mclintock

My Feedback: (3)

AMA members already got this via email, but this has nothing to do with the AMA really, it's about scale models.

A sad thing, talked about nearly too much on the forums a year or so ago- the royalties that modern day defense manufacturers are now demanding for wwII models and others.
The royalties are enough in some cases that kit makers are just giving up and not making models any more.
The argument is why should military models, which were funded by the public via taxes and blood, have royalties due to the present day owners of whatever remnants of the original company/contractor.
Pretty much boils down to Boeing and Lockheed being tools.

In any case, here's the link to make an informed telephone call to your respective representitives to voice your feelings about this horror.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/supportletter.asp

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

I don't think it's just companies that are effected. If you scratch build or build from plans, you still owe them. They may not come after you...yet. I've got mixed feelings about this. They (the original companies, not boeing or lockheed) did do the legwork, but they did it do make money off a bad time in our history. You didn't think they made them for free did you? They were designated by our military and usually named also. These companies also claim rights to that! Too bad they're being jack***'s. I know which side I'm going to come down on, but would have preferred not to see this even come up.

vauxhall

I can't believe what I'm reading, another example of "do-gooders" gone mad. I just built a rubber powered Mustang model, who do I send the royalty cheque to? They must be bl**dy joking. Does this mean anyone who picks up a paintbrush should pay a royalty to DaVinci? I did notice the foot notes in the Cox ad for ARTF models mention of some aircraft makers. Mad as hell............John
PS I've cancelled my order for the new 747!

FOD MAN

This sounds just like that movie my kid's just saw, what was the name...........oh yeah.....Chicken Little....

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

Nope, this is a real problem. At least one company to my knowledge has found the fees to high and quit making their kits. It was PROFILES! Geez, my memory fails me and I can't remember the name of the company, but it was a "roadkill". It seems like it was a profile P-47. This happened at least a year ago, maybe more. Would you rather we waited till there weren't any more scale warbird kits to do something about it? All they have to do is claim our flying models are unsafe and refuse to license them anymore.

Tim Wiltse-RCU

It's mostly a bunch on BS if you ask... and since you did remember the crap I went through with my website? If not picture this.... I'm a little guy with an anodizing shop just wanting to make enough to pay for my other hobbies. I built a website and called it "HyperColor Shunk Works" guess how long it took before I got a letter from the lawyer for Lockheed Martin telling me I had to shut it down? It's just BS I tell you. Seems they think someone might confuse me with a high tech spy plane company.

Later,
Tim

jlkonn

My Feedback: (1)

It's sad and I can imagine how you feel but "branding", trademarks and copyrights are pretty valuable things. I'm not a lawyer but I believe if a holder of one or all of these things can't show that they actively protect and enforce them then they can be lost. Kinda like identity theft only corporate rather than personal.
I'm sure you've heard the stories of the guys that go around to fast food places that sell on pepsi and ask for a coke. If they aren't corrected by the counter person then they get talked to about selling pepsi as coke. Seems silly but I think that's the way they have to be.
JLK

KidEpoxy

Well that pretty much is the core of the problem, they paid for someone else, a private company, to make US property. The entire Defence Contractor system would have to be looked at, is it a Gruman plane, or a US plane?

IMO, if we are not going to have a federal developement of these systems, and rely on contracted private firms to purchase materials from, the contract should be for ALL ASPECTS of the contract subject. As such, sure we could pay Gruman to design & build planes, but they should be in no way property, physical or intelectual, of Gruman. If I hire some guys to match a paint to my daisies & paint the house, I would not expect them to claim ownership of the color Daisey Yellow & charge me royalties if I had more made for the interior. The contractor system would have me give Behr money to make Daisey Yellow available to buy, by me or anyone else at home depot. When we let industry build systems that they plan to sell to other buyers as well as to the US, then it is not reasonable to expect public domain of private developement. It gets clouded when in the bid process the goverment pays/grants for stages of competing design & testing... is the US sponsering/patroning a private development, or using Boeing as labor for developing a US plane.

Either way, IMO I'd like to see a term of years for these US Military systems to become public... If Boeing can't milk it dry in 10 years, let the people have their heritage for free.

fritzke

My Feedback: (1)

This is BS because, straight from
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp:

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."


You can add "boat hulls" to that list as well, they have a "special provision" protectiong their design, like architectural designs do.
Any of that sound like you can't make a miniature replica of ANYTHING (except maybe a "sculpture") ?
And patents and trademarks are even further off the mark. You can patent a device or process, and trademark a logo or slogan.
Dave
PS the lawsuit against the writer of the DaVinci Code just got tossed out, thankfully.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040700601.html

"A British judge today rejected a closely-watched copyright infringement claim against the author and publisher of "The DaVinci Code," who were accused of appropriating the theme of the blockbuster novel from a work of non-fiction."

KidEpoxy

Imagine the flood of cars from Kia, the new 2007 Kia 'Mustang68' with a 302 and coming in 2008, Kia CamaroSS 350

hogflyer

This all sound like typical big business - GREED!!!!! gimme gimme gimme, I want control of it all. They own the US Senate so what do you think will happen with trying to get any law passed that may even remotely hint of the loss of even on penny to a corporation? Remember, the US is no longer "For the People By the People", it's "Paid for and owned by Big Business for Profit". I remember a lot of the equipment I worked with at a machine shop had "Property of US Department of War" and it was manufactured in June 1942. Didn't the US government pay for the development and production fighters of WWII? Today the fighters and their respective tooling all say "Property of US Government". Now, does that emply that even though its all owned by the USG and paid for that we still should be paying the contractors royalties? Or does that emply that it's owned by the people of the United States?

Since Ford came up with "Mustang" long after WWII does this mean thay are paying huge royalties to LM or are they in violation of copyright infringement?

Also, who named the P-51 "Mustang"? Was it the US or British government or Lockheed? If it was the British don't they own the copyright? What about the wild horses that roam in the west - somebody better tell them they are infringing on a copyrighted name and they had better come up with a new name for their breed before a copyright lawyer comes after them to. And tell that to that little black critter with the white stripe that makes its own perfume it needs to change it's name also for copyright infringement.

While the US Congress seems to have a bit of a backbone, the US Senate doesn't have any semblance of a spine. Instead they appear to have only two concerns – getting big business to contribute heavily to their re-election funds and reckless spending to put more money in the pockets of their major corporate contributors.

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

Hogflyer, you very eloquently stated why we need an organization like the AMA. It's the only way we can be on an equal footing with "big business".

FOD MAN

Greed....gimme,gimme...sounds like model company's dont want to pay for someone else's design work. one of the foundations of our economy is based on copyright law. go out and start selling a soft drink in a bottle that looks like a 1911 coke bottle and see what happens. old as it is it will still stand up in court, as it should. its not just the model company's either. many of you appear to want something for nothing. i wish the model company's would start doing their on original designs like many used to. i am sick of seeing the same models all the time. if you want to impress someone at the flight line bring something different, not the old cookie-cutter P-51 or P-38.

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

The coke bottle is not a valid analogy. Coke wasn't designed, built and sold to the Federal Government. (aka, we the people)

flyswatter

Speaking of Coke, has that behemoth soda company gone after the cocaine industry for name infringement? I mean isn't it time for the fellows on the street corner to pay royalties? Gosh, when a person goes out to get a soda, it is no telling what they will come home with. I can see it now, "Dear, I know it isn't in a bottle. I think you just add water and the powder makes about 2 gallons of soda".

Just a thought, but I wonder if the kit companies began changing the names of their kits from P51 to P500 and P47 to P600 if the original production company (opc) would even have a claim? Afterall, the kits use different dimensions, airfoils, engines, construction material, etc, etc. Also, since much of the kit production is off-shore (world economy), it seems that the cost to pursue any claim for $5-$10/kit would be hard to justify (anybody hired a lawyer recently?).

I think this idea may die very shortly. I don't think the reward would be worth the opc effort - this is what usually kills a company's attempt to keep company secrets when an employee moves on. I had a little taste of this when I left my last employer some years ago. I continued performing the same engineering service on a contract basis for other companies - did for a number of years. Since the technology was largely developed by me and my business partner, it did not seem to be much interest in stopping us - in fact, my old company hired me several times to provide the same services that I did when I worked for them.

hogflyer

When it's designed by a private company with their own funds then yes, they should own all the rights. But when it's developed by the government with tax payer funding, why should a private company then own the design and rights for it? If you pay a private contractor to design a widget, do they own the design or do you? Same should be applied to WWII fighter aircraft. When I was involved with the engineering side of fighter production it was all US government property, not the manufacturer's.

As far as doing a scale P-51 or P-38, the model companies produce them because they sell and are quite popular. I for one like the looks of a well done fighter in the air. If you don't like models of fighters, then you don't have to buy one.

This all boils down to a case where the government pays for something but the major corporations want to claim ownership to something the public paid for - something for nothing.

FOD MAN

Of course, this idea will either die,be ignored or companys will have to give in and pay up. "edited to add" oh yeah, about the drug dealer. They need to be shot on sight.

Bipe Flyer

Check this out. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

"Coca-Cola was named back in 1885 for its two "medicinal" ingredients: extract of coca leaves and kola nuts. Just how much cocaine was originally in the formulation is hard to determine, but the drink undeniably contained some cocaine in its early days."

Maybe the cocaine dealers should sue Coke.[sm=lol.gif]

BMatthews

The odd thing is that our models are miniature airplanes that just happen to look like the big ones. The internal structure is totally different. The issue with the Roadkill series seemed to be centered around the use of the name itself. I think they got around it at first by switching names. Not sure what happened later on.

Whatever way you cut it this is truly a sad direction that really is making the companies seem like extremely selfish children that never learned to share as children.

I can't help but think that many of the companies would loose in court depending on how they think they are being endangered or deprived. But who could possibly pay the astronomical legal fees to fight them? After all the precidence has been set over many years of previous model companies being allowed and even encouraged to model the products of these big companies. And suddenly they want royalties or just to shut down any reference to their companies?...... at least that's my opinion.

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

My limited understanding is the law firms get paid on a contigency basis. So, neither Lockheed or Boeing are the actual problem. It's the lawyers that came to them and said they could get them some "free" money. Management probably thought it was a great idea.

KidEpoxy

Last time I looked at incorporating, California said if my corporation showd $10/year profit, it owed $800 in state tax. Same $800 tax for a $10 LOSS... and it was a Prepaid Tax- First you pay $800 each year non-refundable, then you can run your business, gain or loss, and then Cal will tell you if they want more. Not really ProCoporations... so we inc in Nevada with a Resident Agent, and No State Tax.

Is it:
Hey Boeing, we want to buy some F22s
Sorry Gov, we dont make F22s
Ok, we'll pay you to start selling F22s, then we will buy some
OK, um, $144mil and we'll sell F22s
<later>
Ok Gov, we have some F22s for sale
Oh, gee Boeing, we kinda changed our minds
No problemo, mind if we sell to Isreal?
Hey, knock yourself out if you think they will buy them
Well, at least we can sell Boeing F22 Tshirts & Model F22s

Captain_Nifty

YET ANOTHER WAY FOR THE IDIOTS TO KILL THE DREAMS OF RC'ERS!
Way to go Boeing and Lockheed, NOT!

I am going to sound very anti american when I say this, but I want you all to understand that I love the core American mentality, (I'm transplanted here because of breast cancer issues with my mother, she finally beat it!), its helped me overcome many problems with my personal beliefs, so God Bless America for that. I'm not saying that I will support everything but its the only country in the WORLD where a soldier is celebrated in song and rightfully thanked for keeping the land of the free, free... truly you're the home of the brave and I miss you... but, this capitalist attitude has GOT TO STOP, there are TOO MANY RIGHTS that take away from all that Americans stand for, namely larger companies moving on making profits LIKE THIS.

Once again, the big man will take on the little guy, this time it hits home for us RC'ers, no good will come of this, like Mr Matthews said, companies will lose in court because of lack of strength on the financial side. The sad thing is, we HAVE to use OUR RIGHTS to protect what is INHERENTLY OURS to begin with and there'll be pleading and begging thats for sure, however its going to be our community.

Next will come the Company knocking on your door if you build ANYTHING that matches their designs, you will pay royalty for your beloved dual turbojet, YF22 with perfect retracts with scale movement, OR you'll go to jail and be branded a thief!

A friend of mine first told me about this lawsuit, I said the following to him, he felt that I should put it in here for all of you who fly warplanes and are affected by this...

"If the Company wins, warplane fans will lose, and when Johnny come marching home again, but there ain't gonna be as many hurrahs."

This is a sad moment indeed....
PS... maybe this is a good time for us to design our own jets, nicer ones than the ones in the defense program and then show them.... I don't think that we incapable of building something better than the F22A[8D]

KidEpoxy

For some crazy reason, stock holders, the actuall owners of the corporations, want profit. Corporations cant have wants, the officers & stockholders have the wants. Do you know who owns stock in those corps? People (& entities). Much like the guys that said they knew Big Oil was gouging for profits to hurt the little guy, and yet with that foresight chose not to buy stock to be part of the corporation getting rich. If you can't afford enough stock to make your vote count, get with a bunch of like minded guys and buy a big block of stock as an entity yourself. Then you can vote for Boeing to give all stockholders less money and give stuff away, while you get rich off the stocks in the evil For-Profit coporation. Kinda a win-win.

Think corporations get away with whatever they want? They didn't want OSHA grief. They sure dont like Union grief. And the EPA.. fogettaboutit. Seems these corps that own the goverment sure get a lot of gov backed grief

anyway
Kits/Arfs amy be in for a bumpy ride, but the legal baloney to sue 1 guy at a time for scratchbuilding....

FOD MAN

Gee people, it not like the worlds going to end. at the worst you might have to learn how to scratch build what you want. if a few dollars more is going to break you,you are in the wrong hobby anyway.This is worse than listening to a bunch of old women complain !!!.

FOD MAN

As a matter of fact i'm going to go take a couple more prozac's and another beer and go to bed.[sm=bananahead.gif]