Military model licensing legislation.

[bcawthon]

In case you didn't know, legislation has been introduced that would prohibit military contractors from charging license fees for models of products developed for a military contract funded by taxpayers. It won't help with Union Pacific, but it will stop the licensing of models like Roco's Minitanks and Trident's military models as well as other models of vehicles and weapons systems we have already paid to have built.

While there are various sites that say this legislation has passed the house, this is not true. According to Congressional tracking sources, HR 4806, The Military Toy Replica Act, has not even been presented to the House of Representatives. The last action came on March 20, 2006, when the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Readiness. Hate to say it, but most bills never make it out of committee. The fact this is a relatively minor bill introduced by a Democrat doesn't help.

The author of the bill is Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ). Cosponsors are Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Representative W. Curtis Weldon (R-PA).

You can help spur some consideration of the bill by contacting members of the Subcommittee on Readiness who are listed below. Please be aware that most of them will pay the most attention to communications from people in their own district, so if one of the people listed below is your representative, be sure to make contact. Even if your representative is not listed, you can contact your representative to let them know this legislation is important to you.

Member Name
Joel Hefley (R-CO) [Chairman]
John N. Hostettler (R-IN)
Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC)
Jim Ryun (R-KS)
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Mike Rogers (R-AL)
Joe Schwarz (R-MI)
Cathy McMorris (R-WA)
John M. McHugh (R-NY)
Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-CA)
Robert (Robin) Hayes (R-NC)
Robert R. Simmons (R-CT)
Jeb Bradley (R-NH)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX)
Lane Evans (D-IL)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Robert A. Brady (D-PA)
Susan A. Davis (D-CA)
Jim Marshall (D-GA)
Kendrick B. Meek (D-FL)
Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (D-NC)

Here is the contact info for the Subcommitte offices:

House Subcommittee on Readiness (Republican Office)
2117 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone]

House Subcommittee on Readiness (Democrat Office)
2340 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone]

Incidentally, this is the second trip through Congress for such legislation. Similar language was included in the defense spending bill, but it disappeared long before the bill made it out of the House.

Right now, all our representatives are hearing is the big bucks from the defense contractors. Now there is a piece of legislation specifically geared toward protecting the interests of modelers. If it dies or goes away, it will be at least partly because we did nothing.

Bill C.

[orsonroy]

Why is this legislation even necessary? The US taxpayers own the rights to any military hardware, so they're legally public access. You don't need a license to produce a model of the Liberty Bell, do you?

I really wish Washington would do something useful for a change...

[bcawthon]

Because several large defense contractors are starting to require licenses, claiming the designs are theirs, not the taxpayers'. This includes AM General, which is trying to license the Humvee.

In case you hadn't noticed, public domain has been dying a not-so-slow death over the past couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the work on the post Bill C. In my estimation, while Washington has plenty of other foul-ups that are more important to consider, there has to be a line drawn in the sand sometime. This effort, to my knowledge, was spearheaded by a distributor of models through their congressperson. Hopefully something can be done. There is no sense in taxpayers having to pay a license for a design that we have already paid for.
I did contact my congressperson a few months ago about this. Guess what? They were thrilled to hear from a constituent, seemed interested in what I was talking about, and then of course nothing was done to deal with this. This licensing stuff is out of control, and someone stepped up and said "enough" and this is how we can help. Thanks again Bill. And thanks to the distributor place that has worked on this issue!

[jeffers_mz]

If a contractor was paid to submit a design, then the taxpayers own the design.

If a contractor risked time and capital on a design competition, received zero tax dollars in return for the design, and makes money only off selling products made from the design, then I think they have a valid claim to the design as intellectual property.

I own a jeep, but not the design of a jeep.

I can drive my car any way I like, but I can't copy it, not at 1:1, not at 1:87.

If I buy the design itself, I can do with it whatever I choose, sell it, copy it, burn it, anything not prohibited by law. But I have to buy it first.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffers_mz


I own a jeep, but not the design of a jeep.

I can drive my car any way I like, but I can't copy it, not at 1:1, not at 1:87.

Not quite... When you make a 1:87 model of a Jeep, you are not making a fully-functional copy of the real thing. You are only making a likeness of its shape, and if that's illegal, every child who draws the shape of a jeep on a sheet of paper would have ended up in jail.

I don't think the spirit of the law intends for things to go that dogmatic.

[Anonymous]

Does North American Aviation own the P-51 or the name Mustang? According to the company that now owns NA the answer is yes and they want a license fee from a model manufacturer to sell model kits of that plane. Does Boeing own the design of the B-17, B-29, B-47 or B-52? The lawyers have gone too far and need to be stopped.

[davekelly]

Actually, I believe that Boeing actually designed the B-17 on their own dime and the government then purchased them, so if this is true, then Boeing arguably does own the design of the B-17, just like Ford owns the design of every Explorer puchased by the government. In fact, other aircraft manufacturers had to receive a license from Boeing to produce the B-17 during WWII. Whether or not these guys paid money to Boeing, I don't know.

I'm still trying to figure out how this is all the fault of attorneys. Last time I checked the right to vote lawmakers into and out of office was not limited to attorneys and jury summons are mailed not to just attorneys. I know I'll get flamed on this, but it is one of my favorite soapboxes.

[Paul3]

Dave,
(going way, way OT) The B-17 was built for a military contract. The risk Boeing took was that it was a large 4-engine design, and all others in the competition were smaller 2 engine planes (which is why the B-17 only had a medium bomber's interneral bomb bay as, for all intents, it was a suped up medium bomber by WWII terms compared to a Liberator, a Lancaster, etc.). Since this was mid-1930's America (where military spending was, IIRC, at an all time low), Boeing was taking a huge risk in making an airplane that was much more expensive than any other (especially the practically worthless B-18 Bolo...which is the plane that won the military contract that Boeing was competing for). The first YB-17 crashed during it's last testing flights due to pilot error (he left the control column locked on take off, and the -17 did a loop and almost pulled out of it...almost). Due to this crash, Boeing lost the contract because the plane could not complete the tests in the given time...but the Air Corps was so impressed in what they had seen (it was faster than the US's own fighters at the time) that it ordered, IIRC, 15 YB-17's for more evaluation and testing. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
SAC will be back!
*****************

[davekelly]

Paul,

OT yeah, but interesing none the less. Thanks!

[jeffers_mz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by LongIslandTom

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffers_mz


I own a jeep, but not the design of a jeep.

I can drive my car any way I like, but I can't copy it, not at 1:1, not at 1:87.

Not quite... When you make a 1:87 model of a Jeep, you are not making a fully-functional copy of the real thing. You are only making a likeness of its shape, and if that's illegal, every child who draws the shape of a jeep on a sheet of paper would have ended up in jail.

I don't think the spirit of the law intends for things to go that dogmatic.

I agree that kids drawing jeeps is not protected under copyright law, but I believe any copy of a copyrighted work that is used to generate commercial revenues, or that the distribution of which denies the copyright holder legitimate income, is protected.

[Anonymous]

Therein lies the debate. How do you define a "copy?" How rigorous should the definition be? How rigorous is going too far?

I think everyone can agree that when you make a 1:1 reproduction of a Jeep that has the same intended functionality (i.e. you can put 1:1 gasoline in it and drive it down the 1:1 road just like the original), it would be a copy.

But a 1:87 object which has no functionality or commonality at all with the original, except the shape, can we actually call it a "copy?"

I don't think you can put gasoline in that 1:87 object and drive it down the 1:1 road like the original is intended. It doesn't replicate any of the proprietary mechanical parts in function that were developed by the 1:1 Jeep's design teams. The 1:1 Jeep has an internal combustion engine, a transmission, suspension, power distribution system, etc.. The 1:87 object is a blob of plastic with none of those things. So is that 1:87 object a "copy"?

It's very debatable I think. Though lately it seems those who favor definitions so rigorous that it transcends ridiculousness are gaining the upper hand.

My view is that sometimes it is ridiculous, such as UP forcing Testors to pay a licensing fee to make a shade of paint similar to their "armor yellow" (which isn't always the same shade anyway, as evident by the different shades that you see from locomotives emerging from paint shops at various locations in the UP system). Just my $0.02.

[ereimer]

this all makes me wonder 2 things

1) do model manufacturers pay a license fee to Ford , GM etc. for every model car they produce ?

2) since UP etc. got some government funding to build the railroads in the form of land grants , tax breaks etc. does this mean the people own part of their design ?

[BentnoseWillie]

1) Yes they do.

2) No. They were granted a charter and in some cases given land grants or funding. That's not the same as being contracted to build a piece of equipment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Actually, I believe that Boeing actually designed the B-17 on their own dime and the government then purchased them, so if this is true, then Boeing arguably does own the design of the B-17, just like Ford owns the design of every Explorer puchased by the government. In fact, other aircraft manufacturers had to receive a license from Boeing to produce the B-17 during WWII. Whether or not these guys paid money to Boeing, I don't know.

I'm still trying to figure out how this is all the fault of attorneys. Last time I checked the right to vote lawmakers into and out of office was not limited to attorneys and jury summons are mailed not to just attorneys. I know I'll get flamed on this, but it is one of my favorite soapboxes.

It's the fault of the attouney's in my mind because it was an attorney many years ago that decided to sue Boeing when his client's young daughter choked on a propellor from a model (made by Monogram) of a B-17 that the client was building. Monogram not being big enough to win a large settlement from the lawyer decided to try to sue Boeing.

And no I cannot document this incident but it was stated by a senior representative of Monogram models at the National IPMS convention in the mid 1980's.

Besides, who else would be low enough to steal money from a kids piggy bank. (licensing fees attached to model cars and trains)

[jeffers_mz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by LongIslandTom

Therein lies the debate. How do you define a "copy?" How rigorous should the definition be? How rigorous is going too far?

I think everyone can agree that when you make a 1:1 reproduction of a Jeep that has the same intended functionality (i.e. you can put 1:1 gasoline in it and drive it down the 1:1 road just like the original), it would be a copy.

But a 1:87 object which has no functionality or commonality at all with the original, except the shape, can we actually call it a "copy?"

I don't think you can put gasoline in that 1:87 object and drive it down the 1:1 road like the original is intended. It doesn't replicate any of the proprietary mechanical parts in function that were developed by the 1:1 Jeep's design teams. The 1:1 Jeep has an internal combustion engine, a transmission, suspension, power distribution system, etc.. The 1:87 object is a blob of plastic with none of those things. So is that 1:87 object a "copy"?

It's very debatable I think. Though lately it seems those who favor definitions so rigorous that it transcends ridiculousness are gaining the upper hand.

My view is that sometimes it is ridiculous, such as UP forcing Testors to pay a licensing fee to make a shade of paint similar to their "armor yellow" (which isn't always the same shade anyway, as evident by the different shades that you see from locomotives emerging from paint shops at various locations in the UP system). Just my $0.02.

The design isn't just how a device works, it includes the appearance as well.

Think "Star Wars" and toy licensing and you'll see what I mean.

If an unlicensed company started making and selling Darth Vader models, George Lucas would be all over them, and the courts would almost certainly uphold his intellectual rights. If some kid cobbled up an exact replica at home to play with or use in a diorama, and Lucas even heard about it, the kid might get a visit to the set or something.

[Paul3]

The difference, jeffers_mz, is that Star Wars is a fictional movie. UP and B-17's are real. I can, at any time, snap a pic of a real UP loco, and (if I go to the right air museum) I can snap pics of B-17's. I can't go out somewhere and snap a pic of an X-Wing or the Millenium Falcon next time I'm down at NASA.

IMHO, people are forgetting the main purpose of these copyright and trademark laws...and that is to protect the public from false advertisements, not to mention forged and bootlegged items that can harm or confuse the public.

If I make a Star Wars toy (or a Disney toy, etc.), there is every possible reason to expect the public to be confused as to who it belongs to.

If I make a 12" long , 12oz. plastic model and paint it yellow and gray, there is no way that a reasonable person could confuse that with an 80' loco that weighs over 100 tons.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

This hobby is really growing.There will propably be more of this from other corp.etc. We as a group puts enough ca***o catch big brother's atten tion.

Pat