I normally model a jet in Rhino or Solidworks as my first step in building a jet plug, except in the rare case im happy with a model that has already been done. in just such a case, i found an unusually well done model on Turbosquid.com of the Lockheed f-35A for sale, complete with cockpit and pilot with an accurate JHCMS helmet. It was very well done, so I ponied up 350 bucks and placed the order.
The very next day, I got a message back from the company that Lockheed had hit them with an order to remove the model and also a Raptor model that they had also done.
All signs that the models had even existed were stripped from the site.

It is curious to note that other lower quality models of the Raptor and f-35 were allowed to remain.

I wonder if this means those of us that are really into scale, have the most to worry about?[]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we paid for those designs and that Lockheed is just building them under contract for the goverment. I'm sure it would be a crazy law suit. If you had enough money I think Lockheed would lose. If I'm wrong, I'm sure one of you "know-it-alls" will tell me. Butch

about 10 - 15 years ago, i remember reading an article in one of the r/c magazines where an r/c pilot built a mustang and covered it in the Kodak markings with the number 4. he sent the pic to Kodak showing the plane. Kodak in return sent him a letter telling him to remove their name and number or they were going to sue him....

where is the harm when you copy another aircraft that you really enjoy?


Mark

This has been going on for years.
Lockheed wants to paid a fee for anyone using their designs. They are very aggresive in that they have a law firm that scoures the internet for companies using their design. and when they find one they send a cease and desist order.
Then they are either forced into an agreement with LM or are forbidden to market their designs.
The amount of the royalty is pit in the price of the kit, and we all end up making LM a little richer, like they don't make enough money selling their products to the govt.
It's been discussed to death on RCU, do a search, but here's a place to start:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_26.../anchor/tm.htm
It's a ripoff to be sure, but who's going to go up against them?

BRG,
Jon

Well, I know this topic has been discussed, but having been affected by it directly, I thought i would keep you guys in the know about yet another practical example.

There is NOTHING preventing you from using ANY graphic for personal use.

Key words-PERSONAL USE.
You are correct, they will not go after you if it's for you own use, but the post one was about someone SELLING a model and LM WILL go after you if you try to market a LM product.
The real money for LM is not in RC, but plastic models.
All the plastic model companies, Revell, Hasegawa, etc, caved in to LM and have agreements with LM. Look on any kit box of the F-16, P-38, etc and you will see "Offically licensed by Lockheed Martin".
BRG,
Jon

Is the licensing issue the reason BVM stopped selling their F-16?

It's a cash grab...nothing more, nothing less.......

Butch

They (LM) developed the F35 along with the original" Lighting" in a an OPEN Bid for requirements set by the US govn't , Boeing was a bidder also. Boeing stock holders lost x number of bucks in development costs [] with the contract going to LM
Semper fi
Joe

I guess LM better get moving to stop all those containers leaving China loaded with FEM and SM F-16`s....

V..

Copylight, rot copylight? - John.

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 (§ 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.

Not true.

Just for kicks...build yourself an UglyStick, slap an "American Airlines" logo on the tail , take a picture of it and send it to them.

I believe you will then retract your previous statement after you have heard from them.

Beave

Just noticed that Lockheed waited until after the airforce named the f-35, and then quickly trademarked "f-35" as well as "lightning II". so aside from owning shapes, you can own numbers now? whats next? colors? Its gonna suck having to redesignate my project "RC-F-22". ... things that make u say hmmmmmm ***!