Hi everyone,
Get on the phone tomorrow!!
Just got this 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 Congress Royaboth House and Senate to 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

This topic just makes me sick, Just another example of corporate greed.
They were contracted buy the DOD to design and build it and they were paid very well for it with TAX dollars. As far as I am concerned we paid our rights already.

Lets get going on this guys, If you like your scale model then you should act to preserve your rights and not just leave it up to the other guys.

Dave

I think it all goes back to the lawyers. By law they have to protect their copyrights on products or else they will lose them. From the lawyers stand point, this is a way of backing the company into going after model companies. I don't think it is a case of corporate America trying to double dip in the cookie jar. There just is not enough money in it to make it worth while, but for the lawyers to fight for it, there is enough money in it for them because they are not fighting for the money, but to protect the copyright. I hate legal crap!

Mark

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.

Mark,
I agree with SIDESHOW, write AND call, it can't hurt.
It's always about money! If there wasn't any financial gain for the companies, they wouldn't be pursuing it.
Let's face it, when it comes time to vote on this issue, whether to get it out of committee, or for passage, LM and the rest are going to have their lobbyists call influential congress persons and remind them about who made campain contributions and the probability of continued support in the future should they vote for this bill. Congress people always respond to people who put financial pressure on them.
Like I said, it's all about money.
BRG,
Jon

Something like that, yes.
There is another factor: liability. If some kid chokes on a poorly made B-17 model, Boeing can get sued. Laugh all you want, it already happened. In the sue crazy modern age? Nope. Back in the Fifties. One of the requirements of licensing is for the licensee to have liability insurance to indemnify the licensor.
And a third factor:
IMAGE. Big corporation. Spends a lot on image. They don't want to have their name and likeness on CRAP. Ask how much BMW gets for you to put thier logo on a pen. A lot. And then they pass the pen around at a boardroom meeting...if that's not a BMW-quality pen, something that reflects their quality identity...then no license.

Lawyers make some money off this stuff. Lockheed has a law firm called EMI that does the work for them, they get a piece of whatever they collect. Last I looked, Boeing did it in-house. The monies received by the manufacturers for this stuff are totally inconsequential to a major defense contractor, I don't think it's really about the greed at all.

The bill being talked about is a joke. It's just a bone thrown by a congressman to one of his constiuents, Stevens International, a company that imports plastic models from China. And it only covers airplanes made under future contracts that might be signed. So it really would not matter much anyway, even if it WERE passed.
Know any model airplane companies driven out of business by licensing requirements? Maybe this isin't the falling sky people maintain it is.

CRAZY............................!!!!!

This is a death of our HOBBY!!!

Hardly the death of our hobby. SCALE models are ony one part of a very wide aeromodelling activity.Paul.

You sound like : Well it doesn't bother me so why do anything ! You can't help the hobby in general ? This could have major complications for anything considered a copy of something like a car, plastic models etc. This needs to be stopped NOW !

Yes! Grab your pitchfork and your torch and head for the town square, we'll chase the monster down! Lynch mob!

Don't beleive everything you read.

Shame on Joyce Hager for this, too. It's not AMA's place to get involved in this purely commercial dispute, nor is the bill in question even going to help us. Nor will it be passed. Wonder why DB did not send this out, but Joyce did? Kind of makes you think.

"this could have major complications for anything considered a copy of a car, plastic models, etc."

The ALREADY have to pay royalties to GM and Ford and BMW and whoever if they want to make a model of their cars. Or T-shirts. Or pens. Or anything else. It's not going to stop. Nor SHOULD it stop.

The very notion of this bill is unconstitutional. You want to violate Lockheed's rights. Because they are so big, they don't deserve the rights everybody else gets? Is that kind of like "it's okay to steal from Walmart, because they are so huge?"

Notice they are not bugging most of the little folk, either. Again, I ask you to cite any and all companies that went out of business because they had to pay a $200 or more licensing fee. Show me ONE. Name ONE, before you start talking about "the death of the hobby". This has been going on for YEARS, too. IF you look on Lockheed's site, you can see a large list of Licensees, most of the major plastic model companies are there, along with Cox/Estes, and other more "consumer" type companies, nobody went out of business from this.

You might as well forget it and pay. You can't win.

if i would to scratch built one model without buy a kit...i must pay the royalties???

regard's

Absolutely NOT!

This is ONLY about people making models and SELLING them on a commercial basis. You can still build whatever you want whenever you want...you just cannot PROFIT from it without permission from the copyright owner.
But...here's the thing: it's up to the copyright holder to pursue these matters. Have you heard of any RC model manufacturers going out of business from this? For that matter, heard of ANY jet companies being approached for royalties? Maybe it's just far enough under their radar for them not to care. Maybe phoning congressmen and making a big stink will make them go after all the jet companies, I cannot say.
But the fact of the matter is this is nothing really new, and the law is the law, we can rationalize how wrong this all is all we want, it won't make a bit of difference, the law has stood up. Which is why companies like Tamiya pay.

ok..but if i will buy a kit filanny i will "pay" the royalties because the producer "charge" the price with this
tax...or not!??

regard's

Yes.

wow...!!! very good for our!!!!
fantastic..!!

ciao

Isn't this just regarding the use of a corporate logo? Not the actual design of the airplane?

Winter Haven is a town in central Florida. Winterhaven is a town on the Ca/Az border outside of Yuma. Didn't you mean Winter Springs, ET? That's why BV hasn't been receiving your check.

Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCat REP

Speaking of trademarks, JetCat was approached recently by a company that wanted to sell us the right to call our engines Pratt & Whitney's. Do you think this is a new industry? Sell or get license fees by independent companies that cater to the biggies? Does Pratt and Whitney (United Tech) really care about JetCat or is it the independent company trying to make a buck?

Would JetCats sell better as Pratt & Whitney's or would everyone be on the floor laughing because they know we have nothing to do with PW?

Here's the link to the list ET mentions:

Rich
[link=http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16351&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc =400]Lockheed Trademark License Holders[/link]

That's pretty wild! It's nothing really new, though.

I tend to GUESS that this was done solely by the licensing firm P&W comissions to deal with such things. I tend to GUESS that such a deal might not make it past the actual owners at P&W, due to the liability issues with model engines. After all, how much money would P&W get? Pretty insignificant. But the motive is there for a licensing firm to pursue such deals, this is how they make their living.
A totally independent company, NOT hired already by P&W? Entirely possible, if they can create and seal such a deal, and make a cut of it, more power to them!

Would a P&W branded engine sell better? I think, hell, yes. It's a powerful brand name!

Notice all these large companies that elected to get licenses got their legal advice from their own legal departments, not from the internet! The fact is Lockheed DOES have the right, we don't have to like it, we just have to live with it.

ET wrote:
"Notice all these large companies that elected to get licenses got their legal advice from their own legal departments, not from the internet! "

Or it could be a simple business decision: it's cheaper to pay than to fight them in court.
The people at LM aren't dumb; they know that the modeling companies don't have the financial resources to fight them in court, so they"ll keep charging their fees: from their point of view, why not.
BRG,
Jon

No way! Hasegawa? Monogram? Tamiya? Those are serious companies...the plastic model industry absolutely DWARFS the flying models, these are big companies, with their own legal departments, and if there was any merit whatsoever to the argument of "the planes belong to the people!" they would most CERTAINLY take them to court, and win.

At any rate, the bill did not make it to the floor of the House, it was sent to a committee that may or may not decide to work the bill into something that is not the complete joke that this one is, before sending it to the house. More than likely, like the vast majority of bills, it will never leave the committee. So that's that. Politicians do this all the time: now he can tell his constituent he TRIED, but could not do anythign about it...

"No way! Hasegawa? Monogram? Tamiya? Those are serious companies...the plastic model industry absolutely DWARFS the flying models, these are big companies, with their own legal departments, and if there was any merit whatsoever to the argument of "the planes belong to the people!" they would most CERTAINLY take them to court, and win."

I'm sure that Hasagawa and Tamyia have no interest in getting involved in US copyright laws.
Besides, the fees aren't costing the companies anything, they're simply being passed on to the consumer, so there's really no business reason to fight them unless the fees get way out of hand.
I called my Senators and Representative on Friday, they only had a few calls on the subject. Oh well, just like the AMA elections, very few want to get involved. Too bad...
Jon

Here are a couple of things, "Straight from the Horse’s Mouth"

Lockheed is represented by EMI. EMI is a licensing firm...not a law firm.
Pratt & Whitney is represented by TRI, again a licensing firm not a law firm.
I've worked for both firms and for both clients.

There are two different topics here. The first is the use of a company's name, trademarks, and designs by a separate company in an effort to make money. Sorry...you can't do it without the permission of the intellectual property rights holder. That permission is called a license. It can be an effort to make money, but it also tries to protect the consumer by making sure the licensed products are of the same quality as the trademark would suggest and that the product truly is what it says it is. If it says it’s a Wasp Jr. then it is our job to make sure that is exactly what it is and to make sure the licensee has what they need to make the best product possible. Yes, because of all the hoops a licensee has to jump through as well as the royalty the licensee has to pay to the IP rights holder these products cost more than unlicensed products.

The second topic that Bob Wilcox brought up is more of a marketing concept. Manufacturers pick up licenses to use well know trademarks for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it cost millions of dollars and decades to create a trademark of your own that becomes well known and trusted. So why not share a trademark that is already there.

Both of these things I have the responsibility of doing in the hobby industry for Pratt & Whitney. Stop all the infringement… if I can’t then Pratt & Whitney’s legal department will take care of it. And create a presence for Pratt & Whitney in the hobby industry. Why? Because it works, it’s international, well known, admired, and trusted trademark.

The concept is simple, create a line of products for the model aviation industry that are the best of best. Consolidate all these manufacturers under one trade name, Pratt & Whitney, that way they can share marketing dollars, advertising, retail space, and share of mind in the consumer. These products will not be for the bargain hunter, but they will be for the person looking for the top of line products in the industry. This also makes it easier for the retailers as well. An entire line of multiple products under one name can be more appealing than a store full of thousands of different names for thousands of different products. This is not “What I think” (I’m not that smart) these are things that much smarter people figured out a long time ago and have proven them successful time and time again. (Maytag, GE, Westinghouse, Honda, Craftsman, Stanley, John Deer, and if anyone honestly thinks that NIKE is capable of making all the product that carry the NIKE trademark then they are truly naïve.)

EASYTIGER is correct in saying that Pratt & Whitney may not even go for a licensed turbine, because of obvious liability issues. But we ARE already the exclusive licensing agent for P&W. I approached Bob Wilcox with a legitimate concept that he had a difficult time understanding or taking seriously. Licensing is fairly new in regards to military vehicles, but not new to the hobby industry. Nobody is questioning the need of a license for the use of Chevy, Ford, Ferrari, or Porsche…but they did 20 years ago with many of the same arguments and concerns that are posted here and on other forums.

Nathan Gallow
TRI Licensing