Copyright insanity - its not just for Audio/video anymore

[Snakebyte1]

It seems that the insanity brought on over music and video rights is starting to spill over into other areas.

Laywers are starting to target manufacturers of models. So, if you like to build a race car, and put on that STP or Penzoil decal, well, those are trade marked logos and the holders want a cut.

Companies like Boeing are now wanting to charge royalties to manufacturers of plastic models that make models of Boeing designed aircraft going back to WWII. So if you want to build a model of a B-17, Boeing wants a cut.

Model kits that sell for$15 to $30 could be hit with royalty fees of up to $45.


http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/02/04/plastic-models-under-attack-by-lawyers/

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005230.asp

[mbellot]

Laywers

No better way to start a sentence that is sure to contain insanity.

[sammie]

OMG, this isn't a joke, or at least not in the sense of some one pulling our legs . I'm friends with one of the top plans guys for radio control model airplanes. He takes the original real plane plans and translates them into model plans, which were published in modeling magazines, or sold to a model manufacturer. He told me he has in fact been contacted and told to cease and desist! Not a huge personal problem for him since he is essentially retired and he only does a plan now and then for modeling magazines, but they did inform him that the designs were the companies I.P. and he was to stop all further activities EVEN FOR PERSONAL NON-COMMMERCIAL USE. He laughed about the last part but he is pissed. His parting comment was "It's a good thing that model making is kind of a dying past time for kids these days." The $$ figures given are in fact accurate with the low end being around $15.

To be honest, I do see how some sort of royalty is in order, although in most cases it seems the goodwill generated through modeling would far out weigh any royalty money. The brain dead piece I see on this, is not that they are asking for a piece of the pie, they are saying we want 3 of the pies for each pie you sell.

[ROF]

$40 per model? That's insane. I agree that these companies have long been overdue for their blatant compyright infringement. Copyright isn't exclusively audio and video as well. Every product in existence has some form of copyright or trademark which can not be abused in order for someone else to profit. But $40 per model? I think $40 is the highest price I've ever paid for a model but usually they are cheaper than that. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[sammie]

Exactly ROF, I guess I always assumed that companies paid something in the way of royalties. In fact, several of the more exacting companies used to put in blurbs about their models being reviewed and "certified" as accurate by the manufacturers or something to that effect.

The mental image I can't shake is some corporate grinch rubbing his hands and laughing about how much money they were going to make on these kids. I guess when you charge mega millions per plane and $100-1000s per toilet seat and wrench, to you $40 does seem like you are asking for chump change. They don't grasp that if you stick that kind of charge on something like a model, no 12 year old will ever make one again. Corporate greed doth indeed runneth amok.

As a P.S., I was at the new Smithsonian Air Annex musem this summer and they had a very impressive display of balsa models from WWII to fairly current day, along with a display of hand drawn model plans and sections showing how models like that were made and lots of pictures of Dad and kids building them. I guess that all infringes now.

[davideck]

So the same companies that spend their advertising dollars on product placements and NASCAR sponsorships now want to charge the toy companies that were freely proliferating their names and product replicas into the hands of children? How brain dead is that!?!

[ROF]

So the same companies that spend their advertising dollars on product placements and NASCAR sponsorships now want to charge the toy companies that were freely proliferating their names and product replicas into the hands of children? How brain dead is that!?!

Kids have the biggest disposable income budgets on the planet. Their only rival is middle aged men without wives. It's only natural to want to make some sort of profit off these people.

[Snakebyte1]

I have made many models as a kid, usually WWII planes (most ended up with fire crackers in them). It was an affordable hobby, something you could do on a rainy day, during the winter or when you had you leg in a cast....

Its true that its not as popular a hobby anymore, but its a damn shame that it looks like it will be priced right out of reach of kids...

You have to wonder just whart kind of money is involved here. What kind of profits are model companies earning? Are those profits enough to justify the size of royalties being demanded.?

I can agree that some royalties may be in order, and some acknowledgement on the packaging about the real plane's designer (often this is included in the small history pamphlet), but charging 50%-100% is shameful.

Should Boeing attempt to actually earn revenue now on a model of a B-17 (the original being paid and funded by American Gov during the War). And even if they get $25 per model, for a company that gets BILLIONS for its its real hardware, this royalty money would be insignificant. Should a model of a race car be doubled in price because it has a few tiny decals from real companies?

Sad sad sad

[painkiller]

Actually, this isn't new news.

The same thing has been happening within the toy train industry. For quite some time.

[lumis]

i can understand the copyright owner of a certain thing, car, plane, train being entitled to a cut.. but you wouldnt figure that the sponsors that adorn a racecar would want one.. hell, it's free advertising..

that would be like fram being angy about someone wearing a fram filters cap on the jay leno show or something.. and demanding money.. you would think they would be happy with the free advertising.

[davideck]

lumis - I agree. Exactly the point that I was trying to make.

Maybe the toy companies should respond by charging retroactive advertising fees to those who are now demanding royalties.

[GullyFoyle]

So the same companies that spend their advertising dollars on product placements and NASCAR sponsorships now want to charge the toy companies that were freely proliferating their names and product replicas into the hands of children? How brain dead is that!?!

Kids have the biggest disposable income budgets on the planet. Their only rival is middle aged men without wives. It's only natural to want to make some sort of profit off these people.

So you are advocating targeting children for capitalization of rampant consumerism?
To clear something up unless the child has a job and his/her own income it is the PARENTS who have to pay.
If it were not for targeting children we would not have so many crappy movies.
By your own stance you advocate the sale of candy cigarettes and young girl whore clothing.
You in essence want to indoctrinate them child into the consumer system as young as possible. Training another generation in mindless buying.
I'm sick and tired of greedy corporations tryiong to squeeze every last dollar out of hard working people.
The next generation game systems cost three to five hundred dollars. Games will rise from $49.99 to above $60. Most will be online where you need to pay the subscription service. Then you will have the chance to buy online goods for your character. That is FOUR times they profit from marketing to children and young people.
When will WE stand up and say enough is enough? When will WE start teaching our children NOT to spend mindlessly?
Do we really want a young generation of wage slaves in the modern debtors prisons of credit cards and no bankruptcy laws?
I'm sickened that anyone would be foolish to defend this type of rampant robber baron type of capitalism.
Especially at the expense of low to middle income parents and CHILDREN.

[ROF]

There is no such thing as free advertising. There is always a cost to do business in advertising. this isn't about advertising though. It's about illegal product placements and failure to pay royalties for such product placements. while the requested payment is outrageous, it should have paid a long time ago.

[GullyFoyle]

There is no such thing as free advertising. There is always a cost to do business in advertising. this isn't about advertising though. It's about illegal product placements and failure to pay royalties for such product placements. while the requested payment is outrageous, it should have paid a long time ago.

Back when business had a semblence of ethics the best advertising was by word of mouth. People respected the business that was their friend and made a decent product.
Now we expect to be screwed by the businesses our parents and grandparents had kind words for. From auto manufactures to health insurance and big pharmaco there is nothing but unending greed. A greed beyond making a profit.
This type of business ethic is doomed to failure. You can only push consumers so far and then they can not and will not buy any more.
The smart parasite will never kill it's host.
If only modern business had the same sense.

[ROF]

So the same companies that spend their advertising dollars on product placements and NASCAR sponsorships now want to charge the toy companies that were freely proliferating their names and product replicas into the hands of children? How brain dead is that!?!

Kids have the biggest disposable income budgets on the planet. Their only rival is middle aged men without wives. It's only natural to want to make some sort of profit off these people.

So you are advocating targeting children for capitalization of rampant consumerism?
To clear something up unless the child has a job and his/her own income it is the PARENTS who have to pay.
If it were not for targeting children we would not have so many crappy movies.
By your own stance you advocate the sale of candy cigarettes and young girl whore clothing.
You in essence want to indoctrinate them child into the consumer system as young as possible. Training another generation in mindless buying.
I'm sick and tired of greedy corporations tryiong to squeeze every last dollar out of hard working people.
The next generation game systems cost three to five hundred dollars. Games will rise from $49.99 to above $60. Most will be online where you need to pay the subscription service. Then you will have the chance to buy online goods for your character. That is FOUR times they profit from marketing to children and young people.
When will WE stand up and say enough is enough? When will WE start teaching our children NOT to spend mindlessly?
Do we really want a young generation of wage slaves in the modern debtors prisons of credit cards and no bankruptcy laws?
I'm sickened that anyone would be foolish to defend this type of rampant robber baron type of capitalism.
Especially at the expense of low to middle income parents and CHILDREN.

Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids the value of a dollar. Just walk around a mall and see how many dollars are freely given to begging and whining kids. You will quickly see it's not the market that needs to be the teacher, it's the parents. Parents control the wallet, yet in most cases the kids control their parents wallet. Visit a friends house who has kids. Do they have TVs in their rooms? How about assorted gaming systems? What about toys? Do they have a whole closet full? Guess what, it's not capitalism or other markets that need to be reigned in, it's parents. Some parents have this fear that their kids must have everything. When parents learn it's ok for their kids to go without luxuries only then will the market make a turn and start marketing their products at the price of kids allowances and paper route money again. It's the parents who need to change not the market. I say that as a parent of kids who don't get everything they want, yet they have everything they need.

[ROF]

Back when business had a semblence of ethics the best advertising was by word of mouth. People respected the business that was their friend and made a decent product.
Now we expect to be screwed by the businesses our parents and grandparents had kind words for. From auto manufactures to health insurance and big pharmaco there is nothing but unending greed. A greed beyond making a profit.
This type of business ethic is doomed to failure. You can only push consumers so far and then they can not and will not buy any more.

The way of doing business, like it or not, has changed. Change is good and change is bad but change is always going to occur. The price of doing business has also increased in those years. Remember when sports game tickets were the price of a Happy meal today? I do. You can't even get nose bleed seats for that price. Even parking is more expensive then those tickets used to be. This isn't about greed, except for the huge price being asked, it's about an industry finally requesting it's just payments for use of it's products, likeness or logos in order to sell a product.

it would be interesting to see what some of those companies whose stickers are included in models think about all this though.

[sammie]

it would be interesting to see what some of those companies whose stickers are included in models think about all this though.

That question came to my mind too. Would this become a never ending parade of everyone wants a piece? Not only do you have to go to Ford, you have to go to STP, Edelbrock, Cragar, Carol Shelby.... ad infinitum. I suppose, STP goes "COOL!" but I would have thought that about Ford too.

I called my friend up again and asked a few more questions. I realized thousands of questions are now running through my brain. He said he got different stories on what happened depending who he asked. The old time engineers and archivists who used to help him with researching plans thought that this was just the bean counters decided that this was a good way to make lots of money off of stuff that really no longer had any intrinsic value. He confirmed that the engineers (many of whom were model makers themselves) thought the bean counters were simply clueless on the whole activity and had long ago lost any sense of reality when it came to money. Their first activity for any price was to just hang some zeros on it and see if you could get away with it.

But, he got a different story from marketing types (again old shcool ones). They used to LOVE him doing models of their products, any product! They considered it free advertising as noted. He liked to do models of small run or even experimental post WWII planes. They would actually dig through the archives for him to help him find old plans, photos, descriptions: using those to entice him to do newer stuff for them. The new wunderkind marketing types actually want to eliminate the competition as it were. They see non-current models as diluting their marketing of current models. They are really just using all of this to control what is available to the market and make sure that the only thing that gets out is what they want. Supposedly, they are full well aware that a $40 price tag is a death sentence.

Which story is right? He had no idea, he was just disgusted with the whole thing. The main point he made was that this wasn't something that companies just discovered where people were "stealing" from them. This is an activity that the companies until just a year or so ago used to very actively encourage.

[sammie]

Actually, this isn't new news.

The same thing has been happening within the toy train industry. For quite some time.

Looks like the main model train thing happened about a year and a half ago, but is limited to the Union Pacific name and logo. Something that definitely seems to me to be nothing but free advertising for them, but whatever. At least they only wanted 3% of sales, greedy, but not ludicrous.

The only other thing I could find is that model railroad magazines used to take photos of old product adds and billboards, clean them up and print them in appropriate scales so you could cut them out and use them on your layout. Several manufactuers evidently objected to that, so they have stopped doing that except with explicict company permission.

Bottom line is all this has happened in the last year or so, and it amounts to a 180' about face for companies who used to encourage model companies to model their products seeing it as good free publicity.

[ybeard]

I'm considering buying a car. I think that I'll consider contacting Ford, GM, Chrysler or whomever I end up buying from and telling them that I'll require royalties from them for the free advertising that I'd be doing for them for having their logos on my new vehicle. They'll be annually renewable fees of course since it wouldn't be a one-time advertising.

I suppose I could also get the same thing from the dealership since they like to slap a decal telling people you bought your car from Joe Schmoe Cheverolet. I'll have to hit Goodyear or Firestone up as well since I'll likely have the raised white letters showing on the outside and that's free advertising for them as well.

[sammie]

Carefult though YBeard, they might counter sue you saying you didn't have permission to display their logo's while parked in the porn theatre parking lot (JUST JOKING!!! ).

[TheFamilyMan]

Nice thread of rants, all with good points. Here's mine:

Major League Baseball teams here in the USA demand royalities for the use of their team name by little league teams. This is no joke, and talk about something to get pissed off by!!!

[Syco54645]

I suppose I could also get the same thing from the dealership since they like to slap a decal telling people you bought your car from Joe Schmoe Cheverolet.

that reminds me of this one time that my mom was buying a new car. she told them not to put the decal on and they told her that it costs extra for them to take it off... so she calmly looked at them and said "ok so then you can mail my advertising check to this address". they promptly took it off

I'll have to hit Goodyear or Firestone up as well since I'll likely have the raised white letters showing on the outside and that's free advertising for them as well.

just put the tires on backwards. that is what i have done.

-Syco54645

[painkiller]

I've done similar things in the past when buying a new vehicle.

I like to get close to the end of the deal - when I tell them I don't want their logo/advert on the back end. Usually, they hem and haw about it.

That's when I tell them no deal.

Everybody moves then to satisfy me.

[Headbanger's Ball]

What they consider infringement; i call free advertising!