Licensing of Model Kits

What ever happened to the bill in the U.S. Congress that was going to prohibit defense contractors from charging license fees to
manufacturers of model kits? I haven't seen anything on it in a while. IIRC, it was put in as an amendment to one of the bills but I never heard further.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was modified in committee to in fact REQUIRE defense contractors to get licensing fees and split them with the Gov't. It also created a $10,000 fine for anyone OWNING an unlicensed kit, PER KIT!!!!
KL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If true this is beyond belief. Are there any documents or web links to back this up.
JG
Kurt Laughlin wrote:

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

Yep, sounds like Congress, or at least what I've come to expect of them.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H.R. 1815). Do a Google search on "H.R.1815" and look at section 820 of the bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the bill as sent to the Senate:
SEC. 820. PROHIBITION ON DEFENSE CONTRACTORS REQUIRING LICENSES OR FEES FOR USE OF MILITARY LIKENESSES AND DESIGNATIONS.
(a) In General- The Secretary of Defense shall require that any contract entered into by the Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants to obtain licenses from or pay fees to the contractor for the use of military likenesses or designations on items provided under the contract.
(b) Limitation to United States Companies- Subsection (a) applies only with respect to toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants incorporated in or organized under the laws of the United States.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c1094LvQo3:e460421 :>
or http://tinyurl.com/bukwk .
--
Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968

My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Superczynski wrote:

Your tax dollars at work... finally!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dancho wrote:

...which is presumably why the new F/A-18F kit from Hasagawa has an "Officially licensed Boeing" label on the box, and the Revell E kit does not.
I could see this getting fought in the world courts (personally, I think it's bad law), but on the up-side, maybe it will enourage hobby and toy manufacturers to move to the USA.
--
- Rufus

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

Don't the world courts only settle disputes between nations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Yes - and in my opinion, this becomes a trade issue...in that what it essentially does is to unilaterally levy a tariff on non-US toy and hobby manufacturers for making replicas of any item produced using US public funds. And I could see this being applied in the case of more than just models..."any replica", as I've stated.
It could be argued that that is an unfair trade practice, or foreign producers could simply retaliate in kind - raising the price of items which are replicas of like kind and produced for export. Or just raising product prices across the board.
Like I said - I think it's bad law, bad trade policy, and bad foreign policy. They should have just exempted licensing for everyone...not just domestic producers. We're all just going to get higher kit prices out of this, IMO.
--
- Rufus

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

Makes sense considering this Congress' record so far. Just once I'd love to see them pass something (other than gas) that was well thought out and functional.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

This licensing thing has had me upset for a long time. I wonder if this could even be extended to photographs. You might, in the future have to get a license if you wanted to photograph a full-size airplane or car. After all, a photo is a 2-D replica, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer wrote:

Hmmmnn...interesting thought. And inadvertant extension of the copyright laws...and how about 3-D computer models?..
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2005-11-02, Rufus wrote:

I am not a lawyer. But I get the general impression that you own the copyright to pictures you take in public. You also own the copyright to pictures taken in private if you have implicit or explicit permission to take them.
While I don't remember the exact details, I do remember an artist who sued (I think) the author and publishers of a book of distinguishing NYC landmarks. His argument was that the one of the pictures in the book was of a building that had a prominent piece of his artwork outside. He claimed including the picture of his artwork violated his copyright as he had not licensed the author/publishers to print pictures of _his_ artwork.
If I remember correctly, the judge threw the suit out saying the artwork was on public display and therefore the artist could not assert copyright/ intellectual property rights.
I remember another lawsuit by Matel against someone who was publishing images of Ken and Barbie in, ehm, unusual poses. Matel claimed their trademark was harmed by these pictures (amongst other things). IIRC, they ulitimately lost as the judge sided with the publisher who claimed parody.
Again, I am not a lawyer. And I have bad memory.
--
snipped-for-privacy@food.skaterat.net
All foods should be removed to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John McGrail wrote:

Even so, the gist of your recallections is an example of such that could bring about the "chilling effect" that the news media is always wrangling over concerning free speech arguments - only in this case, the issue might be considered as "free exchange"...in the light of a trade action.
The issue of 3-D computer models really has me wondering now - exaclty what can a 3-D model be considered to be - an image, a replica, a collection of data, intellectual property, artwork..? And what if you sell them - are you the same as a model "manufacturer? Or are you still an "artist"?..
I'm no lawyer either, but I certainly know better than to trust any of 'em.
--
- Rufus

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

OTOH, you never know where one of us might turn up ... -- C.R. Krieger (Yeah; you could look it up)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C.R. Krieger wrote:

Yeah...be vigilant, folks...
--
- Rufus

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

But what I meant was that an extension of the copyright idea could be construed to mean you could not take a photograph of a copyrighted design (since copyright is automatic, that means ANY designed object) without violating copyright. I didn't mean anything about the copyright of the photographer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer wrote:

Actually, I know if a case where this applies. Photographing places of business may violate the business' copyright. My middle-school daughter went to a birthday party held in the food court of a local mega-mall. The mother-in-charge thought it would be really cool to have a Scavenger Hunt by giving the girls a list of things to find and having them fan out into the mall to take photos of the target items with a digital camera. At virtually every business, the girls were told they could not take photographs inside the store of any merchandise or even the exterior of the store. I later asked my attorney brother-in-law what the deal was and he answered "intellectual property rights". The businesses has exclusive rights to their logos, product images, etc. and therefore have a certain amount of contorl over how images of those items are presented, used, etc.
BTW: The Scavenger Hunt was a bust ;^)
Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did that have anything to do with the businesses being in the mall? I can't see how an outdoor building in plain sight would be able to stop that kind of thing.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
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.