[Rush104]

Forgive me if I'm bringing up a topic from long ago (I'm still relatively new here). But, does anybody know if the diecast manufacturers have to pay licensing fees to the big aerospace corporations to produce the likenesses of their products? If so, what percentage of the licenses/fees account for the costs of making/selling these models?
I've read where the plastic model industry has been involved in a long running dispute with the aerospace companies over this issue. And (I don't know how true this is), I've heard that the UK MoD is even charging model and decal manufacturers a fee for using the RAF insignia.
Can anybody shed some light on this?



"I am NOT Herbert..." Mr. Spock, Star Trek:TOS "The Way to Eden"

[hworth18]

The courts shot down the case last year saying that manufacturers couldn't claim copywrite on government owned contracts.. I believe many companies still get licenses though just to be on the safe side..

Hope this helps..

[Rush104]

Thanks for the info! Glad to see the courts can still make a few decent rulings...

[Old Crow]

Some hardware manufacturers are still imposing fee requirements but there is a bill (Military Toy Replica Act) still percolating that would eliminate the practice. See here: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/060807cdam3.htm

Here are a pair of old threads on the subject: some legal advice

Military "copywrite/licensing" bill..

[Nimrod48]

To reproduce a registered trade mark in the UK a manufacturer must pay for a licence to the owner for permission to reproduce their livery & logo, a plain white Scania artic rig in 1 :50 scale is around £35 the same model even in the most basic livery usualy costs around £90 so I assume a fair wedge of that is going to the owner of the livery.

[PH-LKK]

Actually, this is a very complicated area of the law. I use a Dell computer at work. I work for the government, and the Dell was purchased by the government for my use. But that doesn't mean that Dell has lost its rights with respect to the technology, the trademarks or any copyrights associated with the machine. It is much the same for any item or technology procured by the state, including items or technology intended for military use.

To simplify slightly: The state will come into possession of the underlying intellectual property itself (the ideas, designs, terminology, etc., as distinct from their manifestations) only where the state makes the extra effort to explicitly purchase it, or where the state (or its agents) is the actual "author" or "inventor" of the relevant bit of intellectual property. In the procurement context, terms like "P-38" or "F-16" are coined (indeed mandated) by the state, and thus are not owned by the contractor unless the state has gone out of its way to sell or lease it back to the contractor. Likewise, if a bit of military hardware is designed in response to a proposed procurement specification (essentially under contract, and thus in the employ of the state), the state will own the resulting design, just as any employer would with respect to the inventions or writings of an employee.

Now, I'm not a procurement chap, and I have no idea what actual procurement contracts look like, so its possible that these things are more carefully (and explicitly) allocated than I suspect. However, I do know a bit about intellectual property, and I can tell you this with certainty: Ownership of designs (by patent) and works of authorship (copyright) are for limited terms (though the terms vary from country to country). Ownership of trademarks is of potentially unlimited duration, but depends upon continuous "use" by the owner. Consequently, older designs and designations are treated differently than currently manufactured or used designs and designations. A model of a P-51D is not subject to the same sorts of potential restrictions that affect a model of a B-2. But it's also true that just because a particular aircraft is no longer in use (such as the F-14), or the manufacturer of an airframe is no longer in existence (such as McDonnell-Douglas), that it's any easier to avoid licensing restrictions that might prevent the sale of a new model. Licensing is a messy world, and no two cases are exactly alike.

[admin]

As I understand it, the only time you have to have license from the manufacturer is when you use their name. So you can make a F-104 Starfighter as long as you don't use Lockheed's name on the packaging or in your advertising.

[timbo]

I wonder how Boeing have got away with trademarking "SBD" then?

I'm looking at the Coral Sea Yorktown dauntless box and this is what it says in on the top:

"Produced under licence from Boeing Management Company. SBD & Douglas are among the trademarks owned by Boeing"