I don't have any special insights into the legalities and workings of the plastic kit market, but I have the impression that in recent years the concept of licensed merchandise (from movie companies, corporations, etc.) has been severely curtailed.
It used to be that when you bought a B-17 kit, the box would say "Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress." Nowadays it just says "B-17 Flying Fortress." The corporations can't claim copyright on military hardware, but they can claim it on their names and trademarks.
A few years back, Chrysler withdrew the licensing right to the word "Jeep." Since then the kit manufacturers have come up with all sorts of labels for Jeep kits.
I can't remember the last time a model company issued a licensed ship kit associated with a movie. In the late fifties, Revell reissued its HMS Bounty with photos of Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard on the box. That sort of thing just doesn't happen any more. (In a way it's a shame. Seems like the Orca, from "Jaws," or the Andrea Gale, from "The Perfect Storm," or any of several other vessels connected with movies might draw some young people into the hobby.) Revell did reissue its ancient "Captain Hook's Pirate Ship" with the label "Caribbean Pirate Ship" on the box. Note how carefully it avoided the phrase "Pirates of the Caribbean," and any mention of Disney.
There was a big fuss about this topic not too long ago in the model railroad world. The various prototype railroads were refusing to license models with their names on them. As I understand it, that one was worked out in the courts, so model railroaders can still buy stuff with "Santa Fe" or "Union Pacific" on it.
An irony: it's perfectly ok for a model company to sell a "Messerschmitt BBF-109" kit, or a "Mitsubishi Zero" kit, in the U.S. - but not a "Boeing B-17." Oh, well; I guess this is the sort of thing that makes lawyers rich.
Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.