About to sell built models

I see built models on Ebay all the time. Personally, once you build it up I don't see how anyone can call dibbs on it through royalties. It would fall under a piece of art or a personal creation. No one owns that but you. IMPO

I think someone has misunderstood the intellectual property issue.  Molding a model kit of someone else's design, like Toyota's or Boeing's, is what requires the payment of a licensing fee.  It's the kit manufacturers who pay those.  (If you were to develop a mold for a Rolls-Royce model, even a limited run resin one, you would need that company's permission to use its designs, logos, name, etc., which they would grant only if you paid the licensing fee.)  On the other hand, building the model and selling it does not require payment of a license fee; that fee was to have been paid by the kit manufacturer.  

Indeed, the more you rework a kit during construction, the more it becomes possible to argue that you have created a New Work.  A New Work becomes the builder's intellectual property.

The royalties are paid to the design licensee by the kit manufacturer, and then is a part of the cost paid by the consumer.  As mentioned above, I think it would be considered a work of art so there would be no other royalties need to be paid.

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about selling models and having someone come after you for it.

In this hobby, we have so many people selling built models that you sometimes get a twinge at a contest, knowing that they are actually professionals, competing against the amateurs for the trophies.

Rex

Ditto on what Rex has said.  I've seen models for sale at contests and I'm sure the builder was not concerned with anyone wanting a piece of the sale.

The only problem is that the Forum doesn't allow selling or trading.  There are other sites that do besides ebay.

Jim 

This is interesting timing.  Someone just last week was talking to me about this after seeing one of my built models in my office.  According to this guy, the average price selling the built model (assuming a quality job was done) is usually anywhere between six to ten times what the cost of kit was.  Which at first glance seems like a nice profit, but then when you think about the time that goes into it, would probably make it not very productive business.

You would probably break even.

I have long wondered about the legality of licensing designs applied to models.  The licensing was originally intended to prevent anyone from making a copy (1:1) and passing it off as real thing.  No one who buys a kit of an airplane believes they are buying a full size airplane.

Further, what is even worse to me is when the government pays for development of a military airplane design, and the mfg then has copyright rights that he can use to charge royalties to a kit mfg.  The taxpayers paid for that design in the first place- they shouldn't have to pay twice.

Don, there is an easy way to wrap your head around this.

The car customers all paid for the development of the Mustang, no matter if they drove LTD's, Galaxies or Mercury Monterreys, the costs of designing that Mustang was spread out all through everything that Ford did during those years.

Then, when the Mustang came out, to the consumer it seemed to have been developed "for free". Then the car company copyrighted the name. (not all in that order, though)

The same things happens with things like the North American Sabre fighter,,,,,the customers paid the development costs when they bought the aircraft,,,,,the difference is that those costs were reported to the customer as we went, even if it was before the aircraft were being built. In the end, the product is copyrighted to the builder.

Unless we think that if the Government buys 1000 Magnavox Televisions, that all Americans now own part of the rights to the Magnavox name? (or Stanley tools, or Dodge trucks, or Zippo lighters?)

I don't think that's quite true for many instances. The US government actually paid for the R/D cost of the hardware, unlike a car where the manufacturer paid for the R/D and tries to recoup that cost + profit by selling the product.  For many military items, the manufacturer do not bear the risk of R/D cost where its 100% funded by the government.

Look up something like the North American Mustang's history and development. US taxpayers definitely did NOT pay for the R&D on that war machine. We also didn't pay the development costs of all the other aircraft that were designed and then pitched to the government after the fact.

The only difference between the costs associated with the V-22 (for example) is that those costs are contracted in advance, and congress gets reports in advance of the production of the aircraft. If the Osprey had been built and then pitched, it would have cost the US the same total amount, the costs of development would have just been rolled into each unit price. If there are more orders for an aircraft than originally contracted for (and not foreseen) then the cost per unit is actually LOWER than the company expected, because the development costs are spread out over more units than originally thought (by not being attached)

either way, it doesn't give any taxpayer any rights to the free use of copyrighted names or materials,,,,,the same argument that says that the government wouldn't have bought the items if the company didn't make them to orders, applies to the "company wouldn't have made them if the government didn't want them"

and it really is true that the DeWalt company owns the copyright to the name Stanley, just the same as the Chrysler Corp owned the copyright to the tank named Ram.

Rex