PDA

View Full Version : Licensing Aircraft Names



beepboop
06-15-2005, 09:26 AM
Given the problesm we know that the games industry has had with the trademark names of various WWII aircraft, it's worth reading this info from a modelling site. When you think about it, miniatures and models have long had to deal with the issue of copyright when it comes to reproducing warbirds past and present. Have a read of the Congressman's proposals in particular:



"The International Model-Hobby Manufacturers Association reports that New Jersey Congressman Robert Andrews has introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prevent defense contractors from charging model and toy manufacturers licensing fees when they produce model replicas of U.S. military hardware. (For more information on this issue, see page 8, November 2004 FSM.

Here's the latest update from Mike Bass, President of Steven's International,

Greetings,

You all just received the below from Congressman Andrews' office. This is
good news, the amendment has bipartisan support, but we are not done yet.
Please help get this through by asking your members to make calls yet as
Paul Bauer requests. But in your letters to your member please be sure to
ask them to call(the vote is next week, no time for letters!) and to notify
either myself or Paul that the call to Smith's or Berman's offices were made
so Andrews' office knows how many contacts were made. This is important to
the support of this amendment. We've come this far, we're getting close,
let finish the job!

Many thanks for the continued support of the little guy in the hobby
industry!

Mike

******Received from Paul Bauer, from Congressman Andrews' office******

Hope you are all doing well. First, I wanted to thank each of you for your
help thus far. We are in a surprisingly good position right now, with a
real opportunity to get something positive done-and that brings me to the
second reason I wanted to contact you-we need more assistance!

During the markup last night, Mr. Andrews offered the amendment, and
withdrew it after Mr. Hefley (Republican Chairman of the Armed Services
Subcmte with jurisdiction over this issue) spoke in support of it and agreed
to work with us to get something done in the bill. To move this forward,
however, we need to affirm support of the relevant Judiciary Subcmte (since
there is a trademark component to this, and they typically cover trademark
issues). The relevant Members are Lamar Smith (Chairman of the Intellectual
Property Subcommittee) and Howard Berman (Ranking Member of that same cmte).

Smith is a Republican from Texas, and Berman is a Democrat from California.
Smith's staffer is named Blaine Merritt (202 225 5741), and Berman's staffer
is named Alec French (202 225 2022).

It would be fantastic if members in Texas and California contact these respective members, urging that they support this initiative. I have attached the language once again, as well as some talking points.
____________________________________

Paul J. Bauer

Legislative Assistant

Congressman Robert E. Andrews (NJ-01)

2439 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515
If you have a strong opinion as to whether or not model companies should have to pay license fees to defense contractors in order to create models of military subjects that were created at taxpayers expense, here‚‚ā¨ôs your chance to speak up.

TALKING POINTS ON ANDREWS' AMENDMENT re: MODELING INDUSTRY

Congressman Andrews' Amendment would require the Department of Defense to include a provision in their contracts with all defense contractors prohibiting them from requiring licenses and fees from businesses that manufacture, distribute, or sell models and model kits.

--These contractors have approached manufacturers and distributors within the hobby industry, pressuring them to sign licensing agreements and pay fees for the use of military designations and likenesses.

--The designations for military vehicles (such as F-16), are determined via a system established by the Department of Defense, and the designs are implemented through use of taxpayer funds.

--In previous agreements, the contractors have sought 2-8% of the costs of each unit from manufacturers. On a typical $8 model kit, this amounts to about 40 cents, which when multiplied over 15,000 units equals $6000. This increased cost, which is necessarily passed on to the consumer, is negligible to these multi-billion dollar corporations, but it is enough to drive down demand and put small mom and pop stores out of business.

--This amendment does not amend trademark law, rather it adds a new requirement to DoD contracts to ensure that the domestic modeling industry is not eliminated."



The original info can be found here:

http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42299

Cheers.

SKULLS_CoyMS
06-15-2005, 10:31 AM
Great news...just hope it carries over from models to computer games. Any idea when this will come up for a vote?

A.K.Davis
06-15-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by SKULLS_CoyMs:
Great news...just hope it carries over from models to computer games.

It doesn't, especially computer games produced by foreign companies:


--This amendment does not amend trademark law, rather it adds a new requirement to DoD contracts to ensure that the domestic modeling industry is not eliminated."

ClnlSandersLite
06-15-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by SKULLS_CoyMs:
Great news...just hope it carries over from models to computer games.


It doesn't, especially computer games produced by foreign companies: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does. Games are toys which include model replicas (virtual, but still model replicas). If it included the actual product, it wouldn't. Also, if it wasn't a game, it wouldnt.

Foreign companies; now that's another matter.

beepboop
06-15-2005, 03:50 PM
Interesting point you raise about the "domestic" issue. I don't know about the effect on the gaming industry, but the fact of the matter is that in modelling, pretty much all of the companies making models are foreign. Most of them are asian, like Tamiya, Dragon, Trumpeter etc. So, it'd be pretty pointless to limit the legislation to domestic firms. Still, it could be.

Nimits
06-15-2005, 09:48 PM
I think it should apply to all manufacturers, but my question, is the bill retroactive to old War/Navy/Department of Defense Contracts? The phrasing of the talking points, "would require the Department of Defense to include a provision in their contracts with all defense contractors", does not make this clear.

Enforcer572005
06-15-2005, 10:13 PM
I have yet to see the names of any companies doing this nonsense. I cant imagine a def contractor wanting to stiffle public exposure of its products. they pay big bucks for this kind of exposure in adds in magazines and TV.


Has any1 seen which contractor this is thats doing this? They would have a real hard time taking legal action against some model or computer software co, as these are historical subjects. I dont think car companies require this insanity. THey would look pretty silly bring a suit like this to court. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif