If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |