Why Plastic Aircraft Models are Going Away

[Fritz]

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/ho...et=HTMURPH.HTM

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.

These royalty demands 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. Some intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this contention. 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. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem, and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of the wholesale price of the kits).

[QuikSand]

Too much to read. Summarize, please. Is this about glue-sniffing?

[Fritz]

this is less than you would write about going downstairs for a glass of water

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Too much to read. Summarize, please. Is this about glue-sniffing?

Greed kills model planes.

(Now we won't get the new Presidential helicopter that says "Made In China." We'll have to live with the real one that says "Made In China.")

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fritz

this is less than you would write about going downstairs for a glass of water

Reminds me of an interesting story... stay tuned, I'll have it done in an hour or two.

[sachmo71]

I was looking forward to building models with my son.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I was looking forward to building models with my son.

Me too.

[WSUCougar]

Bow to the almighty dollar.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem, and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of the wholesale price of the kits).

If there's a bona fide market at work here, won't this be the real result eventually?

[scooper]

Wow. Interesting. Before Christmas, my wife and I were shopping for models for my nephew who is 11 going on 35 and who wants to design and build military weapons for a living. As kid, I loved making model airplanes and tanks and I remember entire department and toy store aisles full of model kits. The pickings were slim in contrast to my memories. I mentioned that to my wife. Now I know why. I just figured kids didn't want them anymore.

[WSUCougar]

I know Ebay still runs a good market for them (Toys & Hobbies/Model Kits/Military category).

[gstelmack]

Sounds like what's been going on with the game industry for years. Anyone else remember the whole Lockheed/NovaLogic fight over the F-22 Raptor?

[WussGawd]

It's not just plastic model kits.

Word has it that the flight sim Pacific Fighters chose not to enclose any aircraft made in World War II by McDonnell Douglas (or their predecessor companies) due to extortive licensing fees.

This of course, is what happens when you let Republicans rewrite copyright and patent laws for a generation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

This of course, is what happens when you let Republicans rewrite copyright and patent laws for a generation.

Yep. Everything under the sun isn't considered community property, and people are actually allowed to control some of the things they own.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Yes, Congress thumbs their nose at the "limited times" clause of the Constitution.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep. Everything under the sun isn't considered community property, and people are actually allowed to control some of the things they own.

And that'll show those kids who just want to build a model and do something constructive with their hands and time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

And that'll show those kids who just want to build a model and do something constructive with their hands and time.

Indeed, we all know that the primary motivation of the model companies is that "it's for the children". Uh-huh.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Then again (referring to my previous comment), the design of vehicles seems like a pretty big gray area here. It's not an invention that can be patented, it's not something written, so it's probably not something that Congress has an explicit right to regulate -- more likely a combination of interstate commerce, maybe with something arising out of common law?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep. Everything under the sun isn't considered community property, and people are actually allowed to control some of the things they own.

Cute, but very disingenuous.

First, the word is public domain, not community property, which has an entirely different legal definition.

The truth is, there are very good reasons why artists, inventors etc. should be given legal protections for their created works so they can recoup the cost and yes, make a ton of money off them. And believe it or not, liberals like to make money too. As somebody who has created copyrighted works, I certainly support legal protections, and do not engage in or condone piracy.

However, there are also compelling reasons why, using an example, it's probably not a good idea for the great-great grandchildren of an author or inventor (or more likely, a corporate death star publisher) to be able to continue to make money indefinitely off the collected works of Mark Twain, whose been dead for 95 years at this point. Yet, that is what the Republican Congress has done in lengthening the time periods of protected works, and making a sham of patent infringement enforcement. If Mark Twain had died twenty years later, dying in 1930, his works, all of them, would still be copyrighted, due to recent changes in copyright laws. Think about that. No more copies of Tom Sawyer in grade school English classes (too expensive), no more copies of Walter Mitty (Thurber would be copyrighted too).

For that matter, you are now breaking the law if you disable the annoying previews that come on at the beginning of a DVD. Mind you, we're not talking about copying the DVD (which obviously should be a crime), just disabling the stupid trailiers. Heck, the next generation of TiVo boxes are going to put expiration dates on content after which they'll be automatically deleted from the hard drive, whether you actually watched them or not.

There are good arguments that can be made for how long such legal protections (patents & copyrights) should exist, but the facts are that a tiny group of conglomerates, are dictating all of this right now. And I don't care where you are on the political spectrum...that's not a good thing, particularly when you consider they are making far more money off the inventions and creative works than the actually writers, designers, inventors, musicians, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Cute, but very disingenuous.

First, the word is public domain, not community property, which has an entirely different legal definition.

Wasn't shooting for the legal definition, was just answering a tacky political shot with some politically chosen words of my own.

However, there are also compelling reasons why,

From that, I believe it's clear that we disagree on how compelling those reasons are.

... particularly when you consider they are making far more money off the inventions and creative works than the actually writers, designers, inventors, musicians, etc.

Which is, at least if you're making the reference I believe you're trying to make (i.e. major publishers, record labels, etc), up to the various artists involved. Don't like the terms? Then don't sign the contract- take off on your own & make of the chance what you will. Otherwise, the whines come across pretty shrill from those who simply want to have their cake & eat it too.

If I paint a picture today & it is suddenly hailed as the greatest painting in history, but I don't sell it, just pass it down to my kids, and them to theirs & so on ... then the rights to that should belong to my heirs into infinity (presuming they never assign those rights). It's property, and they deserve to dictate it's usage AFAIC. If they choose to make it public domain or do whatever else with it they want to, fine, but it shouldn't be "reassigned" based on the turn of the calendar or anything else other than those choices.
Legal differences aside, I see "intellectual rights" as no different than any other property right.

[gstelmack]

The problem is that the companies who make these vehicles HAVE been compensated. We paid for the design and construction of the vehicles in question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem is that the companies who make these vehicles HAVE been compensated. We paid for the design and construction of the vehicles in question.

Then get the license from the appropriate branch of the armed forces.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's stipulate that the various manufacturers transferred those rights to the USAF, then that's who they belong to. An individual deserves no more claim to them than they have to the actual aircraft or the a $5k toilet seat at an AFB or anything else that's government property. Try dropping by & telling them you'd like to take that jet over there for a quick spin since you paid for it & see how far it gets you.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Think about that. No more copies of Tom Sawyer in grade school English classes (too expensive), no more copies of Walter Mitty (Thurber would be copyrighted too).

That part is not true. With the exception of one publisher I know of, nearly all books in the public domain are priced exactly the same as copyrighted books, so it would not cost the schools anything extra. It's just that the publisher gets to keep the royalty. Public school classrooms are filled with books that are still copyrighted. I know. I've been in quite a few of them over the last year and a half.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Fritz

These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize “intellectual property” income.

The problem is not so much that the companies want royalties, but that they have a bunch of stupid managers and accountants who don't understand things like price elasticity, and how that can affect the above goal.

[Fritz]

Thank you for politicizing a thread about model fucking airplanes.

Originally Posted by WussGawd

This of course, is what happens when you let Republicans rewrite copyright and patent laws for a generation.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Thank you for politicizing a thread about model fucking airplanes.

It was as much a thread about licensing law as model airplanes. Whether one should call out Republicans by name is questionable, but when I read the first post, my thoughts naturally went to the state of intellectual property/licensing law--not to model airplanes. Others milage may vary, of course.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It was as much a thread about licensing law as model airplanes. Whether one should call out Republicans by name is questionable, but when I read the first post, my thoughts naturally went to the state of intellectual property/licensing law--not to model airplanes. Others milage may vary, of course.

oh, certainly. sjshaw is an IP attorney, and I shot him a copy right away.

I think you can mention a political party's involvement in particular trend without the nastieness.

Wussguard just rolled across something I get miffed about easily.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's a link that everyone is welcome to take FWIW
http://modelingmadness.com/tomseditorial.htm

The whole "the poor model airplane industry" schtick at the bottom is pretty much standard fare, but the interesting part is summed up here "... the licensing fee is no problem - it adds cost, but not a prohibitive sum. But product liability insurance is nearly unobtainable nowadays, and it’s definitely unobtainable at a price a small company can afford without pricing themselves out of business trying to cover the additional cost."

Like I said, FWIW ...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by clintl

The problem is not so much that the companies want royalties, but that they have a bunch of stupid managers and accountants who don't understand things like price elasticity, and how that can affect the above goal.

You don't think any of the accountants at these companies understand the concept of price elasticity? I'll disagree on that.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then get the license from the appropriate branch of the armed forces.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's stipulate that the various manufacturers transferred those rights to the USAF, then that's who they belong to. An individual deserves no more claim to them than they have to the actual aircraft or the a $5k toilet seat at an AFB or anything else that's government property. Try dropping by & telling them you'd like to take that jet over there for a quick spin since you paid for it & see how far it gets you.

We're talking about LIKENESSES, not actual products.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We're talking about LIKENESSES, not actual products.

And I'm not sure that's a distinction that matters/should matter.

[cuervo72]

Related thought - do Matchbox, Hot Wheels, etc. pay any royalties to the auto industry?

[Leonidas]

Brilliant short term thinking. Defense contractors make money selling weapon systems to militaries. Militaries are made up of people who once were kids who very possibly got interested in joining the military because of all those cool models. Lets stunt the interest of your future clients for the sake of making a few bucks on the side. Brilliant I say.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I'm not sure that's a distinction that matters/should matter.

The post I was replying to was comparing it to me walking up to an AFB and demanding a ride on the plane. That's a ridiculous example to counter my point that we paid for the research and development of these aircraft / weapons / vehicles, so should have the right to create likenesses.

I'm trying to dig up more information on the NovaLogic / F-22 Raptor lawsuit. I thought that the result was that NovaLogic could not use the term "Raptor" as having been trademarked/licensed/etc by the plane's manufacturer (Lockheed?), but was able to use the F-22 designation and the shape/paint scheme of the aircraft. Can anyone else dig up more info on this? My web searches of "NovaLogic Raptor F-22 lawsuit" are only turning up hints of the suit and the final name of the game as "F-22 Lightning".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The post I was replying to was comparing it to me walking up to an AFB and demanding a ride on the plane. That's a ridiculous example to counter my point that we paid for the research and development of these aircraft / weapons / vehicles, so should have the right to create likenesses.

And my point is that I don't believe you have/should have any more "right" to the image than to the actual plane, as both are "property".

In the specific case you're describing, I'm not denying the right of the US Air Force to use the likeness (much like you own your car, you can take all the pictures of it you want AFAIC), I'm disputing your right to use the likeness.
(And yes, that's "the royal 'you'", not advocation of anti-gstelmack laws).

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And my point is that I don't believe you have/should have any more "right" to the image than to the actual plane, as both are "property".

In the specific case you're describing, I'm not denying the right of the US Air Force to use the likeness (much like you own your car, you can take all the pictures of it you want AFAIC), I'm disputing your right to use the likeness.
(And yes, that's "the royal 'you'", not advocation of anti-gstelmack laws).

In that case, the government should say, not as a government but a customer, that they will no longer do business with a contractor that exercises these specific rights. In other word, want to do business with the government, you're giving up rights to the likeness.

It'd be effective, simple, great pr for the government and not really affect the manufacturers bottom line. Of course, with a run being 10-20k unit's I really believe it's more of a nostalgia thing with folks rather than a real desire to make models with their kids. That only makes my plan so perfect since it's effect is so minimal in practice but huge in feel goodness.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It'd be effective, simple, great pr for the government and not really affect the manufacturers bottom line.

And if you believe for a minute the gov't would do anything with those rights except sell 'em for themselves, you're getting bad crack.

(I know, I know, you were just suggesting, not saying you believed they would, but ultimately all this does is change the recipient of the money)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And if you believe for a minute the gov't would do anything with those rights except sell 'em for themselves, you're getting bad crack.

(I know, I know, you were just suggesting, not saying you believed they would, but ultimately all this does is change the recipient of the money)

Well, they wouldn't sell them for themselves if they were essentially buying the public's good will. Politicians are about cash but they're also about pork for their constituency because bottom line is to dip in the barrel you have to get elected and that takes votes. Since the amount of money is miniscule for them it would be money well spent IMHO and politicians do back causes that don't cost them but make their voters happy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Since the amount of money is miniscule for them it would be money well spent IMHO and politicians do back causes that don't cost them but make their voters happy.

Y'think maybe somewhere along the way we've managed to grossly overestimate the actual number of people who particularly give a crap about model airplanes? Or, more directly to the point, the number of people who have any idea about any of this or care?

In the absence of a significant p.r. campaign to make an issue of this so that a noticeable number of voters care, I can't see Congress getting involved (and a random bill would just get hung in committee) and I can't see them picking this particular nit as something to haggle with the various Armed Forces backers over. Anything is possible (there's both money & government involved after all) but I don't see it being likely.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'think maybe somewhere along the way we've managed to grossly overestimate the actual number of people who particularly give a crap about model airplanes? Or, more directly to the point, the number of people who have any idea about any of this or care?

In the absence of a significant p.r. campaign to make an issue of this so that a noticeable number of voters care, I can't see Congress getting involved (and a random bill would just get hung in committee) and I can't see them picking this particular nit as something to haggle with the various Armed Forces backers over. Anything is possible (there's both money & government involved after all) but I don't see it being likely.

Oh, I pretty much stated as such. Come on, 20k is the high end of sales so we're talking 800k if the $40 bucks per unit is the going figure.

This issue, though, has nostalgia potential all over it. I haven't built a model in years and have no clue about the current situation but if I heard that the government was coming to the rescue and saving model airplanes for the children and taking on the big bad corporations, I'm going to have a huge feel good feeling about the government and I imagine I'm not alone in this.

That much value for 800k is pretty much a bargain IMHO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I'd see nothing except unjustifiable government interference in business & get a very baaaaaaaaaad feeling about it. And angry people generally make more noise than happy people

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'think maybe somewhere along the way we've managed to grossly overestimate the actual number of people who particularly give a crap about model airplanes? Or, more directly to the point, the number of people who have any idea about any of this or care?

Well, the gaming community (or at least the flightsim community, which was bigger in the late 90s than it is now) cared when the Novalogic lawsuit happened, and if you think this is limited to model airplanes you are sadly mistaken. Another flap started a couple of years back over the use of the Hummer vehicles in games, although that came down to the use of the front grill as being the trademarked bit. More of this is going on regularly.

I still need to dig up these decisions and can't find the final results (my web searches are failing miserably). The key point I'm trying to make is that LEGAL decisions have come down that only small parts of these things are actually trademarked (the F-22 "Raptor" designation, the front grill of the Hummer), not the entire likeness. There is a lot more government stuff that is public domain simply by having been paid for by the taxpayers than you might think. But it takes a lawsuit to fight back, and most companies simply aren't willing to fight the battle to get rights they've already got.

I'm waiting for one of these companies to start going after the photographers that take pictures of military aircraft and sell them, or worse give them away. Wait until they go after the SimHQ Desktop Wallpaper calendars, for example.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

You don't think any of the accountants at these companies understand the concept of price elasticity? I'll disagree on that.

As the story was originally represented here, they sure weren't acting like it, if they were setting a royalty demand so high that it was killing off the whole market. Now it appears there's more to the story.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Yes, Congress thumbs their nose at the "limited times" clause of the Constitution.

What the limited times clause actually says:

"The Congress shall have the power...

(big list of other stuff here)

To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to the authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries;"

That clause is so open-ended that any finite length of time would be constitutional. Congress can set it to any length of time it deems appropriate, and that's the way it should be.

FWIW, my understanding of why it was extended to the life of the author + 70 years was as part of an agreement to harmonize it with the EU's copyright law and work toward an international standard, which is a worthwhile thing to do.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Yes, they can set it to any time they deem appropriate, but my opinion is that any significant amount of time after the death of the creator is long enough to be outside the spirit of the clause as written (although obviously not the letter). YMMV.

[clintl]

Previously, copyrights were good for 28 years, with a one-time extension of an additional 28 years. I, for one, think that they should last for the life of the author at a minimum. However, suppose you set the copyright to expire at the death of an author, and an author dies one year after creating his work. Obviously, that happens. Probably a lot. Is it really right for a brand new work to go immediately into the public domain? I don't think so. I'm not sure why 70 years was picked, but it's not that much more than the 55 years the work could be protected by his heirs under the old copyright law.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I'd see nothing except unjustifiable government interference in business & get a very baaaaaaaaaad feeling about it. And angry people generally make more noise than happy people

How so? There'd be absolutely no interference in any governmental way. It would simply be a business decision from one business to another. That was the whole point. It's capitalism in action.