PDA

View Full Version : Model Licensing



R_Mutt
02-14-2005, 12:07 PM
Saw this article in the paper today regarding an issue we're all too aware of.

Aircraft Manufacturer Licenses (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-modelplane14.html)

R_Mutt
02-14-2005, 12:07 PM
Saw this article in the paper today regarding an issue we're all too aware of.

Aircraft Manufacturer Licenses (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-modelplane14.html)

Snow_Wolf_
02-14-2005, 02:01 PM
well that kind ruin things...for model building

hey R_Mutt was that the same problem UBI ran into with Grumman like a few weeks if not a month ago....

Akronnick
02-14-2005, 03:09 PM
Maybe some bad publicity in the main stream press will convince these companies that squeezing the little folks might be a bad idea. It seems like they don't realize that the people they're pi$$ing off are the ones who chose the people who decide who gets those defense dollars. With fewer and fewer defense contracts coming down the pike, missing out on a 40 gajillion dollar deal with Uncle Sam because they've made themselves look like money grubbing pr!cks could litterally cause them to go out of business. These companies need all the good publicity they can get.

eddiemac0
02-14-2005, 04:29 PM
If defense contractors started losing in modeling suits, then the results would have to apply to our situation, yes?

Latico
02-14-2005, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akronnick:
Maybe some bad publicity in the main stream press will convince these companies that squeezing the little folks might be a bad idea. It seems like they don't realize that the people they're pi$$ing off are the ones who chose the people who decide who gets those defense dollars. With fewer and fewer defense contracts coming down the pike, missing out on a 40 gajillion dollar deal with Uncle Sam because they've made themselves look like money grubbing pr!cks could litterally cause them to go out of business. These companies need all the good publicity they can get. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The best thing any of you can do is acquaint yourselves with Copyright Law in the US.

Let me explain how licensing fees can vary. I'm a photographer, so I know how this works.

Let's say I have a photo I took of a sunset along the Florida Gulf Coast. I submit it to various publications and print companies for their concideration, with the stipulation that I require a licensing fee and contract. Somebody wants to use it and the contact me to negotiate the license. I get the info as to how they want to use the image and then quote them a fee. If we come to an agreement I draw up the contract and they pay me my fee. They can ONLY use the image for wat is stipulated in the contract. (90 percent of the images you see in magazines are acquired this way by the publishers)

Now, if one of the publishers/print companies decides to use the image WITHOUT acquiring a license, and I find out about it, I can go after them for 3x what I would have quoted them for however they used the image if they had acquired the license to begin with. AND I'D GET IT, TOO! If the image in question happened to be registered with the US copyright office, I could also hit the offender up for punitive damages as well.

so you see how the licensing fees to the model companies can range so widely? Those that acquired the license up front paid less, the ones that tried to get around the license paid more.

My guess is that in reality, the fees required by the aircraft companies barely pay the legal cost of handling the licensing process. I doubt that they want to cause a stopage of model kits being made and sold, but there is a precidence that has to be maintained.

Latico
02-14-2005, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eddiemac0:
If defense contractors started losing in modeling suits, then the results would have to apply to our situation, yes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AAAaaaaaaaaah ...

But their NOT losing.

Obi_Kwiet
02-14-2005, 05:06 PM
That's a picture. This is a 3D representation of a military aircraft. That's like a car company charging someone because their car was in someone's photograph.

sulla04
02-14-2005, 05:08 PM
But I think this is the crux of the matter.
"If I want to build an F-16 or an F-15, or a Navy Tomcat, or an Abrams tank -- or anything like that -- then I think the royalties have [already] been paid for by the taxpayer,'' said Tom Surlak"
If you do a scene or picture that is ordered by a customer.Who now owns the material?I believe it would be the owner who commisioned it not the original artist.If it was owned by the artist he could keep selling it over and over even though the customer paid for a one of a kind.

BBB_Hyperion
02-14-2005, 05:21 PM
In Europe we are way ahead look here .)

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/photographing_the_eiffel_tower_at_night_deemed_ill egal/

If it goes further this way soon you will need to pay for looking at trademark objects http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Seems lot of companies lost fear of the people if that is so smart on the long run i doubt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RxMan
02-14-2005, 06:20 PM
So, maybe if someone is injured by one of these models, they could sue the model maker and the company that charged a fee and authorized it's building ! Think about that Grumman-Lockheed or whoever you are.

Latico
02-14-2005, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sulla04:
But I think this is the crux of the matter.
"If I want to build an F-16 or an F-15, or a Navy Tomcat, or an Abrams tank -- or anything like that -- then I think the royalties have [already] been paid for by the taxpayer,'' said Tom Surlak"
If you do a scene or picture that is ordered by a customer.Who now owns the material?I believe it would be the owner who commisioned it not the original artist.If it was owned by the artist he could keep selling it over and over even though the customer paid for a one of a kind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) The idea that the "taxpayer paid already" is rather misleading. When an aircraft company designs a new airframe concept, it does so at their own expense. the companies engineers draw up the blueprints that have to be tested (in wind tunnel) for aerodynamic feasability and then adjusted accordingly, taking into account what the demands are going to be on the new plane. All this is doen before a flyable prototype is even constructed. the concept is then presented to the military for approval (or dissaproval). If the military likes the concept, and the appropriations committy authorizes , the company gets a contract to produce the prototype for test flights. If the concept is dissapproved, the company EATS the 1000's of man hours put into the design.

When the military/government purchases a combat aircraft, they are NOT buying the design, but rather a product FROM that design. The Company retains ownership of the design. The company recovers their cost of designing the plane out of the profits of the sale of the plane..

2) I think what you are reffering to is what is known as a "work for hire" form of copyrights. First of all, it depends on what I am being hired to do as a photographer. If, say, I'm hired to do a family portrait, the customer pays a setting fee. This setting fee gets the customer my time to shoot the portraits and a set of proofs (which will have "proof" imprinted on the front of each one) from which to order prints FROM ME. Now there are 2 catches here. First, The photos have no market vaue to me except for promotion of my photo business (which I have to have model releases from all who are in the photos) and I may have to compensate the persons in the photos for this. Second, I retain the copyrights to the photos and the family has to order their prints (usually some sort of package) from me. They cannot go some where and have copy prints made. Ever tried taking a professionally done portrait to Wal-Mart and get the scanned photo copy thing done? They won't let ya do it.

Now, let's say a super model wants to self publish a calender with images of her in skimpy swim wear (or less) in an exotic local and wants to have total control of the publishing of the images taken. And she wants ME to do the shoot (I can fantasize, can't I). I'm not going to charge her a setting fee and offer packages like I did the family. OH NO! These images are going to have emense market value to who ever holds the copyrights. She wants to own the copyrights. so if she's willing to pay me $10,000 a day (this could take several days) plus expenses which will include my labor cost for assistants, travel expenses for them and me, film, equipment rentals, etc., She can have the copyrights to all the images through "Work for Hire". I'll get credit as photographer of course, but She'll have total control of what is done with the images. She can pic the photos she wants from the shoot (usually several hundred are taken just for a 12 month calendar) and produce a limited edition printing that can sometimes sell for $60 to $100 per copy. She'll get what she paid me + printing cost back easily with some profit left over.

Do you see the difference?

Tailgator
02-14-2005, 07:24 PM
what about simming the squadron instead of the planes?

so instead of choosing a F4U per se, i choose vmf-214, or instead of b-17, i choose the "bloody 100th"?

nickdanger3
02-14-2005, 07:31 PM
The USGS provides all of it's geographic info for free since we (the public/taxpayers) already paid for it.

Also, most branches of the military allow fair use of their photographs - just check out the huge collections online.

This is a great point that I hadn't considered in this whole "intellectual property" debate - doesn't the US own these things and not the companies, at least to certain degree.

VMF223_Smitty
02-14-2005, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:

1) The idea that the "taxpayer paid already" is rather misleading. When an aircraft company designs a new airframe concept, it does so at their own expense.
Do you see the difference? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid that you are misled Latico. The expenses incurred by the "Company" are most surely included in the costs. In other words, if the Company developes a prototype and they win the contract, they get a "win-win" situation. They are paid for the developement fees which are most assuredly included in the cost estimates.

Of course, if they are beat out by a competitor, they lose the money that they invested in the project. Although there are always other markets for their product.

heywooood
02-14-2005, 08:19 PM
yes - only the risk belongs to the contractor...if their prototype or concept wins the bid, the bill to the government grossly exceeds the initial cost of that risk to the contractor...to offset the losses incurred on other 'failed ' prototypes...

In the end - a successful contractor, like N/G or Lockheed, will make enough on one win to pay for the cost of up to three failures...easily.

Since we're all talking about taxpayer dollars - something everyone on the spending end seems to think of as found money or lottery winnings, we should probably be alot angrier about this than we are....but people care more about baseball than malfeasance and misappropriation of public funds by political boozers. Go Sox.

Blackdog5555
02-14-2005, 08:44 PM
Latico, you are a photographer. You are not an IP lawyer. You shouldnt give legal advice. I am an attorney an your assessment of the trademark/ tradename situation is not correct. I will not school you but you need to check other (more accurate) threads on this matter, then sonsult with an attorney. There has been recent Supreme Court rulings on the matter also. I also take pictures. Cheers...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Eraser_tr
02-14-2005, 09:16 PM
I'm no expert on law, but I would believe model planes and 3d computer models would fall under a fair use policy in trademark/copyright laws.

$30 million+ for a single plane, and the US government ordering several hundred at a time comes to so much money, asking for more money is just plain despicable greed. Their intellectual property is safe, everyone knows Vaught designed and built the F4u-4 corsair (just try and sue me for mentioning the name you corporate bean counters!), republic the P-47n, grumman the TBM avenger. It's about as rediculous as family descendants of the original writer of "happy birthday" demanding royalties for singing it at a birthday party.

I hate american business. You don't see Mitsubishi causing trouble over planes they made 60 years ago being in a game. Nor do we see Dornier, messerschmitt, mikoyan-gurevich or any non american aerospace companies acting like little &*#@'s over the use of 60 year old designs that are recognized by anyone who knows anything about aviation.

GvSAP_Wingnut
02-14-2005, 09:34 PM
http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage32/5.gif

Hoatee
02-15-2005, 07:08 AM
Methinks we should add a con depicting a blood sucking vampire for that horse above.

Another analogy (appropriate or otherwise):

Electronic instruments (synthesizers, drum machines and suchlike) used to interconnect with each other via cv and gate in/outs. The problem was that, if you brought a Roland synthesizer and you wanted a drum machine, you were forced to buy a Roland make (a Korg machine used different voltages and therefore would not be able to hook up to a Roland synthesizer).

Then along came MIDI (acronym for Musical Digiatl Interface) and it became possible for different brands of elctronic music instruments to communicate with each other). Better for business allround 'cos business boomed (talking 80's here).

The computing industry looks a bit shoddy at the mo'. How many video formats do we have now? And now all this stuff about patents pertaining to planes is just plain silly.

Zyzbot
02-15-2005, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eraser_tr:


I hate american business. You don't see Mitsubishi causing trouble over planes they made 60 years ago being in a game. Nor do we see Dornier, messerschmitt, mikoyan-gurevich or any non american aerospace companies acting like little &*#@'s over the use of 60 year old designs that are recognized by anyone who knows anything about aviation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to read more. You'll find the UK Ministry of Defence claiming all rights to British military markings on everything. They were granted such rights on everything except clothing.There was a patent case about it.

You'll also find the RAAF forcing virtual squadrons to change their names.

Latico
02-15-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Latico, you are a photographer. You are not an IP lawyer. You shouldnt give legal advice. I am an attorney an your assessment of the trademark/ tradename situation is not correct. I will not school you but you need to check other (more accurate) threads on this matter, then sonsult with an attorney. There has been recent Supreme Court rulings on the matter also. I also take pictures. Cheers...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aare correct. I'm not an IP lawyer. I never claimed to be one, either. But I have studied up on Copyright law enough to have a fairly good idea of how copyright applies to me and the various useage rights that I can sell my images for.

I woudd never attempt to represent another person in any kind of letigation or give advice. What I posted above was not legal advice , but rather an example of how copyright applied to photography. I suspect that copyright would apply similarly in some ways to a product design. And that licensing fees can vary, depending on what the useagfe will be for an intellectual property, as well as the penalties for not acquiring appropriate license (when applicable) from the start. As an IP attorny, you understand all this. But most of those that post their displeasure with the US manufacturers don't have a clue about the copyright laws, nor do they seem to care. All they know is that they've been inconvenienced (we probably won't see anymore US planes for this sim) and they want blood.

But who really is the culprit here? Is it the aircraft manufacturer, who is excorcizing their legal rights? Or is it the software developer who MAY have tried to get around the copyright issues rather than dealing with them up front (for less money)? Or could it be the consumer who wants the highest quality product for the least amount of money? I think before a gallose is built, it might be a good idea to make sure you have the right neck to stretch with it.

Blackdog5555
02-15-2005, 12:07 PM
Ok, Latico, fair enough..Just remember that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Something i find out all the time. LOL. When it comes to Copyright law on selling pictures I would consult with you. But, This issue with Lockheed is more complicated. It involves use of Tradename and Trademark infringement, which is different than Copyright. The issues are legally complicated as there are no diffinitive rulings or stat language to either support/or shoot down lockheeds claim or laws that govern the specific issue involved regarding 3D computer images of WWII planes used in games, except that UBI cant use the name "Grumman" etc, in a commercial project without permission. Using 3d images of the planes are a different thing. Lockheed needs to be taken to court on this and in my opinion they have a weak legal argument. ( no confusion in the market place as Lockheed/Grumman doesnt make games, etc.) The problem is that it cost about $250,000 to take them to court. Not worth the money for a ham and egg model maker. There is more too it. For (one) example if some third party gave the Grumman F4FU-4 away for free for downloading on the net, for educational puposes, there would be nothing Lockheed could do, legally. Its non commercial and educational. Anyway..thanks for the clarification. Im sure im missing alot too. Here is the law regarding the Lanham Act taen from the US Patent Office Web page.

"Trademarks are generally distinctive symbols, pictures, or words that sellers affix to distinguish and identify the origin of their products. Trademark status may also be granted to distinctive and unique packaging, color combinations, building designs, product styles, and overall presentations. It is also possible to receive trademark status for identification that is not on its face distinct or unique but which has developed a secondary meaning over time that identifies it with the product or seller. The owner of a trademark has exclusive right to use it on the product it was intended to identify and often on related products. Service-marks receive the same legal protection as trademarks but are meant to distinguish services rather than products.

In the United States trademarks may be protected by both Federal statute under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 - 1127, and states' statutory and/or common laws. Congress enacted the Lanham Act under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. See U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. A trademark registered under the Lanham Act has nationwide protection. See 1115 of the Act.

Under the Lanham Act, a seller applies to register a trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office. The mark can already be in use or be one that will be used in the future. See 1051 of the act. The Office's regulations pertaining to trademarks are found in Parts 1 - 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If the trademark is initially, approved by an examiner, it is published in the Official Gazette of the Trademark Office to notify other parties of the pending approval so that it may be opposed. See 1062 - 1063 of the Act. An appeals process is available for rejected applications. See 1070 - 1071 of the Act.

Under state common law, trademarks are protected as part of the law of unfair competition. Registration is not required. See Unfair Competition. States' statutory provisions on trademarks differ but most have adopted a version of the Model Trademark Bill (MTB) or the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA). The MTB provides for registration of trademarks while the UDTPA does not.

Further protection of trademarks is provided by the Tariff Act of 1930. See 19 U.S.C. 1526. "

I am not curent on all parts of the Lanham act so would not give much advice to this. But its not the lawyers...ITS THE MILITARY CONTACTOR. Blame the company, not the lawyers. Cheers mate

buffscrum
02-15-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, maybe if someone is injured by one of these models, they could sue the model maker and the company that charged a fee and authorized it's building ! Think about that Grumman-Lockheed or whoever you are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is exactly why those same companies are forcing model and after-market parts makers to take out outrageously expensive product liability insurance as a condition of getting the license to make the kit. I've got the link to this somewhere. I'll try to have a look this evening.

DRB_Hookech0
02-15-2005, 01:42 PM
the part of the article that jumps off the page at me is this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The company wants to ensure that the models are accurate, high-quality and safe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safe means product liability insurance and very few hobby companies can afford to attain that. Thus they are now "Licensed" right out of the marketplace.

BTW you can now thank Tamiya for setting the precedent.....they paid the fee to do their latest 1/32nd scale F-16. it's all down hill from here