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

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/blo...ectual_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

"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/blo...ectual_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

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/blo...ectual_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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

"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