seller as other cars and categories of models.

personally, and now im not a car modeler, i wouldnt mind seeing some more fire and rescue kits in the market. car models alwasy seem to have been dominated by the racers, and the oldies, and some new stuff. no one seems to build realistic cars. you know, like the ones with melt-away-steel, or dirty, or filled with kiddy toys and a car seat or two. the same goes for fire and rescue vehicles. wooops, sorry.... [#offtopic

scottrc. your right about how we as a modeling community are becoming more techinically oriented, and willing to pay higher prices for better quality. but some things are just getting out of hand. kits are becoming so pricey, that id rather just say the with it, and buy an older kit to detail myself. detail sets are also getting up there. but with the greater influx of them intot he market, and the fact that ( at least i dont thinl) they dont have to deal with liscencing problems and such, im guessing that over time their prices will go down. i dont know. NEways....

the retooling and taxes and cost for materials and such are also adding to the cost yes, but those have always been something ot keep in mind. and besides, those are issues that affect everyone in the U.S. (mostly). these licenscing problems though aren't necessarily necessary. as ive said before, licenscing is useful, perhaps required, for a company wishing to protect itself and its name, even when comapnies are getting free advertising for their product on models, they're still asking for more dough. that just ticks me off. modeling isnt the biggest source of money for them in the world of liscencing, i gaurentee it. they've just become outrageously greedy. in my view, corporations seem to be resembling the big monopolies of the earlier half of the 20th century.

QUOTE: Originally posted by gringe88 no one seems to build realistic cars. you know, like the ones with melt-away-steel, or dirty, or filled with kiddy toys and a car seat or two. the same goes for fire and rescue vehicles. wooops, sorry....

Actually look at Fujimi they got a few accessory packs with 1/24 teddy bear, etc.

But agreed I also would like to see less of the showroom-floor type builds and more like a car I see on the road i.e. faded colour, less gloss and slightly dirty or even a rust spot or two.

Revell Germany did a few nice kits of european style fire ambulances.

well while not a popular reply, here it goes:

Recently at work (I am a Network Administrator) we got into some copyright issues. Not within our department, but another department wanting info on what consitutes copyright infingement...

It all boils down to "fair and reasonable use"

Basically as it applies to us, the modeller... we are more than free to create an exact 1/25 replica of a coke can, or bag of doritos, or britney spear's head... as long as it is for our own enjoyment, an educational project (teaching a group of modellers to mold the 3 foot 1/25 model of Britney Spears head) or simply because we want to. reasonable use being the catch word... it is for our OWN enjoyment... we can whittle, vacuform, cast, or scratchbuild as many of these things we want... even have them on our mantlepiece so visitors to our house can see them!

Now when I put that 1/25 Coke can in an IPMS competition, potentially viewed by many people is when it goes outside that domain... it is representing something to a group about the company...

Ok bear with me... second scenario... I decide my coke can is marketable... I want to produce this model so everyone can enjoy building "the Real Thing" ... suddenly I am flooded with calls about my product, several hundred, several thousand around the world want to buy my product... I decide to charge for the plans/kit... this is when it goes out of the realm of "reasonable use" again... I am making a profit representing a companies product, they, who researched, built, marketed and produced this product don't make a dime... I am exploiting their product for personal gain... making money on an idea that wasn't mine..

Now I agree with a lot of what was said here.... but if I whittled an exact replica of something that hasn't been done before... say a SciFi spacecraft of my own invention... and then I make some money off of selling the block of wood and pocket knife along with instructions... and suddenly I visit the SciFi forum here and notice someone mentioning "you can buy the Tom MkIII Obliterator at Joe's models" and go and look and BAM!!! there's my model... I'm gonna be upset!!!! someone is making money off of my work! I drew this out from a vision I had while smoking Peyote buds in the mojave desert!!!! how dare they!

I agree military craft should not be a licensing issue... the designs, the hardware, the craft I think (ok mabe not the designs) owned by the government... not the company... only the intellectual rights may be theirs... but essentially because the government owns the rights to that craft, I do too as the goverment is employed by me...

But as far as PanAm, Boeing etc... (ducking tomatoes thrown at me) they have the right under law to enforce the copyright... and the licensing fee really is not on us... it's on the model companies... who venture outside 'fair and reasonable use' and therefore must pay royalties, by selling the product representing their trademark... and of course they pass it along to us...

Yeah it stinks, but in the end, it's like gas prices, we do what we gotta do to get where we gotta go.

Military vehicles, like police cars etc, are purchased from a commercial company with tax payer money. That is the extent of ownership. They are end users. The product identity, trademarks and copyrights are still owned by the commercial company. Though it may be the army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle, (that is their designator for it.) United Defense (the mfr, of the Bradley) still owns it, commercially mfr's it for the DoD and retains the rights. The DoD does not mfr, its own products. And essentially contacts these coporations to design and build a specific product and then purchases them. Hence bidding out contracts. Which is why its not the Army selling Patriot missiles to other countries but Lockheed/Martin. Much as the Florida Highway Patrol purchases Ford Mustangs or Chevrolet Corvettes and so does the NYHP or CHP. The licensing still remains with the producing company as intellectual and design property and the DoD or end user only has rights of usage, not rights of ownership of the design. (Unless transfer of ownership is a stipulation of the contract.) Pony up the right amount of money and stay within the laws regarding weaponry and you too could own a APC that looks just like a Bradley and have a purple paint job with a yellow flame package. They just won't let you call it a Bradley. Its why the army has Humvees and you can buy a Hummer. With what ever options that are not part of the license issued to the DoD and stipulated as their exclusive property. Your tax money does not stipulate a public domain for licensing but is part of a budget allocated to the DoD for maintaining its presence. Commercial mfr's budget proposal fees and design costs based upon the eventual contract for so many vehicles. A sort of corporate gamble. Therefore they still own the rights to the Bradley and its design. If the army upgrades and changes contracts then United Defense may sell it to Argentina or a future Iraq as something different.

Prices will continue to rise along with everything else. Rising fuel costs for shipping, production costs, marketing, tariffs, inflation, market supply and demand all add to the increasing costs of this hobby. The exploitation of 3rd world countries is slowing down and even these 3rd world workers are getting smarter and more savvy. To open up trade agreeements with certain countries, a level of fair trade pratices has to be established. i.e. We no longer mfr. alot here in this country any more. Thus we have become dependent on others to do it for us. Well as the world becomes smaller, folks that worked for .50 a day now are smart enough to ask for $1 a day. Revell or Nike wants to maintain its bottom line so......they charge more. Various labor unions or world trade organizers or even our own govt. may stipulate that certain standards have to be met before we will allow import of those products, all adding to the cost of mfr'ing. Then there are security issues, that pesky monthly coupe d' etate to reshuffle the players and viola, that $15 kit just became a $50 kit. Sadly as minimum wage goes up so does everything else. So that $50 kit today is the same as that $15 kit 20 years ago. Helk even Greenspan said today that the rising oil prices are no more alarming than they were back in the 70's and that the economy was at a level commensurate with the increase and could easily absorb the increase without a panic. So, its the same as it was 20 years ago, the numbers only look different.

On the other hand, in short, the reason we pay so much? Is its still the most bang for your buck and even a junky will sell his blood and or sister for a fix.

tho9900- you can say whatever you want about the subject, ithis isn't a one-sided forum. please go ahead and speack your mind.

renarts- if waht you say is true, and im not sayin it aint, then the real problem we're facing is inflation, and thats a whole nother ball park...

oh I know Gringe... I was just getting ready for the scowls when I said some of that though... taking the more expensive viewpoint doesn't always make you popular...

It's all good...

Ok I was out at the model shop this weekend, (I'd call it a hobby store but he only had models and nothing else) and was looking at the kits when I noticed something...

part of the price of the models is the quality of the kit you pay for... yes I think they are inflated as well, but a Tamiya or Hasegawa kit ran about 40 dollars, a classic airframes, with the PE and Resin right in the box about 50 to 60 dollars, Revell-o-Gram, about 8 to 25 dollars... I just thought it a logical sequence that the ones I wanted to build were going to cost me $100.00 for both at the least... (these GB's are expensive!)

Like I said overall they are higher than I would like, but the ones that cost more were both bigger in scale (1/48 and above) and a lot of them came with PE, canopy masks and the like in the box...