Plastic Aircraft Models: a Thing of the Past?

[Amped]

Yikes! At the very least this may mean much higher prices for kits! Which might make it less likely that casual hobyists will be able to afford the pastime...

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomak...get=HTMURPH.HTM

THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Why Plastic Aircraft Models are Going Away

January 31, 2005: For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands. This move grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize “intellectual property” income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise “no royalty” items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers.

[Myersjessee]

Wow...well...hopefully, either prices will go up, or cooler heads will prevail. Maximizing $ is one thing,but $40 a kit seems a bit steep. I know I could handle and extra $10 a kit (or so) I'd prefer not to...but I can understand everyone wants their pound of flesh.

[Knight26]

This is what happens when the business majors run the Defense Contractors and not the Engineers.

Business Major: "What, people are building models of our planes and we're not getting any money from it, hmmp, let's start charging royalties. Let's see we charge about $20,000,000 for an F-16, and the model price must be in scale with that, so $40.00 royalty shouldn't affect the model builders too much."

Engineer: "A company wants some detailed drawings of one of our aircraft so that they can make a more detailed and accurate model? Sure, have that new kid pull up some drawings remove all the classifieid materials and send them to the company. SHould we charge them, hmmm? Well how about they just reimburse us the cost of using that engineer for the week, that shouldn't impact the cost on a $20.00 model kit that much."

[ewilen]

Personally, I doubt it. Here are a couple links (which I haven't read yet) which discuss the issue.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.mo...ec.models.scale

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/bass_letter.shtml

Edit: Hmm... the second one seems to have died, which to me is a hint that the whole thing already blew over before StrategyPage got wind of it. Anyway, here's an alternative link to the first discussion:

http://www.groupsrv.com/hobby/viewtopic.php?t=44094

Edited January 31, 2005 by ewilen

[HWR MKII]

This debate has been going on for a few years already. I think the days of the plastic model are almost over anyway the way more companies are releasing the prebuilt and prepainted lines of models(see Tamiya StugIII) To me that makes people want to build less than paying more money. What is the point if you cant build it and paint it. Tamiya is already charging "almost" prohibitive prices for their models already so an increase from royalty prices wouldnt be that noticeable anyway. We would all just think that its the price we pay for some new Tamiya manufacturing gimmic(see Tamiya 1/16 scale Tanks). For nascar fans out there we already pay royalties for model kits. What do you think makes up the price of that predeath Dale Earnhardt #3 car? 75% of the cost of tat 30 dollar kit is royalties. Just like with macross models the companies know there are people who will pay the pricetag on the kit because they want it fortunately Hasegawa kits are still cheap.

my 2 cents.

sean

P.S. building models since 1980 so i have seen the price increase over the years.

[007-vf1]

the era of scratchbuilding and for hire commisions bussiness is about to start...

[Less than Super Ostrich]

Good thing Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems don't have a UN Spacy contract.

[Jolly Rogers]

Namco bought licenses for the aircrafts that appeared in Ace Combat 5, yet the game is still priced at $49.99 like other games...

[captain america]

I think this is just a sack of sh*t, personally.

Military hardware is commissioned by, and paid for by the government (the people), and thus is owned by the people. The stuff is all public domain.

If anything, the only aircraft that the companies may be able to get royalties for are commercial airliners, which are privately-owned.

[Noyhauser]

Funny thing is cap... that wasn't so true until several years ago. Procured weapons designs were propriatory information of the companies themselves. This changed several years ago because of the rate of electronic advancement made constant upgrades needed (especially in aircraft design) and the government could not allow compeditive bidding on upgrade programs, and were forced to accept the owner company's untendered upgrade.

[ewilen]

I don't really know the legalities here, but one idea that was floated in the thread I posted was that the design and designation of military aircraft is public domain, but the manufacturer's name isn't. Not sure about the official nickname. By this scheme, a model that reproduces an F/A-22 down to the last detail is okay (though the FBI/CIA/DIA might invite you over to their place to answer some questions), but Lockheed could ask for a license fee if you call it a Lockheed F/A-22 on the box, and maybe they could if you call it a Raptor.

If this kind of thing gets out of hand, you might have to pay license fees for displaying the copyrightable designs and distinctive images & logos of cars, planes, etc., that appear in movies. (Or more likely, the owners of the designs and trademarks would use their IP rights as leverage for product placement contracts. "The hero can drive an AMC Gremlin, provided the vehicle is shown on screen for no fewer than XX minutes with the following angles, etc.")

[captain america]

Indeed, I think that the devil may very well be in the details and the interpretation of the law in this case.

However, one cannot ignore the fact that model manufacturers have been producing "license-free" models for decades, and have never been sued for doing so. All of a sudden, manufacturers start clammering for royalties... I may not be a lawyer, but even I can see that this sets a clear precedent whereby the aerospace manufacturers basically "let this slide" all this time, and are now almost arbitrarily trying to extort model manufacturers for money. If anything the aerospace community would have a hard time justifying this new policy in court.

Agreed, model companies may need to pay royalties to the Ae manufacturers for using their trademarked company name, but honestly, the model companies can just leave that off the box, and I'll happily buy the product anyway.

[Myersjessee]

I wonder if one of the reasons they look away is it helps them. Movies like Top Gun greatly cranked up the sign-ups for the Navy. I didn't sign up for the armed forces...but I came really really close...and you can get all the model planes and tanks I built were a big part of that desire. If 1 out of 1000 model builders that wouldn't have signs up for the military thats probabably a bigger win then getting the $40,000 in revenue for 1000 modelers and not getting that candidate.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Myersjessee

[ewilen]

Sounds like the military should make that part of their procurement contracts then: "Seller agrees to free licensing of its name and all nonclassified aspects of the product's appearance to plastic model builders." Since the military sees direct benefits getting people interested in militaria, while the mfrs. benefit only indirectly.

[P.W.Royce]

I hope this whole thing blows over, model prices are high enough already.

Having said that, I did have a little experience with this first hand about a year ago. The small video game company I worked for in San Jose was going to publish a helicopter sim made by Irem of Japan. It was going to be called Apache, or AH-64 Apache or something sence you basically flew an Apache most of the time. Anyway, long story short, I come into work one day and the whole project has been canned because the licensesing fee for the Apache name was so damn high ( the game was planned as a budget title from the start).

Oh well, one less military flight sim for the PS2 The game was lots of fun too, Flying around the desert blowing up acurately model com-block hardware, good times!

[Major Johnathan]

This sounds pretty preposterous to me. Like Cap'n said, when it comes to military planes, they are as public domain as anything. Even civil aircraft manufacturers would see model makers as ants not worth their lawyers time/money. And it is great free advertising.

Surely some 'brave' company will put out a 1/35 Striker and see if they get sued. IF that happened, maybe Fine Scale Modeller, or someone, could set up a legal defense fund. And then we could all write hate mail to whomever would be stupid enough to file a law suit.

Edited February 1, 2005 by Major Johnathan

[Stamen0083]

Military hardware is commissioned by, and paid for by the government (the people), and thus is owned by the people. The stuff is all public domain.

No, it is not. While it is paid for by the people, the designs are still drawn up by companies and engineers, making them their intellectual property. What you say is true if and only if the people who pay taxes also draw up blue prints.

It's kind of like any commissioned model project. Just because I pay you to buy the supplies and scratch build a model for me that you design and build yourself doesn't make it mine, does it?

[THOR]

Soapbox warning:

I hate greed. More profits dominate every boardroom. Every company wants more marketshare. This leads to very short term thinking. Let's cut 25 heads from the business to make this quarter's numbers look better. Who cares if quality goes way down. Because it is hard and requires us to think to actually become efficient, let's shut down our facilities here and move them to China or India or anywhere where the workers will work for pennies.

In 50 years we will be an entirely service driven industry. We will all be working for Wal-art but none of us will be able to afford a house ($500K for 1000sf) or car (50K for that loaded 2050 cavalier) because we only make $8:50/hr. We will only be able to live in those "old Wal-Mart abandoned buildings" because someone turned them into apartment buildings.

Maybe that person should be me... hmmmm

So where do you live?

I live over in the old sporting goods section, isle 5.

[David Hingtgen]

Another thing is the *insanely high* fees, not just the fees themselves. I know Gulf Air wanted (not joking) $250 per model. On a 767 model that is normally around $22 bucks. Licensee of course said "no way" and so no Gulf Air 767's were made, and Gulf Air got 0 dollars. If the license was a FEW bucks, they'd have gotten several thousand dollars from the company that wanted to make Gulf Air 767's. Less money is better than no money...

Now, most fees aren't that bad, but most are way too high. Licensing fees shouldn't account for 50% of the cost of a model!

And of course there is the precedent thing. All the 747 models from the 60's 70's and 80's were license-free, even the ones sold in Boeing's own gift shops. But NOW they want a license... It's especially bad now that Boeing has bought so many manufacturers, they lay claim to most anything. Like the Boeing P-51 and Boeing DC-3 (as they type it on their website).

Edited February 1, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Chronocidal]

I've been following this issue for a while, and while it is really disturbing, and a load of legal feces that needs to be dumped on the corporate heads, from what I've read, the grounds for this whole issue is thinner than tissue paper... basically, the legal foul they're crying is that the license-free production of models, video games, etc. confuses the consumer about who makes the products. Essentially, if I understand it correctly, and I'm not at all sure that I do, the corporate heads suddenly got this bright idea that they could charge royalties on designs, and are trying to say they are confusing the buyers about who actually made the planes... yeah, whatever. The first instance I heard of was the recent game Pacific Fighters by Ubisoft. They had a legal fit with Northrop Grumman over using a couple of WWII fighters in the game.. They've had topics on their forum for some time now about this issue, and they have a current one about this article here. There was one back a while ago that described the so-called legality of the issue, and linked to a couple of legal commentaries on the issue, and what could be done.

Here's the main thread... Ubi went through hell with Grumman to put accurate planes in it's game. The whole forum thread about the license problem is here.

Edit: There's a link in this thread to a discussion on this topic on the International Game Developers Association, I'll just post that here as well, so you don't have to skim through all the WWII game discussion. Trademarking History?

Edited February 1, 2005 by Chronocidal

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Like the Boeing P-51 and Boeing DC-3 (as they type it on their website).

That really doesn't sound right!

[Firefox]

In short, rich always find ways to extort poor. They have the money, we don't. They could hire the best legal consultants and lawyers, we don't. Don't be too suprise that one day the license fee is as much as 50% (or more) of the cost of a model kit. In the country I'm staying, the rent of a stall could reach 50% of your business expenditure!

IP law? It meant to portect the rich. The rich will always say that if there is no IP protection, the companies will lose money and we have to lay off workers. But in real life, they lay you off anyway, because of cheaper labour in China, India and perhaps Africa next.

[Chronocidal]

You're right... it's ridiculous... considering that it's likely that neither plane was ever manufactured under the Boeing name, and it's very likely that no one who worked on those planes ever worked for Boeing at all. They probably all retired (or passed away) before Boeing even came into the picture.

Half of me really wants to think this is all exaggerated ridiculously. The other half thinks this is a ploy by Grumman to recoup their losses on the Tomcat... think about it.. they went nearly bankrupt on that plane, because the contract for it was a fixed price-per-unit deal.. inflation nearly ruined em. Now that it's going out of service, and Tomcat memorabilia is sure to abound, they've gotta be dying for a piece of that action.

[Mule]

Another thing I've seen is that some officially sanctioned models aren't accurate at all. Take the afore mentioned Boing store example. They just have some poorly cast plastic models of civilian planes that you snap the wings on. My favorite example of licensing incompetence in my possession is a Disney World Mk. VI monorail. It only came with five cars. The Mk. VI trains are fixed at 6 cars. You just can't add or remove cars. There are always 6. Nobody in these licensing departments even seems to care about the accuracy of what they license.

[Stamen0083]

IP law? It meant to portect the rich.

How do you figure?

Intellectual property laws are important. They apply not just to engineers, but also artists and whatever else. Ever heard of copyrights? Patents? It's all meant as a tool for making sure whoever came up with the idea gets the credit and money deserved, rich or poor.

[ewilen]

They are important, but both legislation and practice has increasingly turned IP law into a tool for protecting the privilege of corporations rather than encouraging innovation by creators. E.g., I've heard that recent amendments to US copyright law essentially allow companies to prevent artistic works from ever entering the public domain; or in the present case (and similar ones regarding computer flight sims), the law is being "mined" by aircraft manufacturers to generate revenue which was never anticipated at the time the IP was created, and the creators of said property surely were never compensated for this particular exploitation of their creation. Especially with military vehicles there is a potential for real perverse incentives--Lockheed and Boeing duking it out over the JSF not only to sell the planes, but for the value of their IP rights when they license their creation to makers of toys, games, models, films, T-shirts, etc.

Anyway, as long as we're playing amateur lawyer here, this is an interesting link that was posted on another forum: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...00&invol=03-409

It was suggested there that the above USSC ruling might give more of an advantage to model makers, etc., in these cases. But it seems to me that all Lockheed or Northrop would have to do would be to sell a few licenses (or open their own model company), thus entering the model market; they could then claim "market confusion" against unlicensed model makers.

[ewilen]

A brief followup: consider that if a company thinks it can get more licensing revenue by developing a "cool-looking" plane, they could design it that way and use anticipated licensing revenue to lower their bid.

I don't know if that's a good idea. Maybe it is. It would certainly be the ultimate expression of The American Way (21st century version): advertising-subsidized armed forces.

[Firefox]

That's what I meant. I'm not saying IP law is not good. All laws begin with good intention, but the rich (the big corporation) have the resources to emploit them and make them for their own use (sometimes to against public interest). Remember individual income tax? It was originally meant for the rcih only, but now, who pay the most individual taxes? I don't want to drift this off topic. But additional $40 per model kit is really too much...

Edited February 2, 2005 by Firefox

[Skull Leader]

They would probably have a hard time finding judges and jury members (well, the male ones anyway.. and the occasional female) that didn't build some sort of model in their youth... or have family members that did. The law is, I suppose, technically on their side, but this would be one of the worst cases of low-blow entrepeneurship the world has ever seen. Model companies would likely realize that their kits would not be able to sell for their "new" MSRP and collapse all together. The model industry would become VERY select, if not dissapear entirely.

Looking at it from the other side... if the companies had a higher say-so in the models being produced, maybe they would be more accurate?

Chrono, N/G isn't just out the Tomcat (which they've not received any hard money on in a long time), but ever since the Intruder has gone, and the twilight of the Viking and Prowler is neigh, they're losing just about everything they had staked in the modern carrier deck. All they really have left is the E-2C Hawkeye/Hawkeye 2000... and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Boeing comes out with an E/F-18 or some such nonsense. It kind of goes in cycles... Grumman had a lot of planes on carrier decks during WWII, but they pretty much faded away during the aftermath. It wasn't until the 1960s (with the advent of the A-6A Intruder and the E-2 Hawkeye) that they really became a promient company again. Now they're fading out once more. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until they make a comeback.

Edited February 2, 2005 by Skull Leader

[ewilen]

It's nice to think they'd be more accurate, but when I followed the links (and links from links) to discussions that someone posted here, I found someone had given several examples of licensed models with terrible accuracy. The one I remember is a Disney monorail with the wrong number of cars.

And of course, in the general case, licensed models may face obstacles against being "honest" about the original. E.g., whoever has the IP rights to the Brewster Buffalo could refuse to license it for a computer sim unless the plane is made the equal of the Zero...

[David Hingtgen]

Licensing means *NOTHING* for accuracy. Trust me. I have seen companies grant exclusive licensing rights many times. Often to the company with the worst molds and least amount of accuracy. It's like if Big West decided to allow only ONE company to make VF-1's, and after looking at prototypes from Bandai, Yamato, Toynami, etc---they picked Joons and barred all other companies from making VF-1's. Seriously, it happens.

Of course, often times exclusive rights are granted to whoever asks first. And that's a big problem, especially for all the companies who don't make everything.

Example: Pan Am. Big famous airline, much desired by airliner collectors (like me). However--the company with the exclusive license (trust me, Pan Am isn't legally dead) doesn't have molds for some of Pan Am's planes, and many of the ones they do have are vastly inferior to a rival company's. There's never going to be a Pan Am DC-8 model, no matter how bad people may want one since they don't have a DC-8 and have little interest in ever making one. And they made an A310, but it sucks, so there'll never be an A310 worth buying since the company with the good A310 mold can't make Pan Am planes.

Example 2: Thai Airways. Picked the company that was so bad they came and went within a year, with errors such as the left side of the plane being a DIFFERENT PLANE than the right side. (in addition to generally awful molds and bad paint)

Sorry for the rant, but IMHO the only thing worse than licensing is EXCLUSIVE licensing, since it often means many things we want simply will never be made. And I have seen samples/prototypes of things I want from Company X--and then before Company X can release it, Company Y gets the EXCLUSIVE license, and so the cool item from Company X has to be abandoned and such an item either never gets made, or a much inferior version is made by Company Y.

Edited February 2, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Stamen0083]

Now they [Northrup/Grumman] are fading out once more.

You just mean as far as planes go, right? Because Grumman builds a hell of a lot more than planes.

Ships, for example.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

And I have seen samples/prototypes of things I want from Company X--and then before Company X can release it, Company Y gets the EXCLUSIVE license, and so the cool item from Company X has to be abandoned and such an item either never gets made, or a much inferior version is made by Company Y.

*cough*capn*cough*america*cough*cough*legioss*cough*cough

[garoquel]

Personally I think those companies make enough dough on the taxpayers dime, so they should stop whinning about a couple of licencing fees, 20+ million for an F-16 or F-35 should be enough. they should be tickled that people express interest in the hardware, I dont see what the problem is.

Gus

Edited February 3, 2005 by garoquel

[ewilen]

Well, in spite of my semi-rant a few posts up, I'm still skeptical about the story. The issue may not be the airplane designs themselves, but the use of the manufacturer's name, particularly on box covers. Again, if the manufacturers really think they can charge licensing fees for the use of representations of their aircraft (instead of just their trademark company and--perhaps--product names), they should have a veritable gold mine in going after movie studios.