More on Airfix 2017

[Work In Progress]

3 hours ago, T7 Models said:

Grumman Martlet Mk.IV is a trademark of Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and is used under license to Hornby Hobbies Limited.

 

The latter is particularly interesting as Northrop Grumman seem to have trademarked a name and designation that was thought up by somebody else altogether, namely the predecessor to the UK Ministry of Defence. I wonder if the MoD know that?

 

 

Makes no difference whatsoever to the trademark position. Your ability to protect a given form of words as a trade mark for a given product category (in this case aeroplanes and probably some related categories) relies upon the mark holder trading with it in the relevant product category. That's why it's called a trade mark. The MOD never sold aeroplanes under the name Martlet, and Grumman did. (Sorry for the small size, best I could find).

 

The question of who dreamed up the name is completely irrelevant in trademark law. There might be a conceivable argument in the entirely separate field of copyright law, but it's hard to beloeve that Grumman's lawyers didn't sort out any conflict there back in the 1940s when they were negotiating the original supply contract with the UK government. Any competent corporate lawyer would have done that.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Seahawk]

On 21/04/2017 at 0:00 PM, Dave Fleming said:

Intesresting he's selling them at the same price Airfix were. Now can someone please do some proper decals for them!!

 

Even more interesting, mine arrived with a £7.50 price label on it!

[Truro Model Builder]

51 minutes ago, old thumper said:

Who would know which model kits would sell best?

 

 

 

And there is the $64,000 question. There is no objective evidence, not the top-three-wanted-kit slips at SMW, not the forums such as this, that will truly tell the kit manufacturers what will sell well. For everyone who wants a Farley Fruitbat Mk.XV there will always be someone else who wants a Scruggs Wonderplane F.4 and will produce copious reasons why it will be a winner. In the end it is down to best guesses and what has worked before.

[baldwin8]

6 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

 

someone else who wants a Scruggs Wonderplane F.4

Seriously?!?!? What scale??? I didn't know someone was finally producing one. I've waited so long for this.

[Wez]

3 minutes ago, baldwin8 said:

Seriously?!?!? What scale??? I didn't know someone was finally producing one. I've waited so long for this.

 

1/24th - the wrong scale!  Also, why didn't they do the more numerous and popular FGR.6?  When will these people learn??

[HMSLion]

The whole licensing issue is questionable, in my view.  Unless the company that made the original aircraft is providing technical support.  I think the model manufacturers don't want to bother with the lawsuits...and the aircraft makers are too foolish to realize that it's free publicity.

[Botan]

2 hours ago, HMSLion said:

The whole licensing issue is questionable, in my view.  Unless the company that made the original aircraft is providing technical support.  I think the model manufacturers don't want to bother with the lawsuits...and the aircraft makers are too foolish to realize that it's free publicity.

 

Last year one Polish company did not released a resin kit of Orlik, because in response company simply replied them "nope or lawsuit"...

 

Anyway, not only companies makes problems:

 

Quote

letter from Lewis Nace, President of Minicraft Models, appeared in the July 2016 issue of "Beaver Tales," the e-newsletter of IPMS-Canada:

“Some months ago we exchanged messages about the threat of licensing demands by the US Military. It is now official that the first of the US military licensing demands have been made, the first being the US Navy.

“Last year this topic first came up because a container shipped to a Minicraft customer (MMD) was seized by US Customs because a model kit had a decal representing the seal of the US Coast Guard (it was a Trumpeter container not a Minicraft container). That situation did not affect Minicraft because we do not currently offer a kit with US Coast Guard markings, but the lesson was obvious – the US military branches are by way of US Customs starting to enforce “new” trademark laws. Minicraft will no longer consider marketing any subject that requires reference to the Coast Guard going forward.

“However, given the nature of the Minicraft line, I have a minimum of 2 military licenses I must contend with, the US Navy and the US Air Force. In the past we often offered optional markings in kits but that will no longer happen. If we were to include markings for a Navy and an Air Force airplane in the same box we would be subject to licensing both branches of the service. The US Army, US Marine Corp, US Navy, US Air Force, US Coast Guard all have a SEPARATE license all with separate procedures and royalty requirements. We cannot triple our licensing cost.

“If modelers wonder why their selection has narrowed this might help explain it. The cost of licensing? Licensing costs are all pretty similar for Ford, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman, Cessna etc. It looks like the US military licensing fee will be the same and this will effectively double Minicraft licensing costs. EACH licensing authority will need to approve the product and each have their own special requirements all of which adds to the time it takes to develop new product. Many licensing groups are starting to require the use of an “OLP” hologram and we are expecting to have to reserve space on the box to line up the OLP holograms! Manufacturers will have no alternative but to increase the price to the consumer.

“If model enthusiasts are unhappy about the state of the industry invite them to contact their Congressional representatives. Model kit manufacturers now need to wade through licensing agreements, pay royalties and follow accounting requirements and not only pay manufacturers for designs and license holders for ships tanks and airplanes the US military used decades ago, but now also pay each individual branch of the service depending on the decals included in the kit.

“Incidentally legal advisors have also recommended removing any reference to crews or pilots because doing so presents the risk of yet another licensing demand. Ever heard the story about the “estate” of Chuck Yeager? His heirs have successfully demanded licensing of any kit bearing his name on the airplane.

“Say goodbye to the hobby we once knew.”

 

Source - 72 aircraft forum

Edited April 26, 2017 by Botan

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

 I would also thank them for a new Hunter (single or twin, I don't mind!) and, new tool Lightning F1/F1A/F2/F3/T4/T5. Vulcan B1/B1A/B2, Victor B1 and, any version of the C-130! I realise I don't ask for much!.

 

Allan

 

Would you?  Would you really?  You haven't thanked them for the new tool Victor by purchasing one!  All you've done since it was released is bleat on about how you can't afford one at every chance you get.  It'd be the same with a C130, a Vulcan or a Victor B1, all large aircraft that require significant costs in tooling and thus a significant cost price to recoup said outlay.  

 

Too many people jump up and down about how they want their own particular hobby horse holy grail kit, yet when it's released they either whinge about in accuracies or price and their wishes suddenly face cold reality and almost rarely convert into kit sales.  How many people wanted a 48th Canberra or 72nd Nimrod?  Airfix were lobbyied quite strongly and tooled both yet a year later, the stores were having to practically beg customers to take them.

[occa]

46 minutes ago, Botan said:

 

Last year one Polish company did not released a resin kit of Orlik, because in response company simple replied them "nope or lawsuit"...

 

Anyway, not only companies makes problems:

 

 

Source - 72 aircraft forum

Greed will kill the hobby if this goes further

[Greenshirt]

1 hour ago, Botan said:

contact their Congressional representatives.

 

So who wants to pay me to be the lobbyist for the modeling community?  I live close to D.C., so that's not at issue, but we Modelers are a cheap lot so I suspect you'll want me to volunteer...and I'd be up against very well paid lobbyists for the manufacturers like Boeing, N-G, and all the others. 

 

Then there would be the legal fees as the challenges worked their way through the courts to the Supreme Court...and if they side with the manufacturers we are back to square one: whinging about model prices climbing due to the fractional increases tied to licensing. 

 

So, let's say we save the money, buy more kits and continue to whinge as we are surely going to whinge anyway. 

[Botan]

55 minutes ago, Greenshirt said:

 

So, let's say we save the money, buy more kits and continue to whinge as we are surely going to whinge anyway. 

 

Or switch to Gundams and other anime models, it will be cheaper for model companies to have one license to buy than several. Oh, and there is no problem with Nazi promoting with Finnish swastikas.

Anyway, they can't take away my stash I already bought!

[John Thompson]

2 hours ago, The Wooksta! said:

 

Would you?  Would you really?  You haven't thanked them for the new tool Victor by purchasing one!  All you've done since it was released is bleat on about how you can't afford one at every chance you get.  It'd be the same with a C130, a Vulcan or a Victor B1, all large aircraft that require significant costs in tooling and thus a significant cost price to recoup said outlay.  

 

Too many people jump up and down about how they want their own particular hobby horse holy grail kit, yet when it's released they either whinge about in accuracies or price and their wishes suddenly face cold reality and almost rarely convert into kit sales.  How many people wanted a 48th Canberra or 72nd Nimrod?  Airfix were lobbyied quite strongly and tooled both yet a year later, the stores were having to practically beg customers to take them.

 

I solemnly swear that if Airfix, or anyone else, releases a new 1/72 Yak-9d, I will buy several, regardless. At least several. Thers - that's my hobby horse fed....

 

John

[Navy Bird]

3 hours ago, Botan said:

Ever heard the story about the “estate” of Chuck Yeager? His heirs have successfully demanded licensing of any kit bearing his name on the airplane.

 

Source - 72 aircraft forum

 

I'm pretty sure that Chuck Yeager is still alive...I guess that's why "estate" is in quotes. I wonder what my "estate" is planning behind my back. Darn kids anyway...    

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. And I would buy Yak-9s by the boat load, too. C'mon Airfix - do it!

[malpaso]

The whole licencing thing comes down to who's got deeper pockets, which will never be the model companies.  Because the companies couldn't claim that a 1/72 model was being "passed off " as the real thing.  Protection of trademarks is different.

 

As for the MoD ever trying with the roundel...hmm that's going to go well in court.

Judge:"So Mr Civil-Servant, you'd like to trade mark a badge that's been stolen from the French, shared with allies and empire in two world wars along with many other countries since...and you can't even decide on the actual colours!  Case dismissed!"

[Britman]

I suppose freedom of speech is the next thing!

[Ingo Degenhardt]

6 hours ago, The Wooksta! said:

 

Would you?  Would you really?  You haven't thanked them for the new tool Victor by purchasing one!  All you've done since it was released is bleat on about how you can't afford one at every chance you get.  It'd be the same with a C130, a Vulcan or a Victor B1, all large aircraft that require significant costs in tooling and thus a significant cost price to recoup said outlay.  

 

Too many people jump up and down about how they want their own particular hobby horse holy grail kit, yet when it's released they either whinge about in accuracies or price and their wishes suddenly face cold reality and almost rarely convert into kit sales.  How many people wanted a 48th Canberra or 72nd Nimrod?  Airfix were lobbyied quite strongly and tooled both yet a year later, the stores were having to practically beg customers to take them.

I have the Canberra and two (2) Nimrods..., the Valiant and the Vulcan and the Shackleton   all  built. And I will have the Victor, too.

Not my fault if some of them did not sell that well.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Ingo Degenhardt

[gavingav1]

8 hours ago, HMSLion said:

The whole licensing issue is questionable, in my view.  Unless the company that made the original aircraft is providing technical support.  I think the model manufacturers don't want to bother with the lawsuits...and the aircraft makers are too foolish to realize that it's free publicity.

But what does publicity generated from the sale of a model kit do for boeing?, it's not like any of us are going to nip out and buy a real f-18f because we built a nice kit of it, i think the companies would prefer royalties over "free publicity" any day .

Edited April 26, 2017 by gavingav1

[old thumper]

9 hours ago, The Wooksta! said:

Too many people jump up and down about how they want their own particular hobby horse holy grail kit, yet when it's released they either whinge about in accuracies or price and their wishes suddenly face cold reality and almost rarely convert into kit sales. 

 

I am most certainly not one of the above people. 

I wish for kits for years, run out and buy them and then put them in my loft with all the other ones. Kits are like wine, and some of my favorite ones have been maturing for 50 plus years.

 

Not that fussy about accuracy either, I don't check kits with micrometers against original drawings, if a panel line is a bit out of place then so what in my mind.

[charlie_c67]

1 hour ago, old thumper said:

 

I am most certainly not one of the above people. 

I wish for kits for years, run out and buy them and then put them in my loft with all the other ones. Kits are like wine, and some of my favorite ones have been maturing for 50 plus years.

 

Not that fussy about accuracy either, I don't check kits with micrometers against original drawings, if a panel line is a bit out of place then so what in my mind.

 

I agree, though I do wish some of the beggars would go together a little easier...stupid MiG-15 canopy...

[Giorgio N]

8 hours ago, gavingav said:

But what does publicity generated from the sale of a model kit do for boeing?, it's not like any of us are going to nip out and buy a real f-18f because we built a nice kit of it, i think the companies would prefer royalties over "free publicity" any day .

 

Aircraft manufacturers also already have plenty of free publicity whenever there's a crisis somewhere in the world, with pictures of Eagles, Hornet and Typhoons appearing on every national newspaper and every TV channel. Again, not that this results in people knocking at Boeing doors to buy one of their fighters

 

On the opposite side, when an aircraft suddenly becomes famous, model companies get extra revenues: when Top Gun hit the screens in the '80s there was a rush to buy anything depicting a Tomcat, the owner of the local model shop said that he'd never seen so many people as in those days, all asking a kit of whatever was the aircraft Maverick flew in the movie

Edited April 27, 2017 by Giorgio N

[Truro Model Builder]

15 hours ago, Botan said:

 

Or switch to Gundams and other anime models, it will be cheaper for model companies to have one license to buy than several. Oh, and there is no problem with Nazi promoting with Finnish swastikas.

Anyway, they can't take away my stash I already bought!

 

No they cannot, but a logical next step would be for copyright and trademark holders to do the same for image rights and start demanding royalties from the organisers of model shows before models of particular subjects can be displayed. And before you pooh-pooh such an idea who would ever have thought licensing would get so far already?

 

The Lewis Nace letter makes very sobering -and concerning- reading.

 

[old thumper]

All this stuff about charging model manufacturers for copyright makes me sick. How petty and selfish can you get, among other things Boeing are already making a fortune from our taxes and pocket money. Boeing are wealthy enough to turn a blind eye to Airfix and Revell making kits of B-17s and Mustangs without charging them royalties which are then passed onto customers. What a bunch of fat greedy pigs.

[noelh]

17 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

I'm pretty sure that Chuck Yeager is still alive...I guess that's why "estate" is in quotes. I wonder what my "estate" is planning behind my back. Darn kids anyway...    

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. And I would buy Yak-9s by the boat load, too. C'mon Airfix - do it!

He is still alive. But don't blame the kids. They were written out of the will after a court case. His second wife is the power behind the throne. They pursue aggressively anyone who they believe has contravened his tradmarks or copyrights or whatever. Try getting a set of Glamourous Glennis decals. One manufacturer had to resort to an anagram to avoid trouble.

For a man in his nineties he spends an inordinate amount of time on twitter and Facebook. Hmm! 

I'm afraid his legacy has been damaged by this kind of thing.

[snowen250]

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 1:08 PM, Aeronut said:

It starts with a letter addressed to.....

"The Public Relations Officer

c/o The Officer Commanding

RAF  (Insert base name)"

Cor! Bet they haven't thought of doing that......!

[janneman36]

Maybe model companys should consider more the option of kits without decals or just with general stencilling.

Because a lot of us don't use the kit decals it would save on costs for rights of using that particular scheme !!

Look for instance at the Eduard overtrees afterwards you can ad what you want....

I for instance have never used the most decals (except for review builds) that came with my kit than only the general stencilling if needed..

But nevertheless we live in a strange world of liability and rights where you all have to pay for