most of this kinda of intellectual property is owned by the government.

The government is pretty screwy but it not legal for them to demand royalties which they are not.

As an example, if you make a scaled down working model of a Ferrari F-1 race car which you then manufacture and sell, for a profit, you are using the intellectual property of Ferrari and as well as riding on there name and reputation.

ORIGINAL: xe2

[&o] ALONG VOICE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. What we're really talking about is copyright and intellectual property. As an example, if you make a scaled down working model of a Ferrari F-1 race car which you then manufacture and sell, for a profit, you are using the intellectual property of Ferrari and as well as riding on there name and reputation. They have every reasonable expectation that you should pay royalties and that you not be allowed a free ride. After all your using their property for your own benefit and profit. So it appears to be with the manufactures of scale aircraft. Royalty agreements are common in the business world where it is recognized that there is no "free lunch".

ORIGINAL: redfox435cat

were not talking about commercially produced vehicles. this is geared toward WW2 fighters and modern jet fighters, actually stemmed over the FA-18 hornet when Lockheed saw people are getting 20 grand for a model regardless of air frame being a small fraction of that. most of this kinda of intellectual property is owned by the government. So the companies like Lockheed are coming back with public designs and demanding royalties for them, now the modern equipment like the f-18 Lockheed still has the rights to, but planes like mustangs, sea Fury's and p-38, the old stuff are owned but government agencies. Were not copying the flight control systems and software packages which are pieces that are still privately owed. The government is pretty screwy but it not legal for them to demand royalties which they are not.

Lockheed demands royalties payments for F-16 models



Publication Date: 11/28/99

DALLAS (AP) - Lockheed Martin doesn't want just anybody marketing toy models of its F-16.

So for the first time, the company is licensing the name and likeness of its Fort Worth-made fighter jet and other products.

And the Bethesda, Md.-based defense titan is demanding royalties from the toy companies authorized to make and sell the products, The Dallas Morning News reports in its Saturday editions.

"The company has a lot invested in the shape of the aircraft, and there are a lot of F-16s out there," said Eric Hehs, editor of Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine in Fort Worth. "Lots of products and quality products is what they're shooting for. We don't want shabby games or toys, because that could reflect on the company."

Toy manufacturers said Lockheed Martin's licensing restrictions are now the toughest among defense manufacturers.

"To the best of my knowledge, no other contractor has done it like this," said Dan Bennett, spokesman for NovaLogic Inc., a Calabasas, Calif., company that makes online computer games. "With defense spending down, they have to find creative new avenues."

No figures were available for the number of companies that have taken out the licenses, The News reported.

Lockheed Martin officials said they have no idea how many toymakers had been turning out miniature or computerized F-16s or other products before the company began licensing.

Lockheed Martin felt it had to act because so many computer simulator games were using its jet fighters, The News reported.

"NovaLogic was already working on an F-22 simulation game, and Lockheed Martin started to make rules about trying to enforce exclusive rights to the machines they make," Bennett said. "The feeling here was that it would put the game in jeopardy."

Lockheed Martin did not enforce exclusive rights with NovaLogic, but worked with the computer game company to brand a licensed fighter simulator series.

John Harbison, an aerospace analyst with Booz-Allen & Hamilton, finds it unlikely that toy royalties will be that important to a $28 billion-a-year company like Lockheed Martin. "But every dollar helps," he said.

Lockheed Martin officials said the toy companies' royalties are modest, although they refused to discuss specifics.

Royalty contracts usually require companies to pay 1 percent to 10 percent of profits from the product being licensed.

Company officials say the licensing also will benefit toy buyers, who will get more accurate representations of the airplanes.

Critics of the defense industry view the move differently.

"It's my feeling that in addition to making a sizable profit, they want to breed a generation of kids growing up . . . to believe high-priced fighters are cool," said Luke Warren, an analyst with the Pentagon watchdog group Council for a Livable World.

The defense industry began looking at toy licensing about six years ago, when Northrup Grumman became the first to register a military trademark with the B-2 "Spirit," a second-generation Stealth fighter.

Boeing also has licensed many of its products, including the DC-3, which is known as the C-47 for military use, said Chris Ross of Equity Management Inc., the marketing services and intellectual property rights firm that represents Lockheed Martin.

AP-WS-11-27-99 1529EST


Click here to return to story:
http://amarillo.com/stories/112899/tex_LG3866.shtml

© The Amarillo Globe-News Online

were not talking about commercially produced vehicles. this is geared toward WW2 fighters and modern jet fighters, actually stemmed over the FA-18 hornet when Lockheed saw people are getting 20 grand for a model regardless of air frame being a small fraction of that. most of this kinda of intellectual property is owned by the government. So the companies like Lockheed are coming back with public designs and demanding royalties for them, now the modern equipment like the f-18 Lockheed still has the rights to, but planes like mustangs, sea Fury's and p-38, the old stuff are owned but government agencies. Were not copying the flight control systems and software packages which are pieces that are still privately owed. The government is pretty screwy but it not legal for them to demand royalties which they are not.

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

FWIW, I think the AMA should not bother with this. Smart airframe manufactures know good advertising when they see it. The dumb ones may not see it, so what. I suspect the only reason it is mostly military airplanes, is that our models do not help much to promote sales, not as well as with civilian aircraft.

Could you really copyright the word "wasp" without ever having manufactured something by that name?

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

You can't copyright or trademark anything that is not being used in commerce and you have the be the one using it, otherwise it's called squatting. There are many exceptions to the law, but this is the foundation.

Point is you just can't copyright/trademark something your not going to "use" somehow.

Heck, UPS has a trademark on the color brown.

I think the companies are really after the plastic model mfg.....they sell a TON more models that GP/Sig/etc. have ever sold!

I call it squatting when a company like Lockheed takes something that has been in public domain for about 60 years

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

First off it was never in the "public domain". Also it seems like many of you guys don't know what really is "public domain" versus what you think it is. Just because you see it now on the trademark website, doesn't mean it was never trademarked/copyrighted.

They are now ENFORCING their trademark/copyright, which was NEVER public domain, because production of their IP has increased GREATLY over the last few years and obviously they want a little piece of the action and they want to remain REPRESENTED.

Also I don't see any manufacturers in here complaining on any of these threads, only the consumers and the consumers won't feel ANY or very little of the repercussions of the IP enforcement in the first place.