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

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

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
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

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
____________________