what's it take? concept to package?

[Harry P.]

I assume that anyone getting into the business of creating and selling 3-D model kits as software would work out any legal issues before they begin selling, just as any business would.

[niteowl7710]

Remember what happened to Napster? In our hobby, things would have to be produced in a certain quantity to draw attention, but the copyright vultures are always around the corner. Note that Model Factory Hiro has just discontinued production and sale of all of its Ferrari kits.

That's because their license was up, and they decided to work on other projects right now rather than renew it at the current fee Ferrari was asking for...it's not like they were illegally making Ferrari models and got caught selling the copies (to make your Napster analogy work).

[sjordan2]

That's because their license was up, and they decided to work on other projects right now rather than renew it at the current fee Ferrari was asking for...it's not like they were illegally making Ferrari models and got caught selling the copies (to make your Napster analogy work).

My point was primarily to bring up the subject of licensing costs for products produced in quantity. But we've seen plenty of aftermarket suppliers get caught in the web of unlicensed material. Why more resin casters haven't been nabbed is anyone's guess. And unless anyone has different information, I would guess that Shapeways is helping hobbyists duplicate copyrighted items.

And I think this is quite an assumption, considering that the auto makers already have lucrative agreements in place with the major kit manufacturers, and are unlikely to create competitive contracts with cottage industry providers:

"I assume that anyone getting into the business of creating and selling 3-D model kits as software would work out any legal issues before they begin selling, just as any business would."

I'm not saying that the obstacles, such as high quality and affordability, can't be overcome in time – and I think they will – but I don't think they're as easy to conquer as fast as the rosy picture that some people paint. The "print-to-order" concept makes so much sense for a multitude of industries that it's inevitable. But I think it will take a long time before it catches on in any widespread fashion as a home device.

I would further suggest that plastic kit modelers, especially for those into cars and aircraft, etc., have far higher standards for smoothness, accuracy and precise detail than a world of hobbyists who would use a home printer for other purposes and be happy as a clam. I think the latter is where home printers will make the quickest inroads and get the home market going with less-precise capabilities.

In any case, I sincerely doubt that car modelers will be the ones who lead the way to affordable home 3D printing, but they can be instrumental in developing higher quality.

Edited November 3, 2013 by sjordan2

[Art Anderson]

Licensing is, of course, a whole 'nuther issue as regards the costs associated with doing model car kits commercially. It's all too easy to suggest, on a forum such as this one, that licensing fees somehow are a "cash cow" for say, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, even Ferrari. But, let's start with the premise which I have stated on these forums a few times in the last several years: Anyone, be they a large corporation, or merely a single individual (think a writer, musician, artist here) owning any "intellectual property" (which is what patents, copyrights, and trademarks/trade dress are, BTW) must be prepared to protect those properties against ANYONE who might use them without authorization for their own personal or business gain--that's very much cast in concrete under US Law, reinforced by several United States Supreme Court decisions--so really that issue isn't at all arguable--deal with it.

In order to protect such intellectual property, almost always, the services of a law firm (or in-house legal staff) is required, and that includes researching both internal records as well as verifying that whatever product has been presented for approval does in fact meet the necessary legal standards making it eligible for "protection". All of this costs somebody money (last I looked, lawyers and such other experts as may be required don't work for minimum wages). That is pretty much the major portion of licensing costs--of course, with say, a performing artist or other famous person, it may well be far more lucrative to them personally than say a major automaker. I'd be pretty sure that were one able to look at a detailed annual report from say, GM, income from licensing of products replicating GM vehicles (or even licensed reproduction parts such as for restorers) might seem like a fortune, but in the major scheme of things, licensing income is a pretty small part of their total equation. And, while I really cannot say what the royalty per licensed product is, it's not a HUGE sum per piece, but it of course does add to the final price of the product, whatever that product might be. It is, though, a recognized and necessary cost of doing business, whether we as model car kit consumers like it or not. Bottom line: If the car we like as a model kit is of of a protectable and protected real car, no sense griping about it--if we want to see it in kit form, the royalty is part of the price of admission.

That said--most automakers tend to not bother with the rather (in the general scope of model car kit producers) small aftermarket mfr's who may produce 100 or fewer of any one model car subject in a year's time.

Art

[Art Anderson]

That's because their license was up, and they decided to work on other projects right now rather than renew it at the current fee Ferrari was asking for...it's not like they were illegally making Ferrari models and got caught selling the copies (to make your Napster analogy work).

More than likely, Hiro saw the sales of those kits drop off over time as the marketplace was pretty much filled up, at least for the time being. Every new model car kit has its selling cycle--it will sell very well when first released, and then (and this is a variable "then") sales drop off as the immediate demand has been satisfied--that happens with every model kit product eventually, of course some more quickly than others. Pretty much, royalties are figured, based on projected sales over a specified period--not like there is a running "counter" that just keeps going, and going and going. When that specified period is up, and all accounts settled, either a new royalty agreement has to be executed, or if the projected sales say, for the next 2-3 years aren't enough to make it all work, then the item gets dropped from production, and generally the tooling preserved for future use somewhere down the road (assuming that it was cut from say, hardened steel as opposed to aluminum short-run injection molding tooling).

Art

[KingSix]

I assume that anyone getting into the business of creating and selling 3-D model kits as software would work out any legal issues before they begin selling, just as any business would.

Really ? Because I'm sure all the resin casters out there are doing the same ? ... Gimme a break

[martinfan5]

Or maybe MFH they didnt want to pay the new fee that Ferrari wanted for renewing the licensing agreement , even if sales are/where good, that would mean an increase in price to an already expensive product line.

I heard that a few resin caster's did get a cease & desist over the products being made

Edited November 4, 2013 by martinfan5

[sjordan2]

I would have to guess that Ferrari got on MFH's case, because they say on their website that they have immediately stopped production and sales of what they had in stock.

[Harry P.]

Really ? Because I'm sure all the resin casters out there are doing the same ? ... Gimme a break

I'm talking about mass-market manufacturers, not some guy in his basement casting bodies. Obviously most "one man band" resin casters don't have licenses to sell what they sell, but their sales volume is so small in the overall scheme of things that the big guys probably don't even notice them (or care).

But if a "real" kit maker like Revell or Round2 decided to get into the 3-D printing kit business, either via download sales or as disks sold in "brick and mortar" stores, they would have licensing deals in place just as they do now for their injection-molded kits.

[KingSix]

I'm talking about mass-market manufacturers, not some guy in his basement casting bodies. Obviously most "one man band" resin casters don't have licenses to sell what they sell, but their sales volume is so small in the overall scheme of things that the big guys probably don't even notice them (or care).

But if a "real" kit maker like Revell or Round2 decided to get into the 3-D printing kit business, either via download sales or as disks sold in "brick and mortar" stores, they would have licensing deals in place just as they do now for their injection-molded kits.

Agreed ..

[wisdonm]

Found this ad from 1968. With depreciation of the dollar, things today should cost about 10 times as much as 1968.

[clovis]

Here are a few thoughts:

My guess is that the majority of the manufacturers have a cost per kit of about 1/4 of the retail price, generally speaking. So, a kit that carries a suggested retail of $70, like the new Revell Foose Camaro, probably costs Revell about $17.50 to make and package. My guess is that they wholesale it to dealers and retailers for $35 or so. I would imagine that Revell has factored an amortization cost of the tooling of the model into the $17.50.

Coming from years in the printing business, I'd venture to say that Revell has as almost as much in the cost of a printed, cardboard box as they do the plastic and production run cost of the model itself. Most people have no idea how expensive boxes and packages are, even though the cost of 4 color printing has dropped drastically in the past 20 years.

The big gamble for the manufacturer is hitting a home run on a new model, and if they don't, they have some seriously expensive tooling sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

A string of newly tooled models that are just 'break even' ventures could easily financially sink a manufacturer, I would think, especially if they don't have a deep library of tooling to sell at the same time.

These kind of margins are not out of line, in fact, they are quite common. The Wall Street Journal estimated that a new iPhone costing $700 at the store cost Apple about $156 to manufacture.

And if you want something mind boggling, Google Toyota's quarterly profits, and then divide that by the number of vehicles they produced in those 3 months. You'll quickly realize that the $32,000 Camry is indeed grossly overpriced.

[Tom Geiger]

My guess is that the majority of the manufacturers have a cost per kit of about 1/4 of the retail price, generally speaking. So, a kit that carries a suggested retail of $70, like the new Revell Foose Camaro, probably costs Revell about $17.50 to make and package. My guess is that they wholesale it to dealers and retailers for $35 or so. I would imagine that Revell has factored an amortization cost of the tooling of the model into the $17.50.

The move to off shore kit production has no doubt kept the costs in line. Can you imagine what kits would cost today if manufactured in the USA? The change when they sent production to China didn't reduce the cost of kits to us end consumer but the quality went way up. We also got nice things like parts protected in small bags even convertible windshield frames wrapped in cardboard and hand taped.