Higher Prices for US Aircraft Kit Subjects?



Oh, but McDonalds did raise a ruckus! That building kit is pretty rare today and commands a pretty penny.
Dean
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The drive in that I have for my somedaytobedone N Gauge layout is "Dairy King", IIRC.
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You would have loved the N scale module layout at the back of the vendors hall at the Nationals. I ran in a subdued "S" with the return loops at both ends. I haven't seen that in a module before! Cheers,
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Finished painting the library yesterday. New floor the other day. Boox shelves for two walls Friday.
The space below the large display case that shall replace what had been the bar counter is reserved for the N Gauge RR layout. It shall have a hinged table top which, when down, is Justin's puzzle/game table.
Any suggestions for a source of plans and instructions for a small layout?
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Aug 2004 06:09:54 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Maiesm72) wrote:

Try rec.models.railroad. That's where they all hang out. David Pennington snipped-for-privacy@bbbweb.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And they have even more OT postings than here! Peteski
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom, I haven't been hanging around train stores much lately but Kalmbach might have some plans published in softback book form.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Maiesm72) wrote in

Go to any hobby shop that deals in trains. There are books of layouts, even a small pamplet like thing from Atlas. I have several somewhere (still nursing hopes of a layout one day). If I can dig it up and get the scanner going I'll do some for you.
Also try http://www.atlasrr.com/ I have a whole bunch of sites bookmarked which could zip up and email you if you'd like.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Maiesm72) opened up and revealed to the world

Tom,
Here's a suggestion for ya, go to MSN Groups and search for "Nathanville Model Railway Village" it is a bi-level layout WITH a Stargate.
Digital_Cowboy - -- Live Long and Prosper ___________________ _-_ \==============_=_/ ____.---'---`---.____ \_ \ \----._________.----/ \ \ / / `-_-' __,--`.`-'..'-_ /____ ||- `--.____,-'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQSP29h/i52nbE9vTEQJfuACeL45mzjN6pUzvF6mFjbJwEsi/9JgAn028 nWiDlB8ZyCJJebF7o8xA6lwm =JyEk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Laughlin wrote:

IIRC, Sinclair was folded into BP. Gulf went to Mobil (I think) which went to Exxon. Never heard of Boron. My tank car was a Sunoco but I was more of a Texaco buyer as that was what my dad used in his car when I was little. I'd probably still use it if they hadn't behaved abominally over a credit card problem. There are people out there with some brand loyalties. There's just a lot less now because the companies aren't loyal to their customers.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doc Hopper wrote:

I think one of the reasons cited for licenses was that the likes of Boeing were concerned if little Johnny swallowed the prop from a B-29 kit and parents decided to sue Boeing. Now, I know that sounds daft, but thenso is suing MacDonalds because the coffee was hot - and that has happened.
The reasoning is/was that by licensing products you have more of a quality control issue and if little Johnny were to poke his eye with an unlicensed kit made in Taichinistan, Boeing could issue a disclaimer. Or something. To be honest, I still don't see how it stops said Johnny from poking his eye with a licensed product, which perhaps suggest that the arguement is a smokescreen for just scalping money off of kit companies.
And yes, I am of the opinion that a kit is great publicity for any aircraft/car manufcaturer or organisation. Alas, there is a growing tendacy to try and make money first rather than good PR.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Finally, we agree on the heart of the issue - $$$$$$$!

When I was a yout', in the later 1950s and early 60s, AMT had Ford and GM molds out on the hobby shelves within a couple of weeks after the cars themselves were in the showrooms. That tells me that the car companies and AMT were sharing that information and specs before the first cars were even built.

Sad but true.
-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Guys, maybe you haven't heard, but the sole purpose of a for-profit business is to make money. It exists for no other reason. "Good PR" only has value in the sense that good PR means more money for the business owner. Bad PR has no negative except in the context that it costs the business money. Are you going to refuse to fly on a Boeing airliner because they wouldn't cooperate with Revell? Are you going to write your congressman and tell him not to buy F-22As because Lockheed-Martin won't let Black Box issue a cockpit set under the Lockheed name? Are you going to tell your pension board to go against their broker's recommendations and not buy Sony stock because they wouldn't let a company issue a kit of the monster in their latest movie? Are you going to refuse to buy a new car because no one will give AMT body drawings? Are you going to let your car sit in your driveway with an empty gas tank because the company on your Lionel triple dome tank car in 1958 doesn't have any stations within 1500 miles of your house? Even if you said "YES!!" to all of these, and a proportionate number of modelers acted the same way, there would be at most, what, 500 borderline loonies like you screaming about this in the whole World? (And no doubt you would have a large overlap with the borderline loonies screaming about garbagemen making too much noise emptying your cans, powerlines that look too low to you, kids walking across your yard, cars with the radios playing too loudly, etc., etc., and getting about as much attention.)
Look guys, you need to just face facts. Real businesses have done the calculus and they can't afford to do all the cool stuff they've done before for your hobby free of charge.
Please, get over it.
KL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

This makes no sense at all. Exactly how much could they make off of licensing thier names considering that the hobby is contracting? How many Lockhered amryin (insert favorite aircraft here) kits are there going to be? Or Boeing? A million? Maybe? seems unlikely, anyone have sales figures to toss in here? Even so a million units at .25 cents each means $250,000. That probably doesn't even cover the pay, benefits and perks of the lizard working on it.
Maybe these companies should focus on what they are doing rather than trivia. Very few people in any line of work seem to be doing a good job at anything these days. This is more pure bullshit distraction for the stockholders.
Hey, maybe we could buy stock (even one) in the offending companies. Being a stockholder does allow certain rights, including the right to attend stockholders meetings and be heard.
--
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Somehow I don't see Trumpeter or Revell challenging Boeing in the real airplane or aftermarket business. I think the issue is reasonableness. How does allowing people to make replicas in a reduced size in anyway infringe on a company's real business particaularly when the reduced size replicas are of aircraft no longer in production without a prayer of going back into production orginally made by companies whose corporate identities no longer exist.
I have no problem with a company seeking to protect it's corporate identity. But it should also be reasonable in cases where such uses don't even come close to hurting it's actual line of business. In the case of military equipment I say, to bad. It belongs to the US governemnt and by extension to those that paid for it. In the case of cars or commercial aircraft or in regards to markings of race car sponsors or commercial aircraft operators or other enterprises - Disney, Aliens, etc where there are real copyright or trademark issues certainly that is a different story. I would think that if they received a small royalty that would not be a problem. Or if they intended to profit directly, Disney for example, than so be it.
So Revell now has to pay royalties to Boeing or Airbus (a state owned company? how does that make sense?) for the aircraft and to the airline for the livery. Fine. And if someone doesn't want to play then screw them.They just shouldn't be surprised if there is enough demand to make pirated copies a reality, copies over which they have no control. Free markets and the mind of man you know. Dickheads in $800 suits only think of themsleves as masters of the universe. The universe has other ideas.
But if it has been practice in the past to allow it or to even work with the model companies does it make any sense to allow them to suddenly squeeze them?
To Lockheed I say Lick(my)head! And to Union Pacific I say UP yours!
There are simply to many people anymore that are either irresponsible or worried about the wrong things. At my new job you would not believe the required lecture on privacy I got. To all of which I said DUH! I've been in DP for 15+ years and handled plenty of confidential information. Were I not respnsible I would not be where I am. As another new employee said, the lecture seesm not directed at people like you and I who understand all this, but for those who don't understand the neccesity of keeping people's personal health information confisential. And those people probably wouldn't understand the lecture anyway and should not have been hired in the first place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They won't but that's not the issue. It is simply their trademark.

As has been discussed already, that depends on what the contract with the Government said. It is NOT uncommon for the vendor to retain rights.

And if the infringers get caught and get sued, screw them.

Sounds like you are against ALL trademarks, patents, and copyrights in principle? Because some people steal and I can't stop them, I'm a dickhead for trying to prevent further theft?

This sounds like you have other issues besides copyrights. . .

Now Frank, here's where I'd expect your bullshit detector to ring. What evidence do we have that anyone is actually being "squeezed"? Have we seen any royalty agreements in person? As I recall from the FSM article some years ago, Boeing's view was that they just wanted to be asked first. For all we know, a model company didn't even bother asking and got a C&D letter from Boeing. Now they're going around telling the World that the sky is falling. What evidence - real, factual, publishable, attributable, evidence - is there that any model company is being forced to pay royalties that would amount to a "squeezing"?

Good thing this is Saturday. . . Maybe by Monday they can get a statement out and prevent their stock price from dropping too far. . . This is ridiculous Frank. What are you going to do, demand that the USAF NOT buy the F-22A (or pay more to L-M so that the shape and name is public domain) or boycott any product shipped on the UP? Hah!

I understand your view Frank, but I also deal with security and similar safety briefings. Yes, what that other guy said does ring true. However, you should realize that the more experienced people ARE often the problem because they THINK they know the rules, and THINK they know where they can cut corners. My company tracks security violations and publishes the data. I can't remember the last time (in ~13 years I've been there) that the violator had LESS than five years experience on the job. I think the average is like 11 years or something like that. All of them, if asked, would probably say they understood what their responsibilities were, but apparently they didn't. We had one guy who was a department safety rep break his shoulder because he was climbing on desks to get something and fell - he THOUGHT he understood what was safe and what wasn't.
KL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Absolutely not. Private property rights are the foundation of a civilized society.

Scads. I think that a lot of pure profit over everything. While to a simple minded freemarketer that might sound OK, in the end there are other considerations for the long haul, not just the next quarter. And the next insane undeserved bonus.

From what I have heard so far, which is admittedly very little. Mainly Sikorsky going after people on eBay, some kind of issue with the jeep logo affecting kit makers, etc. I would like to see companies working with model companies to allow it and to make more accurate model kits. I thought it was mentioned earlier that whoever owned what was North American was going to seek royalties for P-51 Mustangs, etc. Which I think would be way out of line.

Please like I would make the slightest difference!

There are just to many idiots who can't keep focused on the purpose. it makes it tough for everyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gray Ghost wrote:

I think they ought to challenge in court the items which were produced under government contract - "F/A-18 Hornet" for example, not the use of a corporate name or logo.
I think that would be a slam dunk (might not even get to court) and the winning of only one such case would stop such future foolishness.
--
- Rufus


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hear what you are saying Kurt, but look at it this way - plastic kits of F-16s are a good PR for the Air Force. How many current fighter jocks probably started on their career path by making kits of aircraft?
Or how about this - let's say your the head of Kurt Air, a large airline, who wants to screw Revellogramfix for a hefty licensing fee. They instead decide to go to JM International who say "great idea, its all publicity for us!". You walk into your hobby store and the shelves are stacked with kits of your biggest rival airline. How is that going to make you feel?
Sure, business's are out to make money, yes they have to protect their trademarks as well, but I think that becomes a grey area when we are talking about a big chunk of metal rather than a logo. What I think people are saying here is that there should be a modicum of common sense involved. And the amount of money they would be likely to make from a license is probably peanuts in the scheme of things to them. Would Boeing (or whomever) rather kids be buying kits of their aircraft of their rival?
Back in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s the approached of the aircraft companies, when approached by kit companies, was almost always "yeah, go for it". In fact, Hawker Siddley were always badgering Airfix to do a kit of their latest aircraft because they could see the PR value in it.
There clearly used to be something going for the concept Kurt because for decades that's how it used to operate. The social/enomomic climate has changrd where companies - or maybe perhaps their accountants o corporate lawyers - are now looking for a way to make money at every opportunity.
From my own experience I can tell you a story of how, back in the 90s, I was approached to write an article on a small museum that was always looking for new supporters, being acharity and all that etc... I contacted them and told them I'd been asked to write an article - which was effectively going to be a free four page advert for them in a national magazine read by hundreds of thousands - and asked when I it would be convenient for me to pop down and have a chat. Their response was that if I wanted to write an article, they would charge me 100 (which was more than I was being paid) for taking photos! I told the editor and he said they could get stuffed.
The moral of thats tory is that sometimes people can't see good PR when its kicking them in the butt, and I think its the same when it comes to licenses for airctraft kits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought this had been pretty well explained before, but I'm game to go again.

That's swell, but the Air Force isn't claiming copyright on anything. . .

That's quite a suspension of disbelief there, to suppose that the CEO of a large airline would ever set foot in a hobby shop, but I can do it. . . I would be indifferent. I would ask my marketing guy to find out if JMI had sold any additional seats because of this. When he reported back "No" (as I'm certain he would), I would shake my head and move on to something that would build valuable PR, like being on time 5% more than our direct competitors at each airport.

And that is the long and the short of it.

Kids do not buy airliners. Adult model builders do not buy airliners. People responsible for buying airliners do not make choices based upon model kits. Any CEO or stockholder who found out that the purchasing manager of the airline chose A over B because A cooperated with Revell while B didn't would be fully within their rights to have the PM filleted and salted. You can also substitute fighters for airliners, Defense Secretary for CEO, and congressman, fighter pilot, or taxpayer for stockholder with the same result.

Good for them, that was sweet.

Yes, and also not to waste it.

I assume you are are talking about H-S. . . How many extra aircraft do you think they'd sell to the MoD or whoever based on your article? Probably zero, right? Don't you think they could figure that out, too? Zero is also value of your article to them. There would however, be costs, like for one or two people to spent about a half a day keeping you company. That would likely run about -L 500, so even after your fee they'd still be L 400 in the hole.

Trust me, they know good PR - they pay people to create good PR. Look at Farnborough, the Paris airshow, or one of the defense expos. The big companies will be giving out all manner of gimcracks, free food, booze, and hookers just for good PR. They'll spend more for giveaways in three days than Revell makes in six months. What the poor souls on this newsgroup and this hobby just don't understand - or just won't accept - is that they don't matter. We are not the target audience. We do not make decisions. We do not sign $10 billion (milliard) contracts.
Sorry guys, but that's the way it is and really the way it has always been.
KL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.