Licensing Fees Gone Wild...

[Harry P.]

Have Goodyear logos also been removed from all kit decal sheets?

[Jason Rothgeb]

Have Goodyear logos also been removed from all kit decal sheets?

In every new release I have seen, I would have to say yes. One exception is the Goodyear decal that is seen above the tire on the front fenders of Nascar racers. The story I've heard (from either that same MC article I mentioned before or from the Randy Ayer's board) )for that is that the contingency decals on the car are licensed through Nascar rather than Goodyear.

[bigphoto]

I understand Ford is a major pain about this stuff, to the point of going after hot rodder type websites that show the Ford logo in the photos of the cars. The logo is ON THE CARS IN THE PHOTO BECAUSE THEY ARE FORDS!!!! I don't know what kind of pin heads think this stuff up that they feel the need to go after enthusists taking photos of cars and sharing them on the web. Real braniacs.

That is too bad as Ford used to not charge for licensing for models as it was FREE advertising!!

[Raymond Gallant]

The way I see it, it's free advertising for them. But I do understand that they do have to protect themselves.

Protect themselves from what? Free advertizing? It's not as if I can use 1/25th scale tires to compete with Goodyear.

That kind of thinking is why I never wear someone else's advertizing. No Nike shoes for me, Levi labels get snipped off my jeans before I wear them, etc.. I figure if corporate america wants to charge me for licencing, they should pay me for their free advertizing.

My 2 cents.

Raymond Gallant

[Jason Rothgeb]

Am I writing to the right company? Well, the plot thickens. This past weekend I picked up Model King's Challenger Funny car from a vendor at a club meeting. Yay me and THANK YOU Model King. I am trying to finish some other stuff on my bench first, but this kit is begging to go first.

Anyway, this kit actually contains licensed Goodyear tires and the label on the bottom of the box told me so. The tires were the old MPC slicks that came in every Pro street kit for about ten years running. The price of the kit? $20. I know this is a can of worms, but I still think it's one we need to explore as modeling consumers. What are we willing to pay for licensed kits?

For me, $20 bucks is a figure I can live with. I'm buying so few these days and it takes me so long to finish them, that that's a figure I can live with. Instead of Goodyear, should I write to Revell and say I want a licensed product and I'm willing to pay the extra couple of bucks to make that happen? From one of the other posters, it appears that Goodyear is just going to send me a "Thanks but no" form letter like he received, but I still think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it because I too think the display of their logo is free advertising unlike the millions they spend on Nascar and that dirigible that hovers over just about every sporting event for advertising. I just wonder if I would get farther with Revell, and are other modelers willing to pay a little more to get the most exact replica possible? If you could just respond to this post and say "Yes, I'm good for a buck or two more for a licensed model", or "No, enough is enough and I'm not paying a penny more" I get the feeling Revell is banking on car modelers answering no, since any increase in price is going to hurt their sales and that is why they told Goodyear to take a walk. Thanks in advance for your responses, Jason

[Harry P.]

I'd be willing to pay a bit more to cover kitmaker's licensing fees...if in return I get an accurate model. Not just the tires, but the molded parts, too! No more incorrect wheels, hoods or grilles, missing emblems, or decals that differ from what's shown on the cover.

[lordairgtar]

http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-slaps-...sts-returns.php

Look how Ford does car clubs

http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Look at one of our auto forums posts on the subject of copyright. Clic on General Chat

Edited January 15, 2008 by lordairgtar

[mr moto]

I recently saw an old (is there any other kind?) episode of "Mayberry" where Barney needed to get his car repaired. Barney's car was a '58 Edsel convertible with all emblems removed!

As far as brands protecting their trademarks, they do need protective licensing agreements but they don't need to charge excessive amounts to do it. As long as an agreeement has been signed one dollar a year will protect the trademark.

[Aaronw]

Just an update on the Ford issue, from another website I belong to it appears the calendar issue was driven from the printers side, not Ford. In the past Ford has agressively protected their blue oval and name. Well apparently some overly cautious bean counter noticed Fords have a blue oval and say Ford on them (whoda guessed). It appears Ford is trying to clear this up by specifying the issue they had was products with a promenent FORD or blue oval as if an endorsement, not simply having a Ford car in the photo.

It is nice to see sometimes the world is not quite a screwed up as it appears to be.

[Jim Keeler]

Goodyear used to PAY (!) Revell to put their logo on the tires. Revell recently told Goodyear to take a hike when they insisted on charging Revell a licensing fee to keep the name on the model kit tires. Revell SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to remove the Goodyear name from ALL of their tire molds.

Interestingly I came across a FEDERAL court case a couple of years ago that ruled that a model kit or toy DOES NOT COMPETE with a real item and the maker of the toy or model DOES NOT have to pay a royalty to make a miniature of the real item.

Also, interestingly enough, I do not know of another court case where the maker of the toy or model kits has refused to pay a royalty based on that fact. and lost a case!

Jim Keeler

Crown Burgers, Yum Yum!

[Harry P.]

Interesting comments, Jim.

Now I see why Revell would balk at paying Goodyear a licensing fee, seeing as how Goodyear used to pay THEM! And basically, the Goodyear name on kit tires and decals actually amounts to a "plug" for Goodyear. Sure looks to me not like a case of Goodyear "protecting" their brand, but an example of simple greed on Goodyear's part.

Edited January 25, 2008 by harrypri

[935k3]

The Goodyear thing has even affected Tamiya also, all of their re-released F1 kits have no tire decals like they used to. Luckily I have Stencils and bunch of 1/24 decals I have collected over the years including Fred Cady's.

[Biscuitbuilder]

Yeah, I understand protecting your trademark and all that. But if GM and Ford and Chrysler, etc. are ok with model kits of "their" cars being produced (and the associated licensing fees paid), why would Goodyear have a problem with those models having "Goodyear" tires?

Don't GM, Ford, Chrysler and the rest also have an interest in "protecting" their brand? Apparently they don't have a problem with model kits of their cars being produced...so what's Goodyear's problem?

You can produce a model kit of a car that had a copyrighted name and image, but it can't have tires with "Goodyear" on them? That I don't get.

The automakers, for decades, have required licensing and royalties to be paid. Tire companies didn't, for a long time.

If you'd followed this issue for as long as I, and others have, you'd remember the huge broughaha about 20 years ago when various Taiwanese companies (and from some other Pacific Rim countries as well, were shipping all manner of parts (mechanical parts, "crash parts", even tires!) to this country, not only branded as the OEM, but complete with counterfeit packaging as well. American automakers took up the banner, went to court, and the cases went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which said, in effect: "In order to protect a design, a trade style, a trademark, or trade dress from unauthorized use, the owners of such MUST control that usage, and protect their intellectual properties against ALL users." In other words, there could be no selective enforcement, lest a licensee come back on their licensor.

Goodyear is perhaps the most recognized of all tire brands, World-wide. As such, their stuff was ripe pickings for counterfeiting, knockoffs and such. So, in order to gain control over the use of their designs, their tire names, their logo, and the type font used, they had little choice but to institute a licensing program for their products. This includes not only what they make in the 1:1 field, but toy and model car stuff as well.

The design and production of model kits is a game not so much of dollars, but all the way down to mere fractions of a cent, and every cost, every added expense threatens the expected price-point, and of all model kit manufacturers, those based in the US (while not necessarily producing here) were perhaps the most subject to price points (the expected price that the mass merchandisers saw as the maximum they could sell the kits at, and maintain their expected volume and profitability). For nearly 15 years, that price point for an ordinary AMT or Revell-Monogram kit was pegged, by the mass merchandisers (Walmart, etc) at $10 MSRP, without regard to constantly rising costs, for tooling, materials, factory overhead, wages and salaries. So, when Goodyear, for example, came forward demanding a royalty (and it was small, still is), that was just one more thing to "break the back" of the cost structure. At Johnny Lightning, where I headed up Product Development 2002-the end of 2004, we used Goodyear tampo printing very sparingly, and avoided Goodyear logo's on race cars wherever we could--even though it might have cost say, half a cent per piece to do so. It was a matter of half-a-penny here, half-a-penny there, pretty soon we could be looking at real money. In addition to such little royalties, you may not realize that every Tampo, or "pad print" step (one for each color, one for each section of that little body shell) could cost as much as half a cent to lay on there as well. It's not that much different with a plastic kit either.

In all this, bear in mind (and I've no flag to wave for Goodyear, or any other manufacturer at all!), the logo's, designs, trademarks and trade names of any product BELONG to that manufacturer or whatever industry it is, and there is no way around that--just as you own the rights to any likeness of your very person. Those are basic property rights, and last I looked, property rights cause more angst, and more court battles, in the US than just about anything else.

I've said enough, I think.

Biscuitbuilder

[Biscuitbuilder]

Goodyear used to PAY (!) Revell to put their logo on the tires. Revell recently told Goodyear to take a hike when they insisted on charging Revell a licensing fee to keep the name on the model kit tires. Revell SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to remove the Goodyear name from ALL of their tire molds.

Interestingly I came across a FEDERAL court case a couple of years ago that ruled that a model kit or toy DOES NOT COMPETE with a real item and the maker of the toy or model DOES NOT have to pay a royalty to make a miniature of the real item.

Also, interestingly enough, I do not know of another court case where the maker of the toy or model kits has refused to pay a royalty based on that fact. and lost a case!

Jim Keeler

Crown Burgers, Yum Yum!

Jim,

If you (try getting Mark to help!) could find that court case, it's cause number, and a copy of the decision, that would make some very interesting reading! I suspect that it was a lower court ruling, and didn't make it past the Supreme Court, which did rule on this very issue, rather decisively back in the late 1980's.

Biscuitbuilder