Military aircraft manufacturers demand royalties for... plastic models!

[Aviv Hod]

I thought this will be topical for the piloting newsgroup because so
many of us grew up carefully assembling plastic aircraft models. How
many of us had them all over our rooms growing up, anticipating the day
we can go flying on our own?

It seems that the ubiquity of models in kid's bedrooms might be
threatened by manufacturer's demands for royalties for the intellectual
property.

http://www.ipmsusa.org/MemberServices/FutureHobby.htm
http://due-diligence.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/intellectual_pr.html

This isn't all that cut and dried in my mind - it just seems wrong.
Especially with military contractors that spent our tax dollars to
develop these machines, it seems to me out of line to ask for $40 in IP
for a $15 plastic model. This could very easily kill the whole
industry, leaving thousands of kids that would otherwise spend their
time and energy constructing flying machines and imagining themselves
taking off into the wild blue yonder to do something else.

Yeah, it won't dissuade the kids that REALLY want to fly, but overall it
could have a negative effect. We need more pilots, and I would argue
that building these models has a measurable effect on the number of kids
(and adults!) that end up pursuing flying.

Any thoughts?

-Aviv Hod

[Blueskies]

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in message ...
>I thought this will be topical for the piloting newsgroup because so many of us grew up carefully assembling plastic
>aircraft models. How many of us had them all over our rooms growing up, anticipating the day we can go flying on our
>own?
>
> It seems that the ubiquity of models in kid's bedrooms might be threatened by manufacturer's demands for royalties for
> the intellectual property.
>
> http://www.ipmsusa.org/MemberServices/FutureHobby.htm

So that is why the model trains fell from popular use, they had to pay royalties?!?!?!

This is so typical of Amerikan arrorgance and corporate greed. Just unbelieveable...

> http://due-diligence.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/intellectual_pr.html
>
> This isn't all that cut and dried in my mind - it just seems wrong. Especially with military contractors that spent
> our tax dollars to develop these machines, it seems to me out of line to ask for $40 in IP for a $15 plastic model.
> This could very easily kill the whole industry, leaving thousands of kids that would otherwise spend their time and
> energy constructing flying machines and imagining themselves taking off into the wild blue yonder to do something
> else.
>
> Yeah, it won't dissuade the kids that REALLY want to fly, but overall it could have a negative effect. We need more
> pilots, and I would argue that building these models has a measurable effect on the number of kids (and adults!) that
> end up pursuing flying.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Aviv Hod

[[email protected]]

Aviv,

Pretty standard stuff the world over. A person or company that
develops something that is considered intellectual property, be it
music, a book, a machine, has the property protected by law so that he
is not ripped off. After all, it cost money to develop the thing, why
should someone else get it for free? Under the laws of most every
nation someone who wants to sell the music or image must pay to do so;
he should not be entitled to make a profit by copying someone else's
work.

If you go to the gym to work out and the place is playing canned music,
it must pay royalties; radio stations pay royalties for music they
play. I'm very surprised that model makers had gotten away with not
paying royalties, I'd assumed they were. I was aware that at least one
of them was doing so over 25 years ago. The royalty payments to the
manufacturers are quite small, pennies per model.

All the best,
Rick


Aviv Hod wrote:
> I thought this will be topical for the piloting newsgroup because so
> many of us grew up carefully assembling plastic aircraft models. How

> many of us had them all over our rooms growing up, anticipating the
day
> we can go flying on our own?
>
> It seems that the ubiquity of models in kid's bedrooms might be
> threatened by manufacturer's demands for royalties for the
intellectual
> property.
>
> http://www.ipmsusa.org/MemberServices/FutureHobby.htm
> http://due-diligence.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/intellectual_pr.html
>
> This isn't all that cut and dried in my mind - it just seems wrong.
> Especially with military contractors that spent our tax dollars to
> develop these machines, it seems to me out of line to ask for $40 in
IP
> for a $15 plastic model. This could very easily kill the whole
> industry, leaving thousands of kids that would otherwise spend their
> time and energy constructing flying machines and imagining themselves

> taking off into the wild blue yonder to do something else.
>
> Yeah, it won't dissuade the kids that REALLY want to fly, but overall
it
> could have a negative effect. We need more pilots, and I would argue

> that building these models has a measurable effect on the number of
kids
> (and adults!) that end up pursuing flying.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Aviv Hod

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ups.com...
> Aviv,
>
> Pretty standard stuff the world over. A person or company that
> develops something that is considered intellectual property, be it
> music, a book, a machine, has the property protected by law so that he
> is not ripped off. After all, it cost money to develop the thing, why
> should someone else get it for free? Under the laws of most every
> nation someone who wants to sell the music or image must pay to do so;
> he should not be entitled to make a profit by copying someone else's
> work.
>
> If you go to the gym to work out and the place is playing canned music,
> it must pay royalties; radio stations pay royalties for music they
> play. I'm very surprised that model makers had gotten away with not
> paying royalties, I'd assumed they were. I was aware that at least one
> of them was doing so over 25 years ago. The royalty payments to the
> manufacturers are quite small, pennies per model.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
>

Ridiculous, there is zero chance of someone 'ripping off' a 777 design by building a model of it. There is no comparison
between marketing a thing that looks like a bigger thing and playing copyrighted music. I want royalties from everyone
who quotes this message!

[[email protected]]

>>Ridiculous, there is zero chance of someone 'ripping off' a 777
design by building a model of it. There is no comparison
between marketing a thing that looks like a bigger thing and playing
copyrighted music.<<

And the basis for that opinion is?

The Boeing 777 didn't just spring to life by magic. While I'm not
necessarily a big Boeing fan, the precise design of that airframe was
the result of thousands upon thousands of hours of work and testing.

Copyright law has been around for a long time, it is in the U.S.
Constitution. It has long been recognized that a person is entitled to
protection when he comes up with a new idea.

If you copyrighted your message (if it is indeed copyrightable), and
someone reproduced it as a part of something that was for financial
gain, you would be entitled to royalties.

If you were to spend your time, money and effort coming up with an
airplane design that you marketed, how would you feel if someone made
tee shirts depicting it or models of it and sold those and made money
on it? Why should they get income as a result of your genius? If a
model maker makes a plastic airplane that doesn't look like something
on the market, he pays no royalties; however, the models that are
valuable are those that copy an existing real airplane. So, why should
the model maker who piggybacks on the efforts of the people who came up
with the idea for the real airplane, spent a fortune testing it and
risked people's lives in flight test, not pay something for the right
to reproduce copies of the original? Seems to me that the model maker
is getting something for nothing if he doesn't pay a royalty,
especially when the models are often extremely accurate.

All the best,
Rick

[Ross Oliver]

Aviv Hod > wrote:
>It seems that the ubiquity of models in kid's bedrooms might be
>threatened by manufacturer's demands for royalties for the intellectual
>property.


The same intellectual property rights that protect the original designs
also apply to the kits themselves. If manufacturer A were to start selling
model airplane kits that were reverse-engineered copies of manufacturer
B's kits, I'm sure B would not hesitate to cry foul and run to the lawyers.

If kit manufacturers don't want to pay to use the fruits of someone else's
labor ("one and one half percent of anticipated profits" to quote the
first cited web site), they are certainly free to create their own
original aircraft, auto, and train designs.

[Aviv Hod]

wrote:
>>>Ridiculous, there is zero chance of someone 'ripping off' a 777
>
> design by building a model of it. There is no comparison
> between marketing a thing that looks like a bigger thing and playing
> copyrighted music.<<
>
> And the basis for that opinion is?
>
> The Boeing 777 didn't just spring to life by magic. While I'm not
> necessarily a big Boeing fan, the precise design of that airframe was
> the result of thousands upon thousands of hours of work and testing.
>
> Copyright law has been around for a long time, it is in the U.S.
> Constitution. It has long been recognized that a person is entitled to
> protection when he comes up with a new idea.
>
> If you copyrighted your message (if it is indeed copyrightable), and
> someone reproduced it as a part of something that was for financial
> gain, you would be entitled to royalties.
>
> If you were to spend your time, money and effort coming up with an
> airplane design that you marketed, how would you feel if someone made
> tee shirts depicting it or models of it and sold those and made money
> on it? Why should they get income as a result of your genius? If a
> model maker makes a plastic airplane that doesn't look like something
> on the market, he pays no royalties; however, the models that are
> valuable are those that copy an existing real airplane. So, why should
> the model maker who piggybacks on the efforts of the people who came up
> with the idea for the real airplane, spent a fortune testing it and
> risked people's lives in flight test, not pay something for the right
> to reproduce copies of the original? Seems to me that the model maker
> is getting something for nothing if he doesn't pay a royalty,
> especially when the models are often extremely accurate.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>

Rick,
I understand the legal arguments, and by right, the manufacturers
deserve compensation. Maybe I wasn't clear about this in my original
post, but I don't have a problem in principal with paying royalties to
intellectual property owners. What I think makes this "wrong" is that
the royalties some manufacturers are asking for are IMHO way out of line
with the real value of the IP - we're talking about 12" plastic models
for pete's sake, not ripped off parts crowding out the OEM's parts!

Added to this is the fact that for 50 years no royalties were paid and
there was a tacit understanding that whatever IP infringement was going
on was worth the goodwill and publicity the models generated. If I am
not mistaken, doesn't chronic lack of effort in protecting intellectual
property figure into IP infringement cases? If it does, then 50 years
of letting this slide supports my case.

In any event, to a Lockheed Martin or Boeing this is not even pocket
change - it's pocket lint. If enough people feel like me and let
manufacturers know that if they treat the plastic model makers too
harshly that it will affect their image, then maybe they'll lighten up.
That was one of my goals when I sent the original post.

Blue skies!

-Aviv Hod

[[email protected]]

Aviv,

Very good points. I do not know what the situation is as to "delay" on
seeking royalties (I suspect that Lockheed is out of luck if it tries
to get them for plastic models of the P-38), and failing to insist on
one's rights for a long period of time is often fatal to the claim.

I also agree that it seems pretty petty on the part of Boeing and
Lockheed Martin, but then again, I have no idea of the size of the
model aircraft market. (I sure put a heck of lot of my allowance money
into it many years back <g>.)

All the best,
Rick

[John Theune]

Aviv Hod wrote:
> I thought this will be topical for the piloting newsgroup because so
> many of us grew up carefully assembling plastic aircraft models. How
> many of us had them all over our rooms growing up, anticipating the day
> we can go flying on our own?
>
> It seems that the ubiquity of models in kid's bedrooms might be
> threatened by manufacturer's demands for royalties for the intellectual
> property.
>
> http://www.ipmsusa.org/MemberServices/FutureHobby.htm
> http://due-diligence.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/intellectual_pr.html
>
> This isn't all that cut and dried in my mind - it just seems wrong.
> Especially with military contractors that spent our tax dollars to
> develop these machines, it seems to me out of line to ask for $40 in IP
> for a $15 plastic model. This could very easily kill the whole
> industry, leaving thousands of kids that would otherwise spend their
> time and energy constructing flying machines and imagining themselves
> taking off into the wild blue yonder to do something else.
>
> Yeah, it won't dissuade the kids that REALLY want to fly, but overall it
> could have a negative effect. We need more pilots, and I would argue
> that building these models has a measurable effect on the number of kids
> (and adults!) that end up pursuing flying.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Aviv Hod
I read the cited material and find it hard to argue that model makers
should not pay a licensing fee of 1.5% of profit from the sale of a
model. I can't understand how you came up with a fee of 40.00 on a 15
dollar kit using the numbers cited in your reference.
Even if the profit on the kit was 50% or 7.50 the fee would be on the
order of 11 cents. If you copy someone else work for you to sell at a
profit you should pay for it just like any other raw material used in
the production of the model. I also found it interesting that you argue
that the design was paid for by US taxpayers and therefor should not
need a license while the lead spokesman cited by you is listed as a
importer on model kits. If he's importing models to sell in this
country I think its safe to say that the models were not built by
American companys but rather foreign companys and that defeats your
arguement about who paid for the original development.

John

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message oups.com...
> Aviv,
>
> Very good points. I do not know what the situation is as to "delay" on
> seeking royalties (I suspect that Lockheed is out of luck if it tries
> to get them for plastic models of the P-38), and failing to insist on
> one's rights for a long period of time is often fatal to the claim.
>
> I also agree that it seems pretty petty on the part of Boeing and
> Lockheed Martin, but then again, I have no idea of the size of the
> model aircraft market. (I sure put a heck of lot of my allowance money
> into it many years back <g>.)
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>

There is great expense and work involved in creating the molds and dies for these models. They are independent creations
that look quite like their larger brothers, but they are not the same thing.


OT BTW, every post to the net here carries an implied copyright. If someone were to copy and use my comments then I
would be entitled to compensation.

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 05:26:15 in message
>, Ross Oliver
> wrote:

>The same intellectual property rights that protect the original designs
>also apply to the kits themselves. If manufacturer A were to start selling
>model airplane kits that were reverse-engineered copies of manufacturer
>B's kits, I'm sure B would not hesitate to cry foul and run to the lawyers.
>

That sounds right , one manufacturer would be clearly trying to steal
the market of another.

>If kit manufacturers don't want to pay to use the fruits of someone else's
>labor ("one and one half percent of anticipated profits" to quote the
>first cited web site), they are certainly free to create their own
>original aircraft, auto, and train designs.

I am probably wrong but this sounds a bit weird to me. Is there any
attempt to change the design of an aircraft to make it more attractive
to model manufacturers? I think not. The making of an effigy cannot
really be stealing the fruits of the manufacturers labour? Would it
apply to the manufacturer of model buildings? There is a better case
there because architects are trying to make a building visually
attractive. Only the paint scheme of an aircraft is designed to do
that. Some manufacturers might pay to have their goods modelled to boost
the sales of the original.

Anyway the possibilities are endless: model vacuum cleaners, model
gardens, model cars (much better case there), model spades, model
computers, model DVD players and model wheel clamps to go with model
cars! :-)

This is not a serious contribution!
--
David CL Francis

[Peter Duniho]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I am probably wrong but this sounds a bit weird to me. Is there any
> attempt to change the design of an aircraft to make it more attractive to
> model manufacturers? I think not.

As someone else already pointed out, there is inherent value in the original
design. Value that copyright law grants to the original designer (the
aircraft manufacturer). The original designer did not have to design to the
model aircraft market for that value to be there. The model has value
*because* it's like something in real life.

> The making of an effigy cannot really be stealing the fruits of the
> manufacturers labour? Would it apply to the manufacturer of model
> buildings? There is a better case there because architects are trying to
> make a building visually attractive.

Aircraft certainly are designed to "look good", as well as perform well,
though that question isn't relevant to the inherent value of the copyrighted
design.

While I don't know for a fact, I suspect that anyone trying to sell models
of the Seattle Space Needle, or the Empire State Building, or the Chrysler
Building, etc. would also be required to pay royalties to the owners or
architects of those buildings.

Pete

[John T]

John Theune wrote:
>
> I read the cited material and find it hard to argue that model makers
> should not pay a licensing fee of 1.5% of profit from the sale of a
> model.

For non-government-funded models, I agree. For instance, I don't have a
problem with Ford charging a fee to license Mustang models.

However, the gray area is introduced when modeling government-funded designs
(usually military). The first question to be asked is "Who owns the
intellectual property rights?" If Lockheed owns the IP for the F-22 Raptor,
for instance, then they certainly have the right to license the product as
they see fit. If not, then they have no right to demand royalties.

In any case, I'm not convinced a 1.5% margin would kill the market.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 at 17:31:41 in message
>, Peter Duniho
> wrote:

>While I don't know for a fact, I suspect that anyone trying to sell models
>of the Seattle Space Needle, or the Empire State Building, or the Chrysler
>Building, etc. would also be required to pay royalties to the owners or
>architects of those buildings.

No doubt you are right. My extra question is does that apply to every
souvenir sold with a picture on it even those pictures are often not
accurate but are still symbolically recognisable?

I have a drinking Mug, which I have never used because I cannot bring
myself to use it after what happened, that I purchased at the top of the
South Tower of the WTC on the 8th September 2001. It has a
representation of the New York Skyline on it. Would the manufacturer be
likely to have paid a fee to reproduce that?
--
David CL Francis

[Peter Duniho]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> No doubt you are right. My extra question is does that apply to every
> souvenir sold with a picture on it even those pictures are often not
> accurate but are still symbolically recognisable?

If sold as a souvenier for that building, I certainly believe so. But as I
said, I don't know that for a fact.

Copyright law in general allows for "fair use", and for example a photograph
of the NYC skyline that includes a distinctive structure wouldn't be liable
for royalties. But I believe that if the item is specifically valuable
*because* of a single distinctive structure, royalties would be due.

> I have a drinking Mug, which I have never used because I cannot bring
> myself to use it after what happened, that I purchased at the top of the
> South Tower of the WTC on the 8th September 2001. It has a representation
> of the New York Skyline on it. Would the manufacturer be likely to have
> paid a fee to reproduce that?

Assuming the mug wasn't sold specifically as a WTC mug, I don't see why it
would have. But not being an expert in copyright law, don't take my word
for it.

Pete