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

"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

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