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.

Reply to
robbelothe
Loading thread data ...

wrote

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

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

If true this is beyond belief. Are there any documents or web links to back this up.

JG

Kurt Laughl> wrote

Reply to
masterpiecemodels

Yep, sounds like Congress, or at least what I've come to expect of them.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Reply to
Mad-Modeller

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.
Reply to
Mark Mathu

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.

or

formatting link
.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Your tax dollars at work... finally!

Reply to
dancho

Well, sheeeit! Where were all you air- and tread-heads when the manufacturers started licensing for *car* kits? Maybe we can put together a discrimination class action suit so AMT can make a '68 ROADRUNNER instead of a '68 'Belvedere' hardtop. See if we teach *you* how to do a mirror-finish gloss coat ever again!

-- C=2ER. Krieger Car Guy=AE

Reply to
C.R. Krieger

It would be nice if they did the same with NASA - I read an article today that in general there are few models of exploration spacecraft. According to the article JPL and CalTech have an agreement with LEGO that they have the rights to exploratory spacecraft models. According to the article Lego had the rights to the two Mars craft that crashed/disappeared. Joke was they would have had to market it as the Mars Failure Set.

Val Kraut

Reply to
Val Kraut

The difference is that military hardware designs are usually paid for and owned by the USG, car designs are not.

Reply to
rwsmithjr

THANKS guys. Kurt, ya had me goin' there for about 3 seconds!!

NOW, all we have to do is e-mail/call our Senators and Congresspersons (NOTE MY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!) to actually pass the bills and send them to the President to sign!!!!! They still haven't gotten around to passind the defense bills.

Reply to
robbelothe

...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.

Reply to
Rufus

THANKS GUYS!! Kurt, ya' had me goin there for about 3 seconds.

Now, all we have to do is call/e-mail/otherwise annoy our respective members of Congress and get them to actuall pass the Defense bills so the President can sign them.

HINT!! HINT!! HINT!!

Reply to
robbelothe

Don't the world courts only settle disputes between nations?

Reply to
Mark Mathu

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.

Reply to
Rufus

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

Reply to
Mad-Modeller

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?

Reply to
Don Stauffer

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

Reply to
Rufus

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.

Reply to
John McGrail

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.

Reply to
Rufus

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.