I just got this email from the AMA.

Your Support is Needed!

Several full-scale aircraft companies are demanding royalties from modeling manufacturers, therefore some of the modeling manufacturers are discontinuing to produce these products.

AMA needs your help. We need you to call members of the Congressboth House and Senateto voice your opinion. Go to our Web site at http://www.modelaircraft.org/supportletter.asp for full details about how you can help.

Dont wait, do it today!

Joyce Hager
Acting Executive Director
Academy of Model Aeronautics

I responded that royalties should be paid to the companies that own the design, not sure thats the response they wanted.

It all depends on who owns the rights to the military aircraft. If Boeing owns the F-18 property rights then they can charge whatever they want. If the government owns the property rights then they should not be able to charge. Question is ... who actually owns the rights to the designs, even though the goverment pays for it???

You are correct, now who owns the rights to the P-38 and the F-16? That is the question, and you didn't answer that!

Dion

Ultimately, we the taxpayers paid for those designs, whether or not government contracting officers were smart enough to buy the data rights. DoD contracts routinely specify data rights will belong to the government for everything they purchase nowadays, except commercial off the shelf products. In past decades, they failed to anticipate the greed of these companies today when they have more lawyers and beancounters than engineers. The government has paid royalities to companies for designs they paid for originally, and they don't want to repeat that mistake.
Most of the congresscritters have legal backgrounds themselves. We don't need to interpret laws and contract language for them. We need to ask them to consider what is right and support this bill. If it isn't legal, don't doubt for an instant that the companies will take their case to the courts. As it is now, Boeing can claim dubious proprietary rights with alacrity, knowing fully that Mike's Models, operating out of his garage, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of buying legal representation to challenge their claim to royalties.

Abel

I wonder what kind of money we're talking about here? 'Royalties' with out a number means nothing to me.
If they want want to be super greedy, - F 'em. If they can keep their feet on the ground, then fine, the hobby manuf. can pay somthing. This will bring about a ***** $torm in more areas than just modeling. What about all those darn checks with the warbirds on them. calanders? t-shirts? my friggin club jacket and hat that has a corsair on it - those need licenses too?

Copy somthing - to me, thats the best form of flattery there is. Its a shame we're even having this conversation.

Maybe they are talking about the Lasers, Caps, Yaks, Pitts, etc.?
I wonder which kit manufacturers are dropping which kits?
I was talking to one of the hobby shop owners in the Iowa City area a couple months ago.
He said the Nascar folks are very strict on the rc car stuff.
You can only imagine how you would be talked to real quick if you came out with a #3 car or Earnhardt anything.
I'd like to hear more.
JLK

No, they aren't. The House Bill that support is being sought for relates to replicas of US military aircraft only.

Abel

Sure I did. Whomever owns the rights gets the royalties, or not depending on if they make arrangements for them.

Keep in mind before we start calling a company "greedy" that for every design that is purchased by the government, there is certainly a number that are not purchased. Who paid for the R&D on that plane? The tooling, staging, you name it costs a ton of cash. They only collect when they sell, and they don't always sell.

I also agree that the number should not be beyond the pale, but a few bucks for every model that sells is no big deal.

Do a search of RCU ubder "copwrites", it's been discussed for at least two years in various forums.
They want a percentage of gross sales, 20 to 30% is what LM wants for everything from the P-38 to the F-16, according to articles I've read.
This will also apply to T-shirts, books, checks, anything with the image on it.
LM is the most aggresive, with others less so in varing degrees.
I've heard they're after Nick Ziroli and several others to pay up or else, goodbye plans. Once this catches on, civil manufacturers will get in line with their hand out, they're not going to miss a payday!
This has been going on in model railroading for a long time, especially with regards to the markings. In 1958 Union Pacific PAID American Flyer to do their Pony Express deisel set-my how times have changed!

BRG,
Jon

I'm okay with them charging royalties for those designs. Is that fair enough?

Abel

Duh! Most of these military designs were paid for by OUR taxes. Meanwhile our government can pour money into Tea Pot museums and other pork projects.

So far as I can see the bill we are asked to support deals with future government contracts. It does not address problems with present, or past government contracts, nor with private enterprise. So?

what exactly is going on here, what does this mean for us as flyers? im lost

Well LANNYBOB, it means for most kit makers that they will stop producing the kits instead of paying almost half in royalties. OR, they will mark their kits up to outlanding prices just so they can sell them to cover the royalties.

I don't have a problem if they (the company in question) paid for the r&d and it's their design (automakers fall into this catagory, meaning anyone can go and buy one), but if it's TAXPAYER dollars that paid for it (because it's designed specifically for the govt, meaning joe blow the taxpayer can't go out and buy one), then I don't like it one bit.

What's going on here is greed, pure and simple.

Several model manufacturers, of kits mostly, have ceased production of certain models which were based on historical US military aircraft.

Quoted below is the response I received over a year ago from the head land shark at Lockheed-Martin, regarding their new aggressive approach to model makers and royalties.

In the original exchange, the LM response preceeds my original query - I've put the query first, so the exchange reads the way it would if it had all been posted here. Except for the sequence, nothing else has been changed.

My original query was addressed to Gilda Barrett in the Lockheed Corporate Ethics Office; I thought that was rather fitting.

At the time of the below-quoted exchange, Lockheed-Martin corporate web site had a small entry in the historical chronology of Lockheed concerning the P-38 Lightning, but there was no photo of the aircraft. In the interim LM have added a link to a new page regarding the P-38. There _still_ is no photograph of the P-38 on the home page for the 1930s.

In the LM response, note that the company's position regarding royalties from model kit makers has to do with >trademarks<, not data or images or copyrights, but trademarks. Also note the category under which the trademarks were obtained - scale model airplanes.

I never know Lockheed produced scale model airplanes for sale.

It is my understanding, albeit informal, that other military contractors are following the LM pattern.

If the trend keeps up we may well find that there are no commercially available model kits depicting any current or former military aircraft, vessel, or vehicle. Sans intervention by Congress, scale modeling in the U.S. may well become a thing of the past except for those very few who can design and build scale models, starting from a blank page.

Did I say greed ? As in, Lockheed never sold scale models of a P-38, but they "bought" a trademark for scale models of the P-38 ?

Some sixty-odd years after production of the P-38 ceased, Lockheed decided they should have a trademark licensing program (read : demand royalties from the toy industry).

If that isn't pure and simple greed I don't know what is.



Read for yourself :

Quote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred McClellan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:03 PM
To: Barrett, Gilda I
Subject: Copyright infringement ?

Ms. Barrett -
I understand the need to protect industrial data, copyrights, and other
proprietary information. All of us own companies or work for companies,
except for the lucky few who were born with the proverbial silver spoon
. . . What I don't understand is why in the world Lockheed would
suddenly become aggressive seeking royalty payments from small companies
which produce model airplane kits depicting 50+ year old WW II fighter
aircraft which were produced under contract for the US Government. This
link is germane : http://www.djaerotech.com/index1.html
A concerned aeromodeler . . .
Cheers,
Fred McClellan
Life Member, AMA and IMAA
Leader Member, AMA
http://home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber




Dear Mr. McClellan - Your e-mail to Gilda Barrett was forwarded to my
office for response.

We appreciate the interest and support of modelers such as yourself who
make accurate replicas of our current and historical aircraft. Let me
attempt to explain Lockheed Martin's position on protecting our marks.

As you know, through various mergers and acquisitions, Lockheed Martin's
aircraft roots go back to Lockheed, Martin Aircraft Company and others.
The marks "Lockheed" and "Lockheed Martin", together with the marks
associated with both our current and historical aircraft are valuable
assets of our Corporation that reflect on our reputation as an aircraft
manufacturer. The Lockheed P-38 is one of our most famous marks.
Because of its excellent performance and capabilities, it has become
inextricably linked to the history of Lockheed and it continues to
provide considerable good will to our Corporation. The United States
Patent and Trademark Office granted Lockheed Martin trademark
registrations for "P-38 LIGHTNING" (Reg. No. 2,610,669 in Class 28 Scale
Model Airplanes) and "P-38J LIGHTNING" (Reg. No. 2,627,837 in Class 28
for Scale Model Airplanes), acknowledging Lockheed Martin's ownership of
the mark. Even though an aircraft may have been developed for the
Government, the trademark rights, including trademark rights in
replicas, are owned by the aircraft manufacturer as the "source of the
goods."

We promote use of our marks by modelers, toy makers and other
merchandisers, but at the same time, we want the merchandise associated
with our marks to be safe, manufactured to high standards of quality and
accuracy, and not disparage our Corporation or our Government customers.
The trademark laws and rulings by courts are quite specific that in
order for trademark owners to maintain control of their marks and stop
misuse by others, such use must be under a trademark license.
Permitting unlicensed use of trademarks can lead to the trademark owner
losing its rights in the marks and the marks becoming generic. Some of
the classic examples of marks becoming generic are "cellophane",
"aspirin" and "thermos".

For the above reasons, Lockheed Martin has had an active trademark
licensing program since 1996. We have many licensees, both large and
small. There are costs involved in maintaining trademark registrations
and administering the licensing program, and we ask the licensees to pay
a reasonable fee. We have been very conscious of keeping the fees as
low as possible for small companies, such as DJ Aerotech. I will not
address the specifics contained in the link you point to below, other
than to say we respect a licensee's decision not to renew its license.

Hopefully, this has answered your question. Thank you for your
interest.

Patrick Hogan
Vice President and Associate General Counsel
Intellectual Property & Technology Law
Lockheed Martin Corporation


Close quote.

Ok..and what does that have to do with anything?
If we purchased (meaning tax paying Americans) the plane design lock stock and smoking barrel then the that would mean the government owns it. Therefore the Lockheed Martin's of the world could not charge a royalty on something they do not own.
IF we (the tax paying Americans) did not purchase the the plane design IN IT"S ENTIRETY, then it is still held by a private company. Your surely not suggesting a communist ideal here are you?
Take it away from the private company for the good of the state? How Soviet Union of you.

Let me ask a question there Red. If you created a plane design, say for a pattern plane. Based on your argument, you would have no problem with anyone in the world taking that design, and making money with it right?

Oh, and please don't use the old "Most of these military designs were paid for by OUR taxes." cause they were not, they were paid for by the company that designed them and the we bought the individual airctaft for use in the war. Thats what we paid for. Do you have any concept how many weapons manufacturers created guns that the government never bought? Just one shy of a gajillion. (just kidding..but a bunch for sure) Did we pay for that R&D? Nope.

So even though the huge companies will not really make a dime off of a small plans seller, they will shut him down. Why then can't they just charge a token fee to use the name given the small production of models? It doesn't sound like greed, they really are not going to make a cent off of the R/C side, so what is it really? Why do they want to shut us down? That's the question in my mind that no one can answer. Be ready for this to affect everyone, even the replicas of small light planes like Cessna and others. If you've always wanted a P-38 I'd get the plans or kit now while you can! Do you think Lockheed can stop China from making the P-38?

Hey 'Liberator,' isn't your moniker the intellectual property of Consolidated Vultee and their successors, as a trademark ID for 'their' B-24 bomber? Tell us what you pay in royalties for using it.
I'm sure when this issue is debated on a level playing field, between the gummit and LM et al, rather than LM et al vs Marks Garage Shop Models, all the lawyers wives will be fatter as usual, and LM will have to be content with the money they make from their dealings with the former Soviet Union to provide boosters for our military satellites.

Abel

That is not the same thing, that would be an exact copy. We are talking about a name and a likeness, something that is not even close to the real thing in construction or design, but just looks like the original. Your example is bogus.

I don't know where Joyce got her info....

....but when I was in college and worked a summer as a congressional intern, every letter was read (not glanced at ), and got a reply.

I am actually gonna do both (call and mail a letter)...but I kind of wonder where she got her information about how these things are handled.

umm actually it's not. One of the good things that can come from this is that the kit's or ARF's would HAVE to be to exact scale. Or they would have to be called something else. The lines would have to be within a certain tolerance of exact. Right now you can look at a number of ARF's and they are really no where near accurate. So I look for the silver lining. I just think it's amusing that it's all of a sudden the sky is falling the sky is falling. I thought Chicken Little got kicked off of American Idol?

Abel, you bet, as soon as I make a dime off of using it, I will let you know what the royalty is.

Couple of funny things going on here...

1) First, I find it downright hilarious that justy a few short months ago, Dave Brown, IN AS MANY WORDS, told us all to keep our mouths shut about this issue. He suggested that "the last thing we need is discussion of the issue in internet forums". His message was that the AMA was working on our behalf, and that we should just keep our traps shut.

NOW, apparently, the AMA has "failed" to "protect" us, and "needs our help"...so, suddenly, discussion and action is just what we need.

*smirk*

2) Once again, a a special interest group has, as all such groups MUST do, demonstrated the mindset of its larger container. This is, according to most of you, "greed", and "wrong" because "we paid for those designs", etc etc.

The bottom line is this:

It doesn't MATTER who "paid" for the designs...the designs belong, in any ethical and moral way, to the designers. Period.

My father designed the variable geometry inlet used on the F-4 and F-15. Boeing (Then McDonnell or McDonnell Douglas) didn't design it...the government didn't design it...the USAF or USN didn't design it...and you lot, with your "taxpayer dollars" sure as **** didn't design it. My father did. Period. The design...the CREATION...is his, and his alone.

In every way that can possibly be just, THAT DESIGN, and ANY REWARD FROM IT, belongs solely and only to my father, OR TO THOSE TO WHOM HE GRANTED CLAIM, either by contract (McDonnell) or later assignment.

I ask you...who among you would not defend Tam, or Chip Hyde, or Bob Parkinson, or Mike McConville, or the programmers of G3 or AFPD, or ANY OTHER CREATOR if I blatantly ripped them off, and produced copies of their work with narry more than an acknoledgement?

There's an active thread in the Jet Forums right now about someone selling "imposter" Wren Turbines on e-bay. A representative from Wren has issued a strong statement advising modelers to avoid buying these items, as they are NOT WREN TURBINES. The communioty has UNANIMOUSLY supported Wren, and their right to their name and designs, and CORRECTLY labeled the seller a "thief" and worse.

But, suddenly, Grumman wants nothing more than THE SAME TREATMENT, and it's GREED and EVIL? Bah. Every single one of you who support the AMA's stand on this are doing NOTHING but looking for ways to justify a classic "But wait, now it hurts ME!" argument.

Man up. Do the right thing.

I think the full scale manuafactors have a right to be concerned about how there
products are represented, i also think they should be proud of the fact that
someone would want to model there product.

also as far as models go i think any license fee should be low enough not to stop
the availabillty of affordable models.

boulton:
i got no idea who ya are, or ifn i know ya, or would like ya ifn i did, but, i gotta say i agree with ya on this, and think ya stated it about as well as it can be stated.

HHMMM I can see it now......Black market scale r/c planes, smugled in via mexico. Gotta get my p-38 on the downlow.......LM is a commin! Business must be bad if they are worried about little tiny models. I have a feeling we're talkin about alot of money. What a crock! Trademarks becoming generic? Just how long has mass production of scale model airplanes been going on? Long time. Has anybody objected previously? I dont know. I think its a little late in the game to be so frickin worried about it now. You know what burns my *****, how many of the engineers and designers and whoever at LM built planes as a kid. Bet they wanted and drooled over the cool comet p-51 mustang, not the 'square box dont-look-like-any-plane-i-ever-seen with wings'.
Yeah you go LM, you show those kids they cant have a likeness of your cool 50 YEAR OLD airplane, that is, unless they pay for the likeness, one way or another. How Pete Rose of you.
Thats ok, dont worry LM, maybe that really gifted mind that doesnt build YOUR airplanes will grow up and work for the competition. I'll bet the original skunk works group is rolling in their graves.

GBoulton, i was wondering when you'd chime in. So, DB and who ever, couldnt get it done on the down-low, that strategy didnt seem to work. Now they want us to speak up. So what! Your such a monday morning quarterback. "MAN UP DO THE RIGHT THING"? Wow, tell you what, why dont you take inventory of all your scale airplanes, figure what you paid for them, and then send them the 30%. Yeah, didnt think so.