Model companies vs Aircraft companies

[Dave Homewood]

I just saw on the news that several aircraft manufacturers in the USA are trying to prevent model manufacturers using their designs and names in kitsets without paying a massive royalty fee.

Apparently a modellers lobby group has gone all the way to the Whitehouse to prevent this, trying to get a law passed to stop the heavyhanded tactics by the likes of Lockheed and General Dynamics, etc.

What's the world coming to? Manufacturers of kitsets are also very against it, saying it will mean at least a 10% hike on prices to the public.

The bloody arms dealers make enough money. I hope this doesn't go through and then catch on with non-US aircraft manufacturers too.

What do you guys think?

[corsair67]

I suppose the aircraft manufacturers believe they are entitled to claim intellectual property on their designs, but this is getting ridiculous!

What next: photographers having to pay aircraft manufacturers a royalty fee ever time they photograph one of their aircraft?

[kiwi]

Evidence of this is already visible in New Zealand , particularly on Italeri kits, which now carry notices mainly from Boeing who seem to own the rights to just about everything . This rubbish has even extended to the British roundel and RAF as a brand .

[Calum]

Producers of aftermarket decals here in Aussie have to be licensed by the RAAF to re-produce the Roundel and any other RAAF specific designs.

I can understand the Roundel point to a degree but the aircraft manufacturers are just being stupid and greedy.

Thankfully we'll always have China to bring companies like Boeing into line....:-)

[Dave Homewood]

Do individual nose arts, say from a WWII aircraft, come under copyright? (I guess if it is Popeye or Donald Duck etc then yes, but...). I mean who would be able to track down the artist?

[flyjoe180]

The manufacturers and operators of aircraft whose fleets are subjects of model kits, should look as kitsets bearing their logos and names as a free form of advertising.