Resin casting parts - legal?

[Tom Geiger]

Art reminded me of a funny story about copyrights and trademarks. I used to be a facillity manager for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. At the time we were sponsoring the Excedrin car with a little known driver, Jimmy Johnson. The company would put out a news release in our email weekly following our team efforts. I saw that the display car was going to be at local car dealers in New Jersey the next few weekends so I called up our promotions manager and asked the possibility of having the car on display at our facility on a weekday. He thought this was a great idea and we put the event together, pretty much at the last minute.

We had poster art done, with our press photos, and asked our internal print shop to print these and post them on the glass doors of all our buildings on Thursday morning before the employees got to work. This was going to be a very cool surprise. I get in on Thursday morning and there's no posters! I frantically call the print shop manager and he sighs that they couldn't do it because the photo was copyrighted and had trademarks on it! I yelled, YES THEY ARE OUR TRADEMARKS! This dolt didn't know that Excedrin was OUR product! Argh!

So we didn't have posters, but the car arrived on schedule. We pushed it up into the court yard right outside the cafeteria. It was a major hit with everyone. The managers of the other sites were jealous. One even openly accused me of wasting money while our budgets were being cut back.. but I replied that it cost us nothing. Promotions delivered the whole deal. Oh, and I did get a Company Spirit Award at our annual division meeting.

[Art Anderson]

On the flip side....

How much money do model companies SAVE because of resin casters? Think about it.

ALL those parts erroneously reported "missing" or "short shot" instead being resin cast and sold / traded.

Probably saves the model companies BIG bucks.

Not even a drop in the bucket. Model car kit manufacturers deal in 10's of thousands of kits, resin casters deal in 10's of parts and/or kits.

Art

[Abell82]

Not even a drop in the bucket. Model car kit manufacturers deal in 10's of thousands of kits, resin casters deal in 10's of parts and/or kits.

Art

Huh? ERR ... What???

Are you saying that for every kit produced 10's of thousands of people call and try to get free parts ???

The model companies couldn't stay in business! Guess that explains the sudden jump in kit prices... thanks guys!

No seriously though, Art I think you misunderstood.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Abell82

[blunc]

I would say the raw truth of this issue is that if you can copy a part in your own home with your own materials that there is really nothing anyone can do to you until you try to sell (or otherwise profit in some fashion) what you copied.

Does this help support the resin cast business...not really unless you count the companies selling the resin casting supplies.

it's most likely legal until you try to profit from the copies.

[Guest]

On the flip side....

How much money do model companies SAVE because of resin casters? Think about it.

ALL those parts erroneously reported "missing" or "short shot" instead being resin cast and sold / traded.

Probably saves the model companies BIG bucks.

Resin casters don't save kit companies money.

How many people are going to buy a resin cast kit part (with flaws), wait months to get it (if they get it) when they can get it from the kit company for free and have it in a week or weeks?

If anything, they cost the kit companies money because rather than a builder buying a kit that has those parts that he must have, he buys them from a resin caster.

I won't buy resin parts that I can get from a kit. Why spend the money on a few parts when with just a little more money (sometimes less) I can get the entire kit and have a lot more parts? A set of resin wheels and tires can cost more than a kit a lot of times.

Edited March 26, 2013 by plowboy

[oldcarfan]

I had an acquaintance a while back who made money re-popping old sci-fi resin from other producers. He said that since the original producers weren't around anymore so he didn't see a problem. I was looking some old model car magazines and this started me wondering what becomes of the masters and molds for all the resin car companies that have come and gone over the years. Would it be considered ethical to re-pop something that hasn't been produced in a long time if the original producer is no longer around? Is it any different than re-popping an old kit from AMT or Revell? Maybe if you gave credit to the original producer? I understand that people get burned out after a while and close up their companies, but there are so many things that I wasn't interested in way back when, that I wish I now had.

[Chief Joseph]

It is unethical to recast someone else's work without their permission, even if they are dead and buried and can no longer give permission. If the original item is so nice and desirable that you think others would want it, then it is worth creating your own version of it to make and sell.

[george 53]

Ha, THAT'S a good one! There are ALL kindsa guys out there casting stuff that OTHERS are selling on THEIR own, only to have THEIR products copied by the low lifes! There are PLENTY of them on E-Bay! Still, if you DO copy someones work, at least have the balls to admit it! I've gotten stuff that I KNOW is copied, but the ORIGINAL is no longer available.

[Ace-Garageguy]

In many cases, the remaining family or estate can grant permission to reproduce the original work of someone who is deceased or impaired. One very important aviation sourcebook I know of was out of print for many years, but some ethical people got together and obtained the legal rights...to re-print the book... from the author's estate.

Though a model-car body based on an existing vehicle in full-scale may be an infringement of the copyright or design patent of the full-scale item, the model body itself is also protected under copyright law (even if a copyright was never officially issued for it) and doesn't pass into the public domain until many years after the originator's death.

If you think the work is worth saving and returning to production, the only ethical thing to do is to obtain permission from someone who can legally grant it.

[Tom Geiger]

Some of the old resin companies folded into other companies so their molds and such went there. I can say that any mold over maybe 10 years old has deteriorated to the point of not being usable any more.

As you are looking at these in old magazines, note that things always look better in photos. Resin casting has progressed a great deal in the past 25 years I've been watching. Things like slush casting are no longer acceptable. And if you had some of the early work in your hand you would see the crudeness of the conversions, which we all thought were brilliant at the time. Buyers today demand much more.

[fantacmet]

I've thought about re3casting some stuff, but I would never EVER sell it without permission. I'd only use it for my own projects. So far I've only cast copies of items from kits, as I'm not willing to drop 60-80 bucks on a kit just to get a few stowage items on armor models for example. I would like to sell some of them, and I wrote the company requesting either permission to sell resin copies or that they offer those particular sprues seperately, but they never responded. So oh well I just keep them for my own use.

As far as reproducing resin, if any of the sci-fi stuff mentioned was originally done by a Lady named April(I don't remember the company name), she's just on a hiatus for awhile. I know the hiatus has been going on for a couple of years, but she's out of state helping out some family right now and her molds are in storage. However I am in occasional contact with her and I may end up getting access to the molds to be able to start casting and selling for her. Though I would likely need to find someone to do the decals. At least for some items.

Edited November 27, 2013 by fantacmet

[jas1957]

There were people recasting some of Ron Cash's stuff while he was alive & still in business ! He figured it wasn't worth the time & money to chase them down over a few $30 bodies.

[Nitro Neil]

Copyright law recognizes the concept of "fair-use" If you are making a copy of something for your own use, or for educational purposes, the law sees that as a "fair use". If you are making any money or if the copies undermine the copyright owners ability to make money then you are breaking the law.

You also have to be the rightful owner of the original to make a copy of it. You can't legally make a copy of someone else's original.

If the owner, or their heirs, are no longer producing the item, then you can safely make a copy for yourself, and maybe a few for your friends as gifts.

How all that sits with your conscience is up to you.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Nitro Neil

[munter]

Right or wrong, copying of parts and bodies is happening.

Buy some silicone and some resin and you are away...nothing is safe.

Of course when you have copied something, what you do with it then becomes the issue...sell? give it away? trade it?

Another thing I wonder about, what if you copy a copy?

[Greg Cullinan]

I don't know much if anything about resin and resin production.

Do resin makers get permission from manufacturers for car bodies and engines or is it not necessary?

I wonder the same about decals,especially all the drag car decals that replicate someone's car and their name and sponsors.

[Darin Bastedo]

The keystone of copyright law is whether the action causes damages. According to the letter of the law unless you are making a copy (and there are strict limits on the number and types of copies depending on what it is.) For educational, Promotion or critique purposes, making copies with out permission is against the law. Fair use does not cover you for making a few copies for you and your friends even if you are not making money off of it.

That said there is the question of enforcement. With the exception of Movie and music piracy, and counterfeit products (trademark infringement) Copyright is a civil issue. To win in court, you must show damages. (you can still get the court to order the cease and desist but you may not get a financial award. This where it gets specific to resin casting, models and us.

Model companies rarely if ever care about resin casters copying their products, primarily because;

1. Injection molded kits are far less expensive than resin casting.

2. Generally the caster is making trans kits that still require you to buy the original kit.

Take for instance the Open road Camper that AMT/Model King came out with. Scale Equipment Limited offered a resin copy of that camper for $125 dollars. which was less than a mint kit was going for before it was re-issued. The Reissue kit came out with a retail price of $20. The resin copy did not affect the value of the original. The limited run sold quickly.

On the other hand take a limited run resin kit. lets say Ferrari Lusso conversion for the Italari Ferrari GTO kit. (don't we all wish). I spent a year scratch building all the parts had 100's of dollars in time and materials and I put it on the market for $150 dollars and limit it to 100 copies. Then someone comes along and copies it. He only had to put in enough money to cover rubber and resin and he starts selling it for $50, and will sell as many as people want. Now I can't sell mine for $150 because you can get the copy all day long for $50. I've lost the possibility of turning a profit, and lost at least $10,000. That is actionable because the copy diluted the value of the original.

But what if you copy it after the run of 100 were sold and it is no longer available? The reason I limited the run to 100 was to create a sense of urgency with the consumer. Just like Revell's SSP runs, it's limited so that you will buy them now. How many of us on regular issues like the New Revell 'Cuda, say, "I'll pick it up later".

I might just be taking a break to allow demand to build up for it again, But if you make the cheap copy in the mean time, the demand never builds and my original becomes worthless. Copying other people's resin with out their permission is a bad idea.

[jeffbrad]

_{John I met Ron at a LHS in Barberton back in the 90's. He could not have been nicer to talk to and his work was amazing. I did not know he had passed. Sorry to hear it. I also met Clint Freeman there once. Is he still active?}

[Mike Kucaba]

I've always liked this topic whenever/wherever it comes up. Everyone becomes an attorney and someone else's conscience.

[oldcarfan]

My friend would by what copies of copies. He did Indiana gold idols and such and then sold them on e-Pay and places like that.

Looking through old model magazines leads to nostalgia which leads to the "If only I had bought that." It just seems sad to lose all those neat products from Ron and others.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I've always liked this topic whenever/wherever it comes up. Everyone becomes an attorney and someone else's conscience.

No disrespect intended Mike, but copyright law is pretty clear as to what's considered "fair Use", and as to when work passes into "public domain", after which copyright issues don't arise. No attorneys needed to read the law and understand its intent.

As far as the conscience thing goes, having had credit for my own work taken by others on occasion, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's maddening and frustrating, made even worse by being small-fry without the financial resources to fight a civil battle and without any hope of criminal prosecution. It's not something I'd knowingly do to someone else.

The flip side is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with copying minor parts occasionally for my own use. It may technically be a crime, but it's a totally victimless one.

[mikemodeler]

I will put on my attorney hat for a minute as it relates to patent law. Now I am not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. But I did pay for and receive 4 patents for an item I designed and still hope to sell.(BTW, paying a patent attorney and related costs can get expensive!)

It was explained to me that all one has to do is deviate approximately 5% from an original design/patent and there is no infringement. Translate that to resin casting and some one will figure a way to copy a copy.

It can be argued whether copying someone else's work is an infringement and I would say yes, it is, but reality is it would be costly to pursue legal action.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I will put on my attorney hat for a minute as it relates to patent law. Now I am not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. But I did pay for and receive 4 patents for an item I designed and still hope to sell.(BTW, paying a patent attorney and related costs can get expensive!)

It was explained to me that all one has to do is deviate approximately 5% from an original design/patent and there is no infringement. Translate that to resin casting and some one will figure a way to copy a copy.

It can be argued whether copying someone else's work is an infringement and I would say yes, it is, but reality is it would be costly to pursue legal action.

I'm not a patent attorney either, but I've written and illustrated a few successful ones, and consulted on others. A patent (including design-patents...how something looks, which are entirely different from utility patents...how something works) does not exist unless the very formal patent prosecution and granting procedure is followed to the letter..and yes, that can get expensive...and can also be done entirely without an attorney. I've done it. Action against infringement on design-patents is usually pretty gray and muddy legal maneuvering. How exactly do you quantify that "this is 5% different from that"?

But patents and copyrights are entirely separate and independent things. Copyright (which is most likely what would be infringed when copying a model) exists automatically on a creative work, whether the formal copyright procedure is followed or not. It's an odd thing really, and having a formal copyright on your work makes it easier to prove infringement in court, but it's still possible without it. Possible? Yes. Cost-effective in the hobby world? Probably not.

As I've tried to explain before, making an accurate scale model of a real car, or anything really, borrows heavily on the intellectual property that is the design and appearance of the original full-sized object. It would be infringement of a design-patent, if one existed for the original. And by inference it would also be an infringement of the copyright of the original design as an 'artistic' or 'creative' piece of work. Licensing agreements make it possible for model car companies to use the scaled-down likeness of the full sized objects they portray. But not all designs get patented, and if a patent lapses after a certain period (currently 14 years for a design-patent, 20 years for a utility patent) or if the payments to keep it in force aren't kept up, it's anybody's game. Still, the copyright exists independently of the patent.

Copying an existing model exactly...pulling molds from anything and making exact duplicates...infringes on the original model-maker's copyright, whether it's been formalized or not. It's a different deal. Let's say you copy Revell's '50 Olds body exactly. You're violating Revell's copyright AND basically getting a free ride on whatever money Revell has paid for licensing to GM to make a representation of an Oldsmobile. BUT, if you take a Revell '50 Olds and substantially modify it, and pull molds from your own modified version, you're pretty much in the clear with Revell...but GM might have something to say if you made, let's say, a fastback replica of an actual GM design. If you made a mild-custom '50 Olds and made copies for sale, you should be in the clear everywhere.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Tom Geiger]

As I've tried to explain before, making an accurate scale model of a real car, or anything really, borrows heavily on the intellectual property that is the design and appearance of the original full-sized object.

Exactly! If you resin cast a model of a Camaro, people will buy it because it's a Chevy Camaro and you've traded on the value of that intellectual property. Create a model of a custom of your own design, some folks may buy it, but then you are trading on your own design abilities.

[clovis]

I'd like to have a discussion about the legalities of aftermarket resin castings and or replacement parts for models.

Before you all get your panties in a wad, I am not going into the resin casting business. I know how the process works after watching a few YouTube clips, but I have no plans to ever enter the business.

There seems to be the idea that the resin casters, who are producing replacement parts from old models are crossing a line, legally speaking. I'm not sure that is the case, though.

If someone is reproducing a patented product, they are in serious jeopardy of a lawsuit.

If someone is reproducing a trademarked name, like GM, Chevrolet, Pontiac or Mustang, they are in violation of someone's ownership of the said trademark.

If someone is reproducing copyright protected decal sheets, or instructions, they are crossing the line. The same would be true for boxes or box art. As an interesting side note, not everything was copyrighted in the old days, let's say in the 1940's, and if it was, the copyright owner should have kept the appropriate copyright protection in place, and renewed it as needed.

Of course, if someone violates "trade dress" in their product or packaging they are in violation of trade law. This is for the company that starts building tractors and paints them green and yellow, which, as everyone knows, is the trade dress of John Deere. Or, if you start an O gauge toy train business, and your packages are orange, blue and white, like those of Lionel, you would be in violation of trade dress.

And while I don't know the legalese of this, you could get into some hot water if you started a computer company named "Apples" and used a apple logo with or without a bite in it.

But if a resin caster pulls a 427 block out of a vintage kit, and starts casting it for resale, as long as they are not casting it with a Chevrolet logo, are they really in violation of trade law, especially if a long period of time has passed since the kit was issued?

I am familiar with postwar Lionel trains, and companies have been reproducing and selling both repair and replacement parts for years and years, and I've never heard of anyone talking about trademark or legal issues with these parts. These are not only screws, but plastic parts that were often broken back in the day, and are unique to that period of Lionel. Reproduction of original train boxes are a different issue, since they feature Lionel's trade dress and trademarked name.

Many years ago, I was on a different forum where the reproduction of originally printed material was under discussion, and the vast majority of the forum members believed it was 'morally wrong' and also in violation of trade law. In reality, the original printed work was no longer copyright protected, and hadn't been renewed or maintained by the company since it's original printing in the 1940's.

So, when it comes to resin casting, does anyone here know for certain?

Again, I'm just looking for a discussion on the topic. I'm not an attorney, and I don't have first hand experience with this, but I am interested in learning!

Edited December 30, 2013 by clovis

[chris02719]

I'm pretty sure that every model kit I've ever seen has a copyright, and thus I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be casting exact copies of any parts in said kits. I'm pretty sure in general that you shouldn't cast someone else's work and claim it as your own especially for a profit. I am not a lawyer and there are probably loopholes to this, but I believe that is the gist of the rules. This topic has probably been covered numerous times, try a Google search.