SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Important: Please Read

6729 views
25 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: NJ 07073
Posted by archangel571 on Monday, August 7, 2006 11:10 AM
Sweet, that certainly closes the issue effectively, but... what about other countries' aircrafts or armors though?
-=Ryan=- Too many kits... so little free time. MadDocWorks
  • Member since
    November 2005
Good resolution!
Posted by T26E4 on Friday, June 2, 2006 12:10 AM
Everyone can put down the torches and pitchforks!!!

Here's a note that was sent to me by a modelling buddy on May 25.

"I wanted to give you an up date on the status of the "Military Toy Replica Act" bill. As we discussed at our recent club meeting, some US defense contractors wanted to charge model manufacturers a licensing fees. All this would do is increase the costs of the kits we buy and add to defense contractors' profits. As US citizen taxpayers, we already paid for the 1-to-1 vehicle once.
 
I was pleased that my district's House Representative, Thaddeus McCotter, was one of the 4 House Representatives who sponsored the bill (HR 4806) to prevent defense contractors from charging any licensing fee to model manufacturers.
 
Please see below (the email response from Thaddeus McCotter's office) that this bill was passed and barring any catastrophic turn around it will become a law. I've included my original email for your reference on the details.
 
Many thanks to all those who made the time to call and email their State representative. As I understand, the contact effort from one person represents 1500 silent people who would support the issue but don't make the contact. These people would provide their support in a vote (or their representative's re-election campaign) so there is value with making the contact with our political representatives.
 
A great victory for the modelers was achieved as well as keeping US military history alive and valued."


-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Manning, Alex" <Alex.Manning@mail.house.gov>
Subject: Military Toy Replica Act
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:20:57 +0000 

 

I just wanted to let you know the provisions in the Military Toy Replica Act (HR 4806) were included in the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Act, which was passed last week by the House.  The stand-alone bill is still active, but unless something very strange happens between now and the end of the year we expect the prohibition on defense contractors from charging fees for models will go into effect sometime this year without actually having to pass the bill.

 

If you have any questions, please let me know.

 

Thank you,

 

Alex Manning

Legislative Director

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11)

1632 Longworth House Office Building

202-225-8171



Roy Chow 

Join AMPS!

http://www.amps-armor.org

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 1, 2006 6:27 PM
What to do? Simple... pay more for your kits, scratchbuild or find a new hobby.
 
Theres no real way around it. Legally they are dead to rights in this licensing business, just ask Disney or Coca Cola about it. Same thing here, only now the legal suits have figured out what Disney has known all along and are trying to get there blood from the turnip.
 
All we can hope for is that the corporations that own these rights, dont try to extort so much tribute from the model manufacturers that the manufacturers have no choice but to drop that companies product or market it at a price so high no one will buy it. 
 
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:11 AM
No the "Likeness" card won't work. Look at the kit car industry that the manufacturer's (particularly Ferrari) managed to kill. They won in court and managed to close 90 percent of the kit car operations almost overnight.

And we can't count on our elected representatives as it is obvious that they count importance in votes and dollars and few worry about right and wrong. (witness all the screaming about eminent domain ruling & the total lack of action.)

No, this argument will  have to be decided in the courts. I suspect that if the large modeling manufacturers were really concerned about this, they would have formed a joint legal action force for fight it. Heck, it could even have a sliding scale of contributions so even us little guy builders could contribute to fight the cause. The ACLU manages to come up with the money to fight their battles. And there are A WHOLE BUNCH more people within the scale modeling world that would contribute than there are people that would even think about contributing to the ACLU.

Hey! there's a thought. I'd kick in $10 to fight this. I think most of you would too. Get all of the modeling publishers to kick in. And the manufacturers.... We could raise $20 million easy.

Wanna do something instead of just complain?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 6, 2005 10:40 PM
I suppose if necessay they(the model companies) could play the "likeness" card, in that they arent actually building a Boeing 747 or a Northopp whatchamhoosie, but simply a likeness, altered slightly enough for it to be considered a new/unique creation.

Sure, us modeler's wouldnt get to build the So-In-So's WhatCha'MaJigger, but we'd all know what it was supposed to be and we could sufficently customize it to be the actual thing.

I must state for the record one of the things I find lacking in the model industry is the innovation. Sure, there's tons of great kits of things that already exist, either in a real or sci-fi sense, but there's nothing thats, well, original. I see many lovely and fine kits of various things, but they're all "likenesses" of something else, I mean, how often do you see an "original model kit"?

Though, as far as liscensing goes, with the exception of military kits I do believe there is some sense in liscensing fees. I mean, sure Bandai is a huge comapny, but it had to get rights to build XXX Gundam from the Sotsu/Sunrise corp. I mean, technicly, my taxes paid for X battleship(or my grandparents taxes anyway, but Boeing has a point that it did some up with an original design.

So while I want the modeling community to live, there is some truth to the liscensing statements.
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Mexico
Posted by Antonio Lopez Oliver on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 2:28 PM
Sorry for Our Hobby!...but Busines are busines! And I'am sure about of Two Things; We have enough boxed kits to build for the rest of our Lives! So I let these legal things go to the limits! And second, at these days in Mexico my Country, the kits disapered from the Discount Stores Two Years Ago because the principal manufacturer went Bankrupcy!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 18, 2005 8:31 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by ipms40049

The real fact of the matter is, we as tax payers technically already pay for the licensing fee's.


We technically pay for everything! don't actualy mean anything though does it?
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: BOONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
Posted by ipms40049 on Monday, July 18, 2005 3:35 AM
The real fact of the matter is, we as tax payers technically already pay for the licensing fee's.
Pat Hensley Booneville, Ms "Thank you for being here and playing nice"...please do not drag sand outside the box ! CURRENT BUILD(s) Revell 1/72 U Boat VII C Tamiya Willys Jeep - for 2010 Nats Bronco's Staghound -for 2010 Nats Dragons M16 Multi gun carriage - for the 2020 Nats. LOL
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:01 PM
I'm stunned that a country that calls itself a world leader would even entertain such BS! I've contacted my mule in congress.
This stuff makes a mockery of the legal system, common sense should have stopped this, many,many $Ks ago!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:44 PM
I don't get it. It's an ad for the companies that build race-cars, airplanes, anything. It makes them more known- why charge for it? Especially when the income is so little compared to their real profile...
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:53 AM
I'm sure that the issue is more complicated than this and IMNAL, but it seems to me that the main purpose of Copyright and Trademark is to prevent others from profiting AT THE EXPENSE of the copyright holder. Downloading music off the internet does deny the artist money that they would collect had the music been purchased legally. But, I don't think that modelling denies revenue the defence contractors. A licencing fee, if it completely destroyed the hobby would eliminate the revenue stream anyway; with no postive effect for either the modeller or the contractor. It would also adversly affect small and medium sized business.

Another argument is that the model may somehow misrepresent the actual; portryaing the subject as more (or less) than it actually is (ie. harming the reputation of the full scale manufacturer). I doubt that when someone buys a model, that they think they are getting a cheap knock-off of the real thing. (Aside: I wonder, do cover bands have to pay royalties to the artists that they cover?)

I suppose that if modelling caused world peace to break out or if wars began to be fought with 1/35 tanks and 1/48 or 1/72 planes, the big companies might have a good argument. (Would a 1/72 air force even be able to attain air superiority over a 1/35 ground force?)

Banged Head [banghead]

  • Member since
    July 2013
Posted by DURR on Friday, April 1, 2005 11:25 AM
2 things i would like to say
1 i work at a job that requires us to mind federal copyright laws this law says 75 yrs is a copyright lifespan so i dont like what boeing and others are doing but i understand on their products made after 1930 anyway
2 decals
well you may not use a saturn logo from gm because it is only about 7-8 yrs old but
the logos of buick ,ford etc are over 75yr old and as for as the military decals the gov sets that up so it is public domain there
  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Fort Worth, TX
Posted by flippersdad on Monday, March 21, 2005 4:23 PM
Banged Head [banghead] Sigh. Free advertising for 40+ years, and now they want money. This is somewhat depressing, but lets write to our various congressmen and women in the hopes of saving the hobby. Keep this topic going - informed people do better in battles.
Cheers,
Eric
A great lie - "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help." Politics - Many blood sucking insects. Flying - Long periods of boredom puncuated by moments of stark terror.
  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Freeport, IL USA
Posted by cdclukey on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 11:04 AM
Thanks for the update, aj, I will contact my Congressman ASAP.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 28, 2005 12:54 PM
There has been an update posted to the IPMS/USA website. Go to http://www.ipmsusa.org/ and look for 'Future of the Hobby' near the bottom of the homepage.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 28, 2005 12:39 PM
Corporate greed knows no end. Perhaps we should find a way to lobby "OUR " representatives with the request that they stop subsidizing the corporations. However, we all know one thing about politicions, they will never listen to us as we do'nt have the money or the lawyers to compete with "El greedo" the master of all nations.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 7, 2005 6:13 PM
I agree completely, I'm not exactly a "well off" member of the modeling community, I've seen the prices shooting upward at an out of control rate! I have two suggestions.....
1) Keep complaining..... and I mean that, write letters, send emails, and let these people know what there doing is destroying the values and lessons modeling holds!

2) Scratch build everything!!!!! Now, I'm being sarcastic, but the only option if we don't stop this is to build it all yourself! I'm sure companies like evergreen styrene would love me saying that!

Well, write a letter, email someone, do something....... we can't let our prized and cherished hobby be destroyed!!!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:46 PM
Hey All,

I read this yesterday and it really burns me up. I'd really like to do something about it and wanted to swing an idea past everyone. I am thinking about creating a website where people can contribute or download letters to send to their congressmen and get more information on the subject.

If I went ahead and bought a domain, would anyone be up for helping me with content (sample letters, problem/resolution stuff)?

Let me know and I'll move ahead with the idea.

~ Garth
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Australia
Posted by Bandha Boy on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:24 AM
Perhaps we should be charging these entities for the not inconsiderable free marketing & promotion we provide for their brand names.

Trademarking of words considered to be in the public domain doesn't hold up in court, a number of cases have failed.

I'm wondering if the more historical aircraft etc would also be considered public domain. No corporation, for instance, can copyright the Battle of Britain & the inclusion of fighter names etc in that battle can't be restricted. (Are they going to burn all the history books in the world?) Many of the vehicle nicknames also aren't owned by the company & were implemented by the various military personell involved, so perhaps articles & kits will eventually just drop the other, more formal, names.
Carl
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 6, 2005 5:15 PM
This got me all worked up and I am writing to my congressman/woman. Thanks for the info and the direction to go.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posted by zokissima on Thursday, January 6, 2005 8:38 AM
This issue has been brought up more and more, in recent months. I sincerely hope that something is done about this, as it just seems like a completely ridiculous concept to me. But the greed of men is to be expected. However, I do not believe that this will spell the untimely doom of our beloved hobby. It is an established industry, and it would be a shock to me to see its quick abolishment over some such stupidity as this. You'd think a multi-billion dollar company could forgive a couple hundred thousand bucks for the sake of having their products advertised. But as I said, the greed of men is to be expected.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Medina, Ohio
Posted by wayne baker on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 11:32 AM
The local newspaper ran an article last week about Monster Cable, and the fact that they think they own the word 'monster'. They are going after anyone who uses the word in a title or name, even Disney for 'Monsters, Inc'. Anyone think of a common word we could trademark?

 I may get so drunk, I have to crawl home. But dammit, I'll crawl like a Marine.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Sunny Florida
Posted by renarts on Monday, January 3, 2005 9:45 PM
Thanks for the info. Pretty disapointing when it comes down to it. The sad thing is that its only a hop skip and a jump to the "intelectual property" umbrella to see what else falls under this precedent. In honesty, I don't know if it will help, considering both senate and congressional delegates and winners are deeply in the pockets of those same corporate mercenaries and thier lobbyists. The district candidates here on the space coast have a hand outstretched and an eye on the interests of those very same corporations, to make sure they have a space program to feed from. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, McDonnel Douglas, all rely heavily on congressional and senatorial support here so I'm sure one hand washes the other.

Although that is to say I'm not afraid of trying. Nothing ventured, nothing gained and at least I can say I tried or contributed.

It's a pretty ticklish situation though. Is it Mr. Cleavers intent that these corprotations that developed these icons get no compensation, or make the distinction that civilian use products be considered seperate from those military. In some cases there are dual usage products. ( I have to amusingly wonder if a class action lawsuit will be brought by these same corporations in the interest of protecting intelctual property, against the former Soviet Union, China and other countries that blatantly stole technology and its design aspect for thier own use or will they be satisfied with smaller businesses within an easy sphere of influence?) Where will the distinction fall and what is the limit to which compensation should be permitted. Intellectual property and its judication have always been a tough thing to tackle.
Mike "Imagination is the dye that colors our lives" Marcus Aurellius A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 3, 2005 7:23 PM
Licensing is already a reality in the model railroading world. Two railroads, I believe Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe, have entered into, or should I say imposed, licensing agreements for the production of kits and ready to run models of locomotives and rolling stock with their names and logos printed on them.

Ed.
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Belgium
Posted by DanCooper on Sunday, January 2, 2005 12:41 PM
Yes, I believe there was an article about this in FSM a couple of months ago.
It said that untill recently the millitary contractors hadn't charged licenses for their models, but that they were considerring doing so.

It could indeed mean the end of a lot of small model manufacterers, and, depending on how much those big companies want, even large manufacterers will be in trouble.
Remember a few years back, when even Tamiya didn't release any Ferrari kits ?

On the bench : Revell's 1/125 RV Calypso

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
Important: Please Read
Posted by ajlafleche on Sunday, January 2, 2005 12:20 PM
Those of you in IPMS may see this from your chapter contact or in your newsletters. Those of you unaffiliated may see it elsewhere. But you are seeing it here, too.

CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF YOUR HOBBY
By: Tom Cleaver

For the past several years, the scale model hobby has been under an assault that is powerful enough to lead to its complete destruction, though many participants are not aware of the problem.

I first became personally aware of this when I was hired to do a project for Revell-Monogram back in 1999. This involved getting some information on airplanes, so I decided to go to the source - the aircraft manufacturers - and ask for their material. When I called Northrop-Grumman, I was referred to the Legal Department, where a not-so-friendly attorney launched into a long and not-so-friendly discussion of how it was that the hobby industry was stealing the intellectual property of the companies by making unlicensed models of their trademarked products. After a few minutes of this, I decided to bail out of the conversation by claiming ignorance and the fact that I was in no position to influence the policies of Revell-Monogram. The next call was to Boeing, where I was quickly referred to the “licensing administrator,” whose conversation was limited to informing me that the licensing fee for obtaining the information was one and a half percent of anticipated profits from the line of models the project involved. I used the same parachute I had used at Northrop-Grumman.

My next call was to the executive at Revell-Monogram who had hired me, to ask just what in hell was going on. I learned that since at least the mid-1990s, companies like Boeing and Northrop-Grumman have been attempting to impose licensing fees on model companies, for the privilege of making “representations” of their “trademarked intellectual property,” i.e., the airplanes they produced.

Since I make my living by the sale of my intellectual property and have a general understanding of this issue, and most of you have never considered the question of copyright and trademark law, let me explain this situation, and what it means to you and your hobby.

Basically, since the outset of the hobby 50 years ago, the makers of model kits were free to design and construct replicas at will, providing playthings, toys, educational products and model kits to the public. The manufacturers of the original items - where they paid attention to the model industry at all - considered these items to be free advertising. Perhaps the fact that many of their employees (at least it was true in aerospace) also built models and were participants in the hobby meant that there were people in decision-making positions who had a personal stake in the continued existence of the hobby.

About 15 years ago, the corporate legal departments realized that all those car models represented a possible revenue stream, and that none of the makers of car kits was big enough to take on General Motors, Ford, or any of the others in a long-term legal battle over trademark infringement. In fact, the companies had a case, since their designs were their original products, and were identifiable and known to the public as Fords, Chevys, Caddies, etc. Thus, the auto companies decided to demand licensing and royalty payments from those making replicas of their cars and within a few years most makers of car replicas were licensed and paying those royalties.

This was followed by the train hobby, with various railroads demanding licensing for use of their logos and names on the cars, and in the area of race cars where even decal makers were required to obtain licenses to produce decals with company logos as seen on the cars.

In the case of the car model hobby, the production runs of mainstream kits are still sufficiently large that the licensing is affordable to the manufacturer. However, for the resin kit cottage industry, it was the kiss of death - nobody who was going to make 100 kits if the mold held out that long was in a position to meet the demands. Thus, you haven’t seen too many resin car models produced in the past ten years.

And just in case you were wondering, you have paid these licensing fees, since the cost was passed on by the manufacturer, and you haven’t built too many cars lately that are subjects the mainstream wouldn’t produce.

Starting since at least 1996, major aircraft makers have begun to jump on this bandwagon, and here is where the problem gets personal for those of us who frequent sites like Modeling Madness and build airplane models.

Companies like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Sikorsky and others are demanding licensing and royalty payments for military aircraft replicas. Not only that, but several Air Forces are now asking for licensing payments to make decals of their insignias!

The model kit industry argues in response that military equipment, including ships, tanks, aircraft and the like have all been paid for by public funds, i.e. the taxes we pay the U.S. Government. Given that these aircraft makers would certainly not be making these subjects without a government contract and a guarantee of a sale for every piece they make, they are not “proprietary,” particularly since an aviation historian can cite instances where a company designed something in response to a government request for proposals, and then lost the production contract to another company without recompense or where more than one company built the product at government direction without any payments being made to the original company. While the companies who built “Flying Fortresses,” “Liberators,” “Mustangs,” “Hellcats,” etc., may well have had significant input into the choice of name, the name was in the end designated by the government entity purchasing the aircraft, so the names cannot be privately trademarked.

Sounds reasonable to me, but then I’m not some 20-something drone in the back of the law library of the legal department at Boeing, with a student loan debt of $100,000 and a desperate need to gain favorable notice from the employer by economically justifying my existence.

The big model companies are fighting this and holding off the manufacturers by not answering the letters and phone calls, because even they don’t have the resources to make the kind of fight all the way up to the Supreme Court that it would take to legally establish this bit of common sense.

It doesn’t take an MBA to know what the result would be if Jules Bringuer were to pick up his phone some morning and hear a posh Brit accent say, “Mr. Bringuer, this is British Aerospace (owner of the “trademarks” for Hawker, Supermarine, Avro, deHavilland, Gloster, Sopwith, Blackburn, Westland, etc., etc.) and I am very sorry to tell you this, but you owe us $200,000 for all the kits you’ve illegally produced of our trademarked products.” Bye-bye Classic Airframes, MPM, Eduard, Roden and every other company in Eastern Europe.

So, what to do?

Mike Bass, who heads up Stevens International, the North American importer of Trumpeter kits (among others), has this past year taken up this cause with a letter-writing campaign to members of Congress. Mike has recently informed me that he has received a call from his representative, Congressman Robert Andrews, who has stated that he will take up this issue in the new Congress that takes office on January 20, 2005, and will undertake an investigation, and if necessary will offer legislation ending the licensing of these public-domain subjects.

Folks, this isn’t a left/right, liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat issue. It’s our ox that’s being gored by these Corporate Bulls!

You can play an active role in stopping this in its tracks. Of the thousands of daily visitors to Modeling Madness, a majority of them seem to be from the United States. That’s a lot of American modelers whose enjoyment of this hobby is at risk if this attempt by the aircraft manufacturers is successful.

What can you do? You can write Mike’s congressman at this address:

Congressman Robert Andrews
2439 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Trust me, if he gets thousands of letters from modelers in the United States asking him to take action, Action Will Be Taken.

And you can also write your congress-critter and tell them about this problem - let them know your concern for the future of this hobby and the continued good fortune of all those independent entrepreneurs running hobby shops and mail order companies and decal-makers and aftermarket companies and their employees who would be put out of their jobs, and all the points made above in the argument against licensing.

If you don’t know which critter is yours, go to http://www.house.gov/

Type in your Zip+4, and you will get your Congressman’s name and office address and office telephone number. If you’ve got an unlimited domestic long distance phone deal, call the Congressman’s office and talk to one of the staff - they pay attention to people who call. Send the Congressman or woman a letter. Trust me on this, when a Congressman gets thousands of letters in support of a particular issue, they sit up and take notice. When those are thousands of different letters, i.e., not “ditto” letters from some special interest campaign, they take even more notice.

Be sure to cc: Congressman Andrews, so he and his staff will know who else in the House knows. Be sure to call or write your Senators, too.

This one isn’t hard: you’re asking them to defend small business, individual entrepreneurship, and the right of the people of the United States to have the full enjoyment of the property rights they have bought and paid for.

And yes, do tell all your modeling friends who don’t come to Modeling Madness and who aren’t on the internet about this. The more the merrier and the greater the likelihood of success.

Or do you not want new kits, decals, and aftermarket products at prices you can afford for the continuing enjoyment of the hobby that keeps you sane?


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

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.