Honestly, the whole trend is based off of a very loose interpretation of copyright laws. But the defense companies really don't have to worry about this because most small companies aren't going to be able to afford the lawyers to adequately fight them in the US court system. So it really is a case of might makes right.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007...ntagon-vs-hob/
Quote:
|
…The contractors have sought 2 to 8 percent of the costs of each unit from toy manufacturers, according to the association. This expense, which amounts to an increased cost of $6,000 for 15,000 units, is passed on to the consumer, driving down demand and putting small hobby shops in jeopardy, the association argues on its Web site.
|
The sad thing is that it had actually been my understanding that from the 1960s through the late 1980s, most defense manufacturers actually
encouraged the model and hobby industry to use their designs. It was good PR, as it gave them free advertising and it allowed newly merged mega-companies (like Northrop-Grumman for example) to get some mileage on obsolete aircraft created by their antecedents (Northrop, Grumman, Ryan, Fairchild, Republic, etc).
But as the 2007 memo I posted from the HMA says, the shift to aggressive trademark protection happened when U.S. car manufacturers realized they could make an extra buck by pinching the little guy. And Defense contractors soon smelled blood and followed suit.
I actually wouldn’t be surprise if the explosion of computer simming in the 1990s also caught the manufacturers' attention.
Either way, here’s another really good article regarding this issue:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20050131.aspx
Quote:
January 31, 2005
For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands.
These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize intellectual property income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this contention. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise no royalty items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem, and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of the wholesale price of the kits).
|