The end of aero modeling?

joegertler · 5 October 2005, 05:12 PM

This has been brought up before-but in a major news outlet, today was the following...( There is also quite a bit more in followup discussion on the NewsGroup. alt.binaries.pictures.aviation)

Battle Over Model War Planes

RESTON, Va., Sept. 27, 2005

CBS News. What's happening down in this suburban Washington
basement could be a threat to the Military Industrial Complex.

CBS News correspondent Rich Schlesinger reports that the threat
warning comes from defense companies that build the real planes
and say thousands of model lovers, such as 14-year-old Matt
Jackson, are freeloading off their hard work.

Matt's working on an EA-6B Prowler – a Navy jet. Schlesinger
asks Matt if he thinks he's ripping off the Navy in his basement.

"That's what I'm trying to do, yeah," says Matt.

The defense giants do hold trademarks on planes like the F-15,
F-16 and the B-17, and they say if a model company uses their
planes to build replicas, it should pay royalties.

John Long, who owns a model company, says the defense contractors
don't deserve a penny, because these airplanes were developed with
tax dollars.

"It could be as high as 10 percent of the product cost," Long says.
"Now why should I pass additional costs on to the taxpayer for this
product when he's already paid the price?"

It's a nasty little battle that has reached Capitol Hill, where
the model companies are pushing a law to defend themselves from
the defense industry. And even though the money involved is pocket
change in the deep-pocketed mega corporations — they still want it.

"Cash is king," Long says.

The aerospace companies are very camera shy when it comes to this
issue. But in a written statement, they say this is not about money,
it's about protecting trademark rights.

"No, I don't believe them," Matt says. "I think it's mostly to do
with the money."

There are thousands of model enthusiasts who have a stake in this
war over warplanes. As the battle lines have been drawn between
two of this nation's favorite pastimes — making models — and making
money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in887340.shtml

buzz1941 · 5 October 2005, 05:24 PM

It's more complicated than simple greed. The defense corporations are also trying to inure themselves against liability concerns. If a kid sticks a B-17 model in his eye, is it Boeing's fault? Boeing's lawyers justify their salaries by making it an issue. By having the model companies pay licensing fees, they also stick the liability insurances with the model companies, fees that would be way higher than any trademark license.
Defense companies used to justify such model kits as publicity and advertising. Perhaps the model companies should start billing the defense contractors for promotional services.

StephenLawson · 5 October 2005, 05:54 PM

So... we owe Tony Fokker or Tommy Sopwith some royalties?

They are dead right...

Sort of precludes any lawsuit don't it? Designs are in the public domain after 25 years if the licenses and copyrights are not renewed. 1943...Hhhmmm. Maybe they were just too busy and filed for a waiver?

Submitted with tongue firmly in cheek.

Kitboy · 6 October 2005, 12:28 AM

Well the Fokker company still exists.... But reading this, such things can only happen in the USA. Many people with dollars in there eyes. I don't mean to offend anyone on this site........

greetings, Nico

buzz1941 · 6 October 2005, 01:17 AM

It's one way our defense contractors can help drive smaller American model companies out of business and give a boost to overseas model companies.

Actually, I think this whole thing started with the car companies. There's a reason you don't see many model kits of Chryslers.

6 October 2005, 01:24 AM

Matt's working on an EA-6B Prowler – a Navy jet. Schlesinger
asks Matt if he thinks he's ripping off the Navy in his basement.

"That's what I'm trying to do, yeah," says Matt.

The defense giants do hold trademarks on planes like the F-15,
F-16 and the B-17, and they say if a model company uses their
planes to build replicas, it should pay royalties.

Well, Matt would say that. He's 14 FFS. I'm sure that the tought he was ripping off the Navy would normally never enter his head.
As for the rest, it is completely bloody ludicrous. Should be totally ashamed of themselves for being so bloody petty. Times must be hard

van der Laan · 6 October 2005, 06:01 AM

This whole affair is a classic example of what is really wrong inside the US. In the past 50 years our PRESS has gone from a world leader in terms of truth and accuracy to a group of scandal rags that will poach stories, falsify sources and worst of all SENSATIONALIZE everything to sell their product. CBS ABC NBC, FOX even the print media here is little more than the NATIONAL INQUIRER sometimes.

HURICAN Katrina blows through and every single person interviewed by the PRESS that was left homeless on the coats of the US is suddenly a toothless uneducated black man in his 30’s. The PRESS never showed you all the black lawyers and black bankers, black programmers and black truck drivers affected, just the same old stereotype that feeds your disinformation bolstered view. 90% of the folks on the coast that are black actually have great lives and great jobs and were the real losers by Katrina and the US PRESS. These people are just like you and I and their lives are normal, so they are not SENSATIONAL and therefore don’t make the cut. We see the same thing with tornados and floods, politics and industry reports as well. If the subject is not on either end of a spectrum, well its not news worthy by our PRESS.

I’ll bet you real money, that this article is PURE unadulterated BS ( for the non English speakers; that’s bovine excrement ). Another piece of unsubstantiated SENSATIONAL FILLER that plays to our stereotypes of the US Defense industry. Notice in the report linked above, the author used ‘undisclosed sources’ as though he were talking about clandestine operations of the CIA or something, rather than models of HUMMERS.

ITS SHAMEFULL ALRIGHT!

I’ll look into it, and we’ll see.

Michael · 6 October 2005, 06:35 AM

I wish it were, but I'm not so sure. I heard from a hobby dealer that Ford will not allow any of their trucks to be modelled.

I think it's just another cash grab - what can we screw out of them as licence fees?

Barker · 6 October 2005, 07:01 AM

A short brain-ride.

It IS a cash grab and so much for "Small Business Make Our Country Great".

Unsubstantiated?

It's already starting to give some Indies LockUp.

'nuff said.

All work and no lawyers make Jack a dull boy.

van der Laan · 6 October 2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barker

Unsubstantiated?

It's already starting to give some Indies LockUp.

'nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

I wish it were, but I'm not so sure. I heard from a hobby dealer that Ford will not allow any of their trucks to be modelled.

I think it's just another cash grab - what can we screw out of them as licence fees?

Bologney !

urban mythology until you know WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, "NAMES"