Skip to comments.Battle Over Model War Planes
Posted on 10/02/2005 3:13:50 PM PDT by tophat9000
Battle Over Model War Planes
RESTON, Va. , Sept. 27, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (CBS) 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.
Model making is an artform like sculpting so if making a model is a copywriter violation of the image so is a photo or painting
Last time I was at he Air Force Museum the admission was FREE ! This was built with tax dollars to show what our tax dollars were used for in the history of aviation warfare .Awesome place .Recommend it to everyone of all ages .
The result has not only been a black eye for UP, but a PR boost for BNSF. Moral of the story: don't always listen to counsel...
Then why don't car manufacturers who are not supported by taxpayers like the defense industry demanding to do the same?
I'm going to start making mini nickel size hamburgers that taste like cardboard.
Think McDonald's will sue me???
Great thinking on the part of defense contractors. Model airplanes will be exclusively manufactured in Chinese knock-off shops and sold in flea markets around the country.
Defense giants are being jerks. Scale models are a free form of advertising of their companies capabilities. Interest in scale models of defense equipment increases the hobbyists interest to look up info on it. They learn the history, the capability and etc, and when they grow up they become an educated voter on defense matters. I know many servicemen who first became interested in military matters as a kid building scale models of tanks, planes and ships.
Because the auto manufacturers, being REAL capalists (instead of pseudo-capitalists "sucking the government tit"), understand that car and truck models are FREE ADVERTISING.
That way, I'd be sure that production was limited to domestic manufacturers of models. Make the Chinese imports pay through the nose.
Further proof the bean counters are running the show instead of what we use to call in aerospace: "aircrafters".
The dumb *ast@r&s are to stupid to know the next generation of aviation professionals usually start with static models and move to control and R/C, Ergo Burt Rutan.
They are destroying the next generation of folks they will need to hire......
Is not copywrite, or copyleft, is copyRIGHT. I am series!
I'm going to start making mini nickel size hamburgers that taste like cardboard.
. Think McDonald's will sue me???
No...but White Castle might!
Being a model railroader, I've read about this idiocy. You would think railroads would look at models as free advertising. I guess it's a case of an oversupply of lawyers and an undersupply of public relations.
MAZDA has started the same idiocy over their little roadster the MIATA claiming foul if you form a "MIATA" club or make "MIATA" pins or the like. Definetly the work of Harvard Business School graduates who have previously demonstrated their business acumen by running the US Airline industry into the ground. IDIOTS!
The one at Wright-Patterson? NOT to be missed, if you're anywhere near the place. It's one of the most amazing museums that I have ever been in. Be sure also to visit The Annex- on the other side of the field, where you can walk through every Air Force One except the current one, which is busy, of course. GREAT museum!
Road, era and scale?
I am not in a position to do any model railroading at the moment, but Northwestern Pacific / 1870-1940 / O and On3.
What is a model, except a three-dimensional reduced-size image of the plane?
"I think it's mostly to do with the money."
You're partially right kid, it's all to do with money.
The model designation is provided by the military, not the company, as part of the contracting process. The F-111D that I worked on was built by General Dynamics, while the EF-111 Raven was rebuilt from older models of F-111 by McDonnel-Douglas, IIRC.
Didn't get to the Annex side yet . Planning a trip that way next summer .Went to the 100 year anniversary of flight at Kitty Hawk, 12/03. Air Force I buzzed the field at low level taking W back to Washington after his speech .Hard to imagine machines that big actually get into the air .
That's what I love about FR. There is always someone with an intelligent and workable answer to almost every issue.
Doubt it, F-15 is a USG assigned designation, "Eagle" is a company specific "common name" (usually or often not used in life - "fighting Falcon" (gag) versus Hoover, "Thunderbolt II" versus Hog...).
Boeing could complain about "dreamliner" or 787, but it'd be really, really, dumb (who cares about modeling passenger haulers?).
I don't have a clue about what would be the reason for such a stupid brouhaha, but it could kill what is already a lagging industry/hobby/learning tool.
PS: Clearing out my folk's house; found three trunks full of '50 - '70s kits, motors, and assorted parts, I'm already started with a "new' control line fighter I'll probably build and never fly...the BEST therapy.
IMO the jet design and the name of the Jet are in the public domain the second they contract to sell the plane to the US Military. It is commissioned by the military and thus if there are any trademark rights, they belong to the taxpayers.
This also involves the Flight Sim community as well. They are not allowing companies to develop computer models of they're company named aircraft, or ships, unless you pay them off. Corporate greed at its finest, and they don't even try to hide it.
Next they will be trying to make people pay the companies for drawing pictures of their aircrafts.
They do. Try producing any recognizable commercial vehicle made by the top automakers and see if their licensing people don't make you an offer you can't refuse. They can ding you on the corporate name, pertinent trademarks, and any specific design (e.g., "57 Chevy Bel-Air body styling"). Some want a flat fee, others want that plus a per-piece royalty, still others want some combination of the two. The level of tribute varies from licensor to licensor, and the addition of a third-party who represents the licensor may take a cut as well.
Agreements vary widely both in the obvious costs and levels of irritation to the licensee (which are hidden costs); I work with a few OEM manufacturers that are so anally retentive (or who have an office full of marketing types justifying their salaries) that they will dictate every aspect of the replica. When the placement of a comma on the product package ends up costing three weeks of lead time and hundreds of dollars of design time, only to revert back to the original placement, you long for the "old days."
I will concede that the whole process occasionally results in a more accurate product, but it just as often does not.
THAT Better Idea is WORTH the 10,000 Models!
The Manufacture of "Model Airplanes" is a POSITIVE Effort in our Culture.
To Discourage that effort is LUDICROUS!
I am UTTERLY Apalled that ANYONE would try to STOP Americans from making Model Airplanes!!
Americans have been making models for--AT LEAST--100 Years!!
GOOD GRIEF!!--Since WHEN has "Modeling" become a "Natiomal Security Issue??"
MeThinks that this as a "Phoney, Manufactured Issue."
Those who Build Models are likely to be the MOST DEVOTED Citizens!
"Model-Building" is a TOTAL "NON-ISSUE!!"
"This also involves the Flight Sim community as well. They are not allowing companies to develop computer models of they're company named aircraft, or ships, unless you pay them off. Corporate greed at its finest, and they don't even try to hide it."
And we aren't talking about current production here: Games designed to recreate WWII aircraft are victim of this legal idiocy.
I didn't believe this story when I first read it. There was no
actual defense spokesperson or specific incident mentioned,
so I thought it must be CBS pulling another "Dan Rather"
until I saw the other posts corroborating it. This is shear
Maybe my ol' "STAR TREK" model design (TOS '73) can be "cash-outed", too.
The Term F15 is the term given to the Airplane by the Military. It is not a trademark.
Q: What's the difference between an accident and a calamity?
A: It's an accident when a bus full of lawyers plunges off the road into a river. It's a calamity if they can swim.
>>>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.
Who would this be? Maybe it is contractors? If it is contractors that build the planes, this whiney article makes more sense.
I can't imagine it would be the actual Navy or Air Force et al. I would think they would embrace the positive image the models gives and promotes for them.
Especially in a time of war. Propaganda is a great tool.
They think making plastic models is copyright infringement?
These aircraft manufacturers are sniffing glue.
I'll second that! definitely worth the price of admisson!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.