ORIGINAL: bela
It certainly does not help that the product was labeled "Lockheed Martin F-35 lightning II". I think aside from the mentioned issue of legality of being bullied over a design thats existence was driven by our tax dollars, you have to wonder about legality of copyrighting of a shape. Ive seen on sites where other authors would model a corvette for example, but market it as "60s type muscle car".
Lockheed certainly has the right to object to where their name is being used, but I suspect this is much more than that. Cashgrab, as Wayne22 stated. .......Big kid in the sand box.....gimme your lunch money!!!!!
There's nothing questionable about the legality of copyrighting a shape. Boat-builders have been doing it for years. In fact, if you read the relevant copyright laws, they share a lot of the same terminology as aircraft. (See: [link=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301]U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 13[/link])
The only saving grace for the modeling industry is that there is no retroactive effect (ยง 1332). If a design has not been registered within two years after public display, then there is no copyright protection for the shape. So, while the shape of the F-16 was not registerable, you can bet that L-M has registered the F-22 & F-35 and will probably register all future designs.
For now, the extent of legal action has been limited to the use of names, either of the manufacturer or the product itself. I know that when I contacted Boeing & L-M a few years ago about this, I was told that the names of the aircraft, such as 'Strike Eagle', etc. was copyrighted and needed to be licensed in order to be used commercially.
Some modeling companies have gotten around this by selling their products as 'Bomber-17', etc.