Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

I couldn't find anywhere on RCU where this has already been brought up but this is something of interest to scale builders...

Dave Gee mentioned in his column in the June 2007 issue of AMA's Model Aviation (page 112) that Cessna Aircraft Corporation is now demanding royalties from model airplane kit manufacturers if they sell models of Cessna aircraft. And ARF/RTF manufacturers and plans producers are next. Dave stated that if other aircraft manufacturers follow this trend, then scale modelling, as we know it, will likely come to an end because no one will be able to afford the royalties. According to the article, Cessna's attorneys are doing this to protect the company's "intellectual property of their aircraft designs." In other words, they're protected designs and if you build a model of one, Cessna thinks you owe it money.

Absurd you say? Think it can't happen? Log onto any model railroad magazine's website and read how Union Pacific dragged some model train manufacturers through the courts two years ago because UP suddenly decided that they wanted royalties for every model UP and SP locomotive and car produced. (UP also owns the rights to the Southern Pacific name.) While UP and the model train manufacturers eventually reached an agreement, this new version of corporate greed is just getting started.

Think the uncontrolled illegal immigrant boom is the greatest threat to our country? Have you counted how many pages of attorneys there are in your phone book these days?

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

As I understand the situation, it is not the modeler per-say that Cessna or ANY other manufacturer are concerened about or, greed. It has to do with copywrite and trademark inforcement. If the manufactures let modelers or modeling manufactures get away with using the said design of logo without some type royality, then they maybe opening the door for all types of trademark and coywrite protected infringment. Say a company over seas, or even here in the states, wants to build/ copy a full size Cessna 182 and sell it to public. Cessna takes them to court and the first argument that arises is "you do not inforce your copywrite protection on......" so why on us. It also has something to do with if they, Cessna, do not inforce the copywrite protection against all other compaines they stand a chance to lose thier copywrite protection.
The last I heard was that someone in the modeling community was heading up a task force so to speak, that would allow manufactures to pay a small fee to use many of the full size logos and such. As long as some type of compensation is being paid to "Cessna" they have inforced the copywrite.
And to add to it further is liability. What happens when a modeler crashes his 182 through the windshield of a non-modelers car? All the owner sees is that it was a Cessna model that crashed through his windshield, and seeing dollar signs you know what happens next....

Gary

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Gary,

I agree with what you said about copyright infringements and the danger of failing to protecting them. Lord knows that American manufacturers lose billions every year due to overseas counterfeit products. But from what I understand (and I'm speaking mostly of the UP case here since I'm not that versed in the Cessna case) not only did UP try to stop the use of the UP and SP names on model trains, but also any models of specific UP and SP locomotives and cars. In other words, UP claimed that it owns The Look as well. Is Cessna going to claim that it owns the rights to the high wing design?

While I can see where UP and Cessna have the right to protect their product's name, I can't help but to think that these multi-bazillion dollar corporations are doing more harm than good to public relations by trying to squeeze pennies out of the model train and plane hobbists. Like Mr. Gee said in his article, look at all the free publicity that the model airplane industry has been providing for Cessna products over the years?

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

If the model is constructed using modeling techniques and modeling material and modeling design only the external (visible surfaces) will appear to be scale. I would assume that all things being equal, that the model isn't true scale unless all parts are made of the same materials in the same manner as the full scale aircraft. It isn't copyright protection that they want. They want $$$$$. The modeling of a scale aircraft promotes and advertises the true aircraft. Free advertising, and they don't want it.
Next it will be cars. No more match box cars for our kids.
What's this world coming to?

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

[silly urban myth deleted] [:@]

Of course, if Cessna does want to persue this foolish policy, they're perfectly welcome to it. But given the millions of free dollars in free advertizing and brand recognizion provided by model aircraft manufacturers and builders (and flyers), this would be very short-sighted indeed.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

This is without a doubt one of the craziest posts I have ever read. The link is about using Kentucky website content and others copyrighted content. The Kentucky Derby is still on. KFC is still Kentucky Fried Chicken and they abbreviated it because they thought it was cooler. Myth city anyone.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

It's not a problem at all, just change the name as GWS has with their 'cargotrans Q' (Hercules), GW47 (DC-3) and other models. The argument has also come up that terms such as P-51, B-29 etc are not manufacturer's trademarks but designations given to them by the govt, on behalf of us, the taxpayer.

It's ironic that this will effect companies in the west who will be open to legal action but the reply from china inc will be 'so solly. no englaso!' - John.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

You are correct. This is INDEED crazy! I found this information on a site I normally trust but didn't actually "do my homework" and it turns out this is indeed an urban legend. Your post prompted me to do a more thorough investigation and you're absolutely right. There is no indication that the state of Kentucky has ever attempted to licence its name. And the link I provided above is indeed something totally unrelated.

I officially apologize to all Kentuckyans!

PS. You'd think a university professor would know better! [:@][:@]

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

This has already happened to some degree. World Models used to sell the Castrol Cap 232 with it's really cool colour scheme.

Apparently Castrol kicked up a stink about it, so world models have changed the colour scheme to something no-where near as good looking as the Castrol scheme.

A shame really, it takes the edge off what was ( or is in the case of my Castrol Cap ) a very appealing model.

This world really is becoming a crazy place!!!!!

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

OK, I was under the impression that this was the case already. At least with new aeroplanes. Obviously I'm living in a fantacy world of honesty.
These are commercial enterprises gentlemen, sure they must pay some form of royalty to the owners of the orginal!
I don't think they're asking for much, it's simply a symbolic sum and thats correct.
It isn't the modellers that are being targeted, it's the industries that are deliberatly taking other peoples designs and registrated trade marks etc and selling them for the own commercial gain.
That's not correct.
Well done Cessna!

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Counterfeiters steal someone else's design and R&D work and produce a copy that is in direct competition with the original. The designer clothing industry is a good example. However, this is not the case with Cessna or Union Pacific vs the modelling hobby. Building a model Skyhawk doesn't rob Cessna of the sale of a real one and the UP locomotive running circles under my grandson's Christmas tree doesn't mean one less real locomotive that UP sells. In fact, it could be argued that Cessna and UP haven't lost a single penny in sales because the hobby industry produces little copies of their products.

If Cessna and UP also sold models of their products, I could see where they would have a valid complaint against unlicensed competition. But come on Cessna, we're talking about miniature replicas of your airplanes - not competitive substitutes for them.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Does anyone remember many years back when the US government wanted to trademark their warbirds?

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

This isn't about sales or money lossed, it's about principle, the acknowlegement of intellectual copyright.
Something you've done, thought up, invented or what ever, being copied in one form or another and marketed for commercial gain without your permmission or even an acknowledgement.
Why should companies financially benifit from what you've invented or designed without you getting a share... a royalty? Even a thank you?

This isn't anything to do with your grandson enjoying his train set on Christmas day. Stop thinking it is.
These companies aren't producing that train to make your Grandson smile.
They're producing it to make the share holders smile.
Wake up time.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

The best way to handle this is to inidate your congressional reps and the Presidential candates with questions and demand action. There is nothing like an election year to get the politicians in action!

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Interesting arguments on both sides of this discussion. Remember, this is about BRANDS not lawyers. Consumers are more likely to purchase something that immediately invokes a cool, nostalgic image in their mind. Thats why model manufacturers select these scale subjects. Example: Topflite Cessna 310Q ARF $495.00 or Topflite Civilair Twin $295.00 If the model manufacturers make a conscious decision to produce a scale model with the name of the full scale manufacturer in the title, they are confirming that the brand has the ability to increase sales and profit. Is it wrong for the owners of the full-scale brand to ask for a cut? After all, they spent decades on marketing that brand, building public awareness, protecting its image, etc. My question is, why did it take them so long? Model manufacturers have been shamelessly profiting off the full-scale image of their subjects since the 1940's. The fact that they are now asking so late in the game is what invokes such a intense, negative reaction among the modeling community.

The author of the article in the June '07 Model Aviation (Dave Gee) didn't help matters. A photo of model kits being stuffed in a fireplace(oh, come-on!). He was so uninformed he didn't even mention the heart of the issue. Several model manufacturers I've talked to agree that they should pay something. Frankly, thats not even part of the argument in the business community. Where they have a problem with the current trend is the one-size-fits-all mentality. It is expensive for lawyers to go after all the model manufacturers and negotiate separately. So instead they often only allow one license at a time to the highest bidder or charge the same very high annual fee to everyone without regard to kit sales volume. This puts the small boutique model companies at a severe disadvantage and will inevitably result in fewer models from which to choose from. What I think they should do is come up with a reasonable royalty on a "per kit" basis. Perhaps they should sell stickers for a few cents each to the model companies to put on their boxes like stamps. Then, no model company is at a disadvantage and the system can be spot monitored to ensure compliance.

Edit: Since I used a Topflite kit as an example I should be fair and mention that Great Planes/Topflite already pay royalties to Cessna, Beechcraft, Lancair, etc for the use of their names in their advertising. Funny how when you separate the emotional BS from real facts polarizing issues look totally different.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

In the case of military aircraft the government paid these companies millions/billions of OUR tax dollars to develop these a airplanes. I would hope that a company like Gruman wouldn't have the gall to ask modelers to kick in their share.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Another way of getting our voices heard is organise a boycott of Cessna. How long can any company if a high competative market afford the bad press something like this creates? Or as I would like to see happen Cessna could treat the model manufactures like the Presley Estate treats Elvis impersonators, the don't pay a royality but the do have to register with the Presley estate and receive permission to use his likeness. The aircraft manufactures could easly do the samething. They could charge a small one time fee of the model manufactures and the model industry could help police the business. It would help both groups and protect Cessna's and other manufactures interllectual property at the same time. I know both sides have trade organizations that could also be utilized as clearinghouses if need be. Too often the legal department overreacts to justify their exsistence and it takes cooler heads to make things less complicated and more real world friendly.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

I don't believe this is going to be a problem with historic airplane from WW2.
This is one privately owned company asking other privately owned companies to pay them a small royalty for proffiting from a design that they hold a design copyright on...
instead of just ripping them off.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

Its actually the parent company Textron. We are going through the same thing with the beloved Bell Jet Ranger, 222 and others.

They need to do something equitable but personally I think its a bunch of hooey.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

I remember a similar story of the lockheed company taking action against anyone using the name lockheed P-38 lightning, a WWII aircraft.
Especially using the name "lockheed" was unacceptable for them.


MerlinII

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

I don't have a problem with it under certain conditions. first is that they just come up with a license per model that is reasonable ie few cents per model. second is that they cant collect on planes they do not manufacturer any longer. A Cessna 172 design should be in the public domain by now. If it isn't we need to lobby the government to reduce copyrights down to a reasonable amount of time. I understand copyright has been abused in the past few years however I do not think that you should get IP rights the entire lifetime of the corporation. Grumman, North American, and Boing should get a certain amount of royalties as it pertains designs they currently are in ownership and the designs that are older than 25 years or so should have placed in the public domain. It is sorry that those companies have lobbied to have copyrights extended way past usefulness for the purpose of making a few lousy bucks that don't account for their bulk of income.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

But we're not talking about taking/stealing anything from Cessna. We're not building big aluminum airplanes that rob Cessna of sales. We're building little models of their airplanes and have only the slightest connection to their company. We're not denying or costing Cessna a single penny so I can't help but to think it's corporate greed that's driving this - trying to gleen money from a product (models) that they don't make.

Good grief, Cessna. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Why stick it to your fans?

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

In order to convince a consumer to purchase a Duellist or an UltraSport60 requires the manufacturer to spend money on advertising and brand awareness. Over time the reputation is established. When they sell a Cessna 310Q that awareness is already established so they don't have to spend the money. That is the point.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

I think I will just stock up on what I would like to have at this time.
If I change my mind about something that I buy now I can always take it to a swap meet and sell it off for a few bucks like they do with full scale airplanes.
If and when a law goes into effect I hope they have the foresight to put a grandfather clause in it. If they don't lots of us are going to be hauled away from the field in a paddy wagon.
This is as bad as not allowing our military to do fly-overs at athletic events.
It's like not allowing us to say "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance.
That's my final 2 cents worth.

RE: Cessna wants royalties if you build a model of their planes!
 

CrateCruncher,

With all due respect, I can't agree with your point. When someone buys a Top Flite model of a Cessna 310Q, that person is buying a Top Flight product, not a Cessna product. While Cessna did, admittedly, spend many advertising dollars to market their full size twin, they're not out a penny on advertising for Top Flight's product. Top Flight is the only one who has been footing the bill to advertise their model.

Putting "Cessna 310Q" on the box simply tells the purchaser what the model represents, not is. Unless Top Flight puts a pile of aluminum in the box, along with a pair of Continental IO-470s and a stack of avionics, I don't see where Top Flight has duplicated Cessna's product enough to be a genuine copy. True, Cessna can rightfully claim ownership to the name "Cessna" but it seems to me that their advertising department would be thrilled to see their logo displayed at aviation events- even model ones - for free!

And before someone tries to point out that Top Flight is getting a free ride on the money that Cessna spent on research, engineering and developmental costs for their 310 design, let me point out that not a single bit of the engineering for a 37ft, 3,350lb aluminum passenger-carrying airplane can be used to make an 81in, 20lb, balsa wood airplane fly, despite that they look alike.

So, Cessna isn’t out any money, their logo and name aren’t being used in a negative way, and Top Flight isn’t taking away any of Cessna’s sales. Additionally, Top Flight didn't use any of Cessna's engineering to produce their model. So why, then, does Cessna feel that it’s due a percentage of Top Flight’s profit on a product that Cessna didn't produce?