Gm Model Kit Licence Fees

[Edward Gore]

The U.S. Government now owns the majority of GM.

Does the same idea behind the HR 607 act (previously HB 4806) extend to GM model cars and trucks too?

It should

info on HB 4806 > HR 607

[Casey]

The U.S. Government now owns the majority of GM.

Does the same idea behind the HR 607 act (previously HB 4806) extend to GM model cars and trucks too?

It should

info on HB 4806 > HR 607

I don't see the two as being equal in any way. The U.S. Government didn't fund the development of any (well, maybe there were one or two at some point) '48+ production GM vehicles, so GM wholly owns the design rights.

The designs are GM's property, and as such, they own them.

[Edward Gore]

What was GM property is now U.S. property

[Casey]

What was GM property is now U.S. property

I see where this is headed. Not interested.

[Edward Gore]

yeah, this could go in a weird sort of direction.

I'd like to see kits remain at the $14. to $16. range for a while

Edited January 16, 2010 by Edward Gore

[Edward Gore]

I don't see the two as being equal in any way. The U.S. Government didn't fund the development of any (well, maybe there were one or two at some point) '48+ production GM vehicles, so GM wholly owns the design rights.

The designs are GM's property, and as such, they own them.

for example,

when Hasbro bought out Galoob. Hasbro owns everything that was Galoob.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Edward Gore

[Art Anderson]

I don't see the two as being equal in any way. The U.S. Government didn't fund the development of any (well, maybe there were one or two at some point) '48+ production GM vehicles, so GM wholly owns the design rights.

The designs are GM's property, and as such, they own them.

And in the same vein: Neither the American taxpayers, nor the US Government (through the War Department or the Navy Department--subsequently the US Department of Defense) has EVER funded the design of any military aircraft, none, nada, zilch! Boeing Airplane Company (Now Boeing Aerospace) developed planes like the B-17, the B-29, B-50, B-47 and the B-52 on THEIR nickel, NOT the nickels of Uncle Sam, flew those planes off in competition with similar aircraft from the likes of Consolidated/Convair, Lockheed, Douglass, Martin and Northrop. Had Boeing not gotten the contract to supply any of those planes, they'd have stood the loss on the development monies spent. North American Aviation Inc. developed what became the P-51 Mustang, NOT for the US Army Air Corps, folks, but for Britain's Royal Air Force, so in that case, if any government should claim ownership and licensing rights, by rights it should be Her Majesty, the Queen's government in Whitehall. Even the principal engine used in the P-51 Mustang was a British development--Packard only refined and produced it, but Rolls Royce Ltd of Crewe England designed it.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade here, but the designs of any automobile are the property of the particular manufacturer (just the same if it were YOU cutting a million-selling CD of you singing), called "intellectual property". SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) ruled about 25yrs ago that in order for any manufacturer (car makers in that case) to be able to protect their designs, their copyrights from foreign (in that case Taiwanese) copycats, they had to protect them from ALL who would use them--in short, protect them, or lose them.

In short, I get really aggravated at self-serving sleazebag pols who take the socialistic tack with stuff like intellectual property rights, just to buy a vote or two. Patent and copyright protection as is generally vigorously upheld in these United States, are a huge part of what has made US the most inventive, innovative, and ultimately the most highly developed nation this planet has ever seen, bar none.

The guy who's invented the better mousetrap didn't do it because he hated mice, nor did he do it out of mere compassion for his fellow man--no sir, he did it out of his own enlightened self interest, and that is a trait that I see as an endangered species in this country.

End of RANT!

Art

[Edward Gore]

Thanks, Art

[Craig Irwin]

My fear would be that with the curent goverment going after every cent they can, is that their fees would be much higher than what the model companys pay now.

[Aaronw]

And in the same vein: Neither the American taxpayers, nor the US Government (through the War Department or the Navy Department--subsequently the US Department of Defense) has EVER funded the design of any military aircraft, none, nada, zilch! Boeing Airplane Company (Now Boeing Aerospace) developed planes like the B-17, the B-29, B-50, B-47 and the B-52 on THEIR nickel, NOT the nickels of Uncle Sam, flew those planes off in competition with similar aircraft from the likes of Consolidated/Convair, Lockheed, Douglass, Martin and Northrop. Had Boeing not gotten the contract to supply any of those planes, they'd have stood the loss on the development monies spent. North American Aviation Inc. developed what became the P-51 Mustang, NOT for the US Army Air Corps, folks, but for Britain's Royal Air Force, so in that case, if any government should claim ownership and licensing rights, by rights it should be Her Majesty, the Queen's government in Whitehall. Even the principal engine used in the P-51 Mustang was a British development--Packard only refined and produced it, but Rolls Royce Ltd of Crewe England designed it.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade here, but the designs of any automobile are the property of the particular manufacturer (just the same if it were YOU cutting a million-selling CD of you singing), called "intellectual property". SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) ruled about 25yrs ago that in order for any manufacturer (car makers in that case) to be able to protect their designs, their copyrights from foreign (in that case Taiwanese) copycats, they had to protect them from ALL who would use them--in short, protect them, or lose them.

In short, I get really aggravated at self-serving sleazebag pols who take the socialistic tack with stuff like intellectual property rights, just to buy a vote or two. Patent and copyright protection as is generally vigorously upheld in these United States, are a huge part of what has made US the most inventive, innovative, and ultimately the most highly developed nation this planet has ever seen, bar none.

The guy who's invented the better mousetrap didn't do it because he hated mice, nor did he do it out of mere compassion for his fellow man--no sir, he did it out of his own enlightened self interest, and that is a trait that I see as an endangered species in this country.

End of RANT!

Art

Art actually that is incorrect, they took lots of government money when they designed these aircraft, that is why the military modelers have it so much better than the car modelers, far fewer licensing issues.

North American and the P-51 stand out from the rest because they funded the development of the P-51 fully with private money.

The British got the Mustang because North American had a good design available and excess production space since the US military wasn't that interested, it was not designed for the British. The US did buy a few for ground attack (A-36 Apache), but for the most part were happy with the P-39 and P-40 until it was clear the US would be getting into the war. The P-51 used the same Allison engines as the P-39 and P-40 so really didn't stand out from them. It was the combination of the RR Merlin and P-51 that made the world class fighter. The P-39 (P-63) and P-40 later received Merlins and also became vry good fighters, but by that point everyone wanted Mustangs.

If the aircraft companies didn't take government money then there would be no issue with cancelling the F-35, but no one wants that to happen because we are billions into its development and that would all be flushed down the toilet.

John Garand who invented the M1 Garand rifle (which several prominant US generals credited as a war winning weapon) didn't get a penny for his design beyond his salary, because he worked for the government (Springfield Arsenal).

Edited January 16, 2010 by Aaronw

[Edward Gore]

Those are some good points guys.

The engineer(s) behind a specific GM automobile doesn't get royalties because the engineer is an employee of GM which would be entitled to the royalties.

If another company buys GM out, then the new owner would be entitled

[charlie8575]

I don't see the two as being equal in any way. The U.S. Government didn't fund the development of any (well, maybe there were one or two at some point) '48+ production GM vehicles, so GM wholly owns the design rights.

The designs are GM's property, and as such, they own them.

Am I to interpret that cars from before the 1948 model year are now exempt from royalty collection? Is this a rolling timeline?

I'm curious, because I would think this would drive a very heavy effort to develop pre-1948 models, something I personally wouldn't mind seeing.

While a manufacturer certainly has a right to protect its name, designs, etc., it shouldn't always exact money. Too often, it leads to stifled creativity, fewer choices for consumers of models and higher prices. It can, with sufficient nastiness, also lead to a very hot backflash.

The Union Pacific learned this when they charged so much for royalties, that models of anything with UP or any of its predecessor railroad's heraldry on it was, without exception, more money. This caused several manufacturers to stop making UP merchandise, generated over 10,000 nasty-grams to Omaha, and when UP sued Mike's Train House (Lionel's biggest competitor) over failure to pay, MTH counter-sued with something that amounted to an extortion charge. The end result was an out-of-court settlement that's blanket for the entire model railroad industry. Union Pacific no longer charges royalties, and only asks that they be allowed to approve the models before release. In addition, they'll also provide technical help when possible.

I don't know why the model car manufacturers and the 1:1s can't do something similar. It would make life much easier for anyone wishing to enter or stay in the business, and for the car companies, because you know what to expect, and perhaps have it administered by a third party of some kind.

Some people say it's collusion. It's only collusion if it's done in secret. If a public statement was released saying "we agree to this, and it's effective for both industries" was released, it would be open, fair, and honest.

Charlie Larkin

[Abell82]

(...Tries to stear the topic onto a friendlier path)

I think that Revell and Amt really are missing the boat, here. Companies pay Thousands, or even millions of dollars to have there images placed into movies ,and television programs. Aren't models cars just another form of advertising? Shouldn't Goodyear and Firestone be paying the model companies to place there names on the tires, if not then whatabout Kumho or Pirelli? or...

[CAL]

Am I to interpret that cars from before the 1948 model year are now exempt from royalty collection? Is this a rolling timeline?

I'm curious, because I would think this would drive a very heavy effort to develop pre-1948 models, something I personally wouldn't mind seeing.

While a manufacturer certainly has a right to protect its name, designs, etc., it shouldn't always exact money. Too often, it leads to stifled creativity, fewer choices for consumers of models and higher prices. It can, with sufficient nastiness, also lead to a very hot backflash.

The Union Pacific learned this when they charged so much for royalties, that models of anything with UP or any of its predecessor railroad's heraldry on it was, without exception, more money. This caused several manufacturers to stop making UP merchandise, generated over 10,000 nasty-grams to Omaha, and when UP sued Mike's Train House (Lionel's biggest competitor) over failure to pay, MTH counter-sued with something that amounted to an extortion charge. The end result was an out-of-court settlement that's blanket for the entire model railroad industry. Union Pacific no longer charges royalties, and only asks that they be allowed to approve the models before release. In addition, they'll also provide technical help when possible.

I don't know why the model car manufacturers and the 1:1s can't do something similar. It would make life much easier for anyone wishing to enter or stay in the business, and for the car companies, because you know what to expect, and perhaps have it administered by a third party of some kind.

Some people say it's collusion. It's only collusion if it's done in secret. If a public statement was released saying "we agree to this, and it's effective for both industries" was released, it would be open, fair, and honest.

Charlie Larkin

It kind of goes like this, but it gets more complicated all the time.

Designs, and since we are mostly talking about designs here have a 25 year life now.

The copyrights on intellectual property is 75 after the authors death.

Trademarks are another animal... so even after the design has aged out you still need the rights to "CHEVROLET" "GOODYEAR" "DELCO" for example.

Plus then there are all kinds patens on stuff they make, like transmissions, and specific componets that are GM, or FORD, etc.

Then there was so many diecast companies trying to buy up exclusive rights.

Used to be a 100 part kit costed a $100,000 to produce, now you have that much in lawyer expenses, royalties, fees and rights before making a single cut on a tool.

So you have several hurdles to cross to put a single kit out. And if they don't want to play you have pay.

Porsche (VW Group) and especailly Ferrari really put there foot down on this.

Edited January 19, 2010 by CAL

[charlie8575]

(...Tries to stear the topic onto a friendlier path)

I think that Revell and Amt really are missing the boat, here. Companies pay Thousands, or even millions of dollars to have there images placed into movies ,and television programs. Aren't models cars just another form of advertising? Shouldn't Goodyear and Firestone be paying the model companies to place there names on the tires, if not then whatabout Kumho or Pirelli? or...

Hmmm...I rather like the idea. And where modeling could very well be the cheapest form of advertising there is, a very good value argument could be made.

I think about when at one point there was a spirit of cooperation,, when the car companies would actually work with the model companies, not against them. Unfortunately, MBA-types (money at all costs,) and lawyers have managed to destroy so much of the good in American business, and society in general.

Charlie Larkin

[CAL]

Hmmm...I rather like the idea. And where modeling could very well be the cheapest form of advertising there is, a very good value argument could be made.

I think about when at one point there was a spirit of cooperation,, when the car companies would actually work with the model companies, not against them. Unfortunately, MBA-types (money at all costs,) and lawyers have managed to destroy so much of the good in American business, and society in general.

Charlie Larkin

Yup, which just ends up costing them in the long run.

For example a transmisson plug that a bean counter found for 3 cents a piece in china over the 4 cents a piece japanese part ended up failing on over 2.5 million vehicles over ten year period at a warranty fix price of P&L @ $52 per failure.

Saved 2.5 million at the cost of $130B.

[Edward Gore]

(...Tries to stear the topic onto a friendlier path)

I think that Revell and Amt really are missing the boat, here. Companies pay Thousands, or even millions of dollars to have there images placed into movies ,and television programs. Aren't models cars just another form of advertising? Shouldn't Goodyear and Firestone be paying the model companies to place there names on the tires, if not then whatabout Kumho or Pirelli? or...

I heard that it used to be like that. Considering, scale models aren't competition for 1/1 automotive enterprise

[Art Anderson]

Art actually that is incorrect, they took lots of government money when they designed these aircraft, that is why the military modelers have it so much better than the car modelers, far fewer licensing issues.

North American and the P-51 stand out from the rest because they funded the development of the P-51 fully with private money.

The British got the Mustang because North American had a good design available and excess production space since the US military wasn't that interested, it was not designed for the British. The US did buy a few for ground attack (A-36 Apache), but for the most part were happy with the P-39 and P-40 until it was clear the US would be getting into the war. The P-51 used the same Allison engines as the P-39 and P-40 so really didn't stand out from them. It was the combination of the RR Merlin and P-51 that made the world class fighter. The P-39 (P-63) and P-40 later received Merlins and also became vry good fighters, but by that point everyone wanted Mustangs.

If the aircraft companies didn't take government money then there would be no issue with cancelling the F-35, but no one wants that to happen because we are billions into its development and that would all be flushed down the toilet.

John Garand who invented the M1 Garand rifle (which several prominant US generals credited as a war winning weapon) didn't get a penny for his design beyond his salary, because he worked for the government (Springfield Arsenal).

Aaron,

Some inaccuracies in your post above: While the Curtiss P-40F was built with the PACKARD Merlin engine, the results were only marginal, given the obsolescence of the basic P-40 design (Curtiss' P-40 evolved out of the 1935-vintage P-36 Hawk), Bell Aircraft's P-39 Airacobra and their subsequent P-63 King Cobra were NEVER produced with the Merlin engine, period. As for the development of the North American Aviation P-51 Mustang, take the time to read the Wikipedia on it, that story matches every history of the Mustang ever written: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang Please note that NAA even laid out $56,000 to purchase the wind tunnel data on the P-40 from the UNITED STATES ARMY AIR CORPS--hardly US Government cooperation, by any stretch of the imagination. Now, the Allison engine as available to NAA at the time of design (Rolls Royce had yet to license the production of the Merlin to any US Manufacturer, and they were stressed to the limit to supply the RAF) was no Merlin--due primarily to the Allison having been designed by them to fill the requirements as Allison saw, the US Army Air Corps seeing combat aircraft flying at fairly low altitudes as they had in WW-I, and mainly in ground support, with a single stage centrifugal supercharger, which gave superb performance below 15,000 ft altitude, where the Merlin, having a two-stage centrifugal supercharger (double blowers, the first sending pressurized air into the second one, which in turn delivered seriously compressed air into the carburetor!) was good up to 30-35,000 feet). This was the engine, of course, that NAA provided in the first Mustangs delivered (or to USAAC, the A-36 Apache, a dive bomber/ground attack aircraft). In order for North American to be allowed to build and sell Mustangs to the British, the US Army Air Corps had to approve of the plane (US Law, BTW which is still operative today), so the Army accepted a prototype, done as a dive bomber, gave it the designation A-36 (Attack, 36th type accepted for evaluation). But, North American, as you note, paid for all the development costs, betting that the RAF would buy enough of them to make it a profitable venture.

In 1939-41, there was no surplus capacity for military aircraft (or for that matter, any military hardware production) in the US to speak of. On the reverse, there was no reason to be, either: The existing aircraft manufacturers (such as Boeing, Douglas, Consolidated, Lockheed, North American, Ryan, Stearman, Grumman, Martin) were all operating with very small factories, given they were still in a Depression-era mode. North American would have to build a new factory to go beyond the SNJ/T-6/Yale--fixed gear version of the previous--/Harvard trainers they were known for. They had yet to begin the design/production of their other signature plane of WW-II, the B-25).

It was the same thing both during WW-II, and postwar as well. The design work for every US military aircraft was done by private industry, to meet a US War Department or US Navy/US Department of Defense RFQ (Request For Quotation) of the cost for such planes as were to result. In the heat of wartime, indeed in the pressures of Cold War needs, yes, the War Department/Navy Department, and beginning in 1947, the US Department of Defense, the Government DID buy test examples from multiple manufacturers, but to fly them off, one against the others, to determine which one they would buy. However, each and every aircraft the US Military has bought (other than those trainers built in the 1930's into WW-II which were designed by the US Navy Bureau of Aircraft and produced by the Naval Aircraft Facility -- most notably the Yellow Peril, the Navy's N3N Biplane trainer of WW-II into the middle 1950's) were designed, engineered, and built by private companies, private capital, by employees paid by them.

Now, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was funded throughout it's development by the USDOD, simply because of (1) the sheer costs involved, and (2) because of the tremendous shrinkage of the military aircraft side of the industry--in short, it was deemed impossible for any one company extant to fund the speculative development of such a plane on their own nickel--just as it had been with the F-22, and before that, the YF-12/SR-71. There the lines as regards intellectual property do become very blurred.

However, some planes that were privately designed, and their failed competitors: 1939 Very Long-range Bomber (VLB): Consolidated-Vultee, Lockheed and Boeing all submitted designs--Lockheed's offering ultimately became the Constellation airliner (USAAC designation C-67), Boeing's never saw any serious effort beyond the concept phase--Consolidated's became the B-36 Peacemaker--the Magnesium Overcast. Boeing, North American, Consolidated, Lockheed, Martin, and Northrop all offered designs for a new heavy bomber post-WWII to fit the notion of a high speed bomber, capable of intercontinental range, two designs were accepted by the US Army Air Forces (soon to be USAF) for prototypes for testing: Boeing's XB-47 and Northrop's XB-49--Boeing won. For the even bigger role, an Intercontinental heavy bomber, high speed, only two competitors showed up, Boeing, with their design which became the BUFF, the B-52 Stratofortress, and Convair, the YB-60 (basically a B-36 with swept wings and 8 turbojets--which were flown off against each other (B52 was the winner). The USAF paid Convair for the two YB-60's that were built, scrapped them, and that was it. The Century Series era of fighter plane development was still in that mode.

Now, where the Government owns (or shoud, at least) the intellectual property rights is, is in the area of artillery, small arms, armor and naval ships--as because, the military has traditionally done all the basic research and development: The United States Army has designed and developed every artillery piece they bought since at least WW-I, and all armor they have ever bought, the US Navy every ship ever designed, and with the exception of the Browning M2 50-caliber machine gun, the Oerlikon 20mm cannon and the still used Bofors 40mm automatic cannon. Now, the conglomerates who own the shipyard companies today try to claim intellectual rights to US Navy ships they built in years past, even in the face that BUSHIPS, the Navy Bureau of Ships, did most of (if not all!) the naval architecture involved.

Automotively speaking, the WW-II Willys MB Jeep does belong to Willys-Overland and their successor, Chrysler Corporation, by US Supreme Court decision in 1949--Willys having been the winning contractor of the Jeep project, over American Bantam and Ford (Ford Motor Company did build during WW-II some 40% of all the Jeeps built for that war, under license from W-O). The Korean War version of the Jeep, the M-38, was simply a militarized version of Willys-Overland's CJ-2a. The late Korean era M38A2 was a militarized version of the modernized civilian Jeep, the CJ-5.

But in the bottom line, the ownership of rights to the design of military equipment does rest, by court decisions, with whomever spent their own or their company's money vs public funds being the ultimate determination.

Art

[Aaronw]

I had a very long post, (which considering this is not really a short post) but trimmed it down to try and stay on the subject.

P-40F & L used the Packard Merlin, same as the P-51. Packard and RR Merlin were essentially the same engine, I use them interchangably. Perhaps technically incorrect but for the most part a Merlin is a Merlin regardless of which side of the Atlantic it was built on.

The P-40 had significant improvement with the engine (gained almost 50 mph and much improved altitude performance) and the aircraft remained in production until the end of the war. Production was right behind the P-51 and P-47. Allison engines improved and the N model was similar to the Merlin versions. The final version the P-40Q (not produced due to the end of the war) was only 12 mph slower than the P-51. Not bad for an "obsolete" aircraft designed in the mid 1930s.

The P-63B was designed to use the Merlin, but it was cancelled due to the need for the Merlin in other aircraft and the general satisfaction for the Mustang. Considering the P-63 had similar performance to the P-51 while using an Allison, the Merlin version could have really given the P-51 a good run.

Without the P-51 pushing development of other aircraft to the side, it is likely either of these could have stepped into its place in history. It was a good decision, Germany proved developing every aircraft to come along is a drain on resources.

The P-51 and F-20 have both been singled out for not using Government money in their development, which would seem to indicate most others have. Selection of the F-16 over the F-20 has been tied by some to the fact the US was already invested in the F-16 design.

Military modelers do not have the licensing issues civilian subjects do, because public money has been used in their development/production somewhere along the way. Look for any Sikorsky helicopter model, if it has been used by the US military you can probably find a model of it, if not you can't. Sikorsky has a reputation of being difficult to deal with over licensing which has impacted which of their aircraft have been modelled (no civilian helicopters to my knowledge). Sure civilian helicopters are less popular, but none from one of the largest producers of helicopters?

We are in agreement about GM, I don't believe that the fact the US Government has stepped in to become a major share holder should make GM's designs public domain. I see a significant difference between the government paying a company to design and build something for the government, and a bail out which is supposed to be repaid someday. Had the government outright bought GM that would be different.

However if the government is the largest shareholder it would be nice to see some reasonable licensing agreements negotiated with the model companies or perhaps even an advertising blitz using model cars.

[Aaronw]

BTW why are we arguing aircraft on a model car site?

[Eshaver]

Arron, first I read dis stuff.............

secondly , I think some and I mean some of the aircraft posters are secretly the same dubious clowns that pit down certain model builders over their lack of not putting up pictures here . I quit putting pictures on this forum cause too many people put up stupid comments and put up they're own silly half built junk ! Ed Shaver