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

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

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_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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

"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