licensing agreements?

[slusher]

Of 100 licensing deals there is 100 different fees. No two deals are exactly alike.....it varies with manufacture, who is in charge that week, their mood....etc....

I can believe that makes sense. Thanks

[clovis]

It is my understanding that, generally speaking, of course, that the toy train manufacturers have used real life railroad names and likenesses for years, without paying a dime in licensing fees or royalties.

IIUC, correctly Union Pacific started suing those using the UP name and trade dress in the manufacture of model trains. I understand that the founder of MTH was able to reach an agreement with UP to allow the name to be used without charge.

I would think that the major car companies would want as many models issued of their current line-up as possible, merely to help advertise and excite the buying public.

[Scuderia]

God thats beautiful

I agree... Well done Jason, holy smokes!!

Edited July 16, 2014 by Scuderia

[Tom Geiger]

Per model kits and other products produced in China, Korea or other countries without proper subject licencing... it's not a matter of how the laws or lawlessness is in the country of origin, but the same in the country where they are being offered for sale. How many times do we read news accounts of raids at US flea markets and other venues that seize fake designer bags, glasses... you name it. And shirts with sports team logos, car company logos and the like?

It would be more effective for Ferarri to pursue with US marshals to sieze those kits from US hobby distributors once they hit here. Once it was known that they'd be grabbed up, nobody would invest in them out of that fear. End of market. End of manufacture.

China is notorious for counterfit merchandise, everything from pharmaceuticals to cigarettes. A few years ago there was a sting in NJ where Chinese nationals were arrested for importing fake cigarettes. The news report said that these were popular brands like Marlboro and Newport, and the packaging was very accurate, complete with fake NJ tax seals.

[Dr. Cranky]

I think the big American automobile manufacturers--the ones left--guard the old designs because in essence that's all they have left. I bet you if you asked any current executive or mid-management person how they did such beautiful, long-lasting, long-running work, they'd tell you they haven't a clue, but they do have their archives and vaults and they know they have gold. They had gold which turned into pure (what does the French call that foul-smelling substance: oh yes, Merde!) and now they guard it because it's all they've got. Every once in a while they make a commercial say of the new Cadillac and they stand it next to a 1959 and they go LOOK at our tradition in beauty and design and your eyes immediately POP OUT with the 59 but with the NEW, your eyes begin to water and hurt. Your mind recoils in agony . . . WHAT IS THAT?

Then they go: LUXURY, SAFETY, FUEL EFFICIENCY . . . blah blah blah . . .

Having said that COPYRIGHTS and TRADEMARKS and PATENTS must be honored or else it's a free-for-all which is what China engages in. They use to spend valuable time and lives reverse engineering everything and then now they just copy (they can do this in less than a month depending on what it is) and put it out on the market, profit from it without ever having to worry about legal repercussions. And most of the time, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Dave Van]

It is my understanding that, generally speaking, of course, that the toy train manufacturers have used real life railroad names and likenesses for years, without paying a dime in licensing fees or royalties.

IIUC, correctly Union Pacific started suing those using the UP name and trade dress in the manufacture of model trains. I understand that the founder of MTH was able to reach an agreement with UP to allow the name to be used without charge.

I would think that the major car companies would want as many models issued of their current line-up as possible, merely to help advertise and excite the buying public.

Correct......Mike Wolf did negotiate a deal with the railroads. The story is a long one and pretty complicated. Real railroad 'names' had been used for many years......some 100! There had never been licensing fees.....until licensing became a profit center. Then things changed. Long story short.....Wolf and Warren Buffet, now a model railroader, got it worked out. A little different than the car deal.

[Tom Geiger]

Wolf and Warren Buffet, now a model railroader, got it worked out. A little different than the car deal.

Warren Buffet to the railroads, "You will let my hobby use your logos or I will crush you!" Done deal!

Having said that COPYRIGHTS and TRADEMARKS and PATENTS must be honored or else it's a free-for-all which is what China engages in.

Legally they have to challenge and protect their intelectual property. Because when they do need to take an offender to court, they need to prove they've been dilligent or they risk their property falling into public domain. Brands like "Scotch Tape" meaning tape, or "I'll make you a Xerox" being any copy are examples. In fact in the early days a "Ford" could have meant any brand car. So companies are forced to have large staffs on the protection end, so they have them on the licensing end hoping not only to protect the property but maybe to recoop some of the costs.

The other big one looming out there is litigation. Lee Iococca touched on this in one of his books. At that time litigation was the largest cost in every Chrysler vehicle.. followed closely by pensions and benefits for retirees, far surpassing the cost of steel and other actual ingredients! It was said if little Johnny swallows a tire off a Hot Wheels Mustang, they sure Mattel AND Ford. Our system is set up to go after 'deep pockets' hoping the companies will offer a settlement in lieu of having to go to court. It's cheaper for them. So that's part of the licensing equasion.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Tom Geiger

[Dr. Cranky]

Perhaps every time we bail out the car manufacturers we should get them to turn over some of those licenses to the kit manufacturers so that at least we (as children) can play with the toys we normally can't afford. LOL.

[Brett Barrow]

Correct......Mike Wolf did negotiate a deal with the railroads. The story is a long one and pretty complicated. Real railroad 'names' had been used for many years......some 100! There had never been licensing fees.....until licensing became a profit center. Then things changed. Long story short.....Wolf and Warren Buffet, now a model railroader, got it worked out. A little different than the car deal.

And UP and other railroads started painting locos in throwback "heritage" schemes so as to show they still use those trademarks and prevent them from falling into the public domain.

[clovis]

As an interesting side note, I read that Sunoco and Gulf, IIRC, among many other companies, actually paid Lionel each year to decorate their toy train cars with their respective logos.

Sometime around 1947 or so, GM paid a big chunk of the tooling costs for Lionel's F3 engines. The trade off, IIRC, was that Lionel would place a "Powered by GM" decal on each side of the engine.

Personally, I'd love to know the details on toy trains today, especially at Lionel.

While it will never have mass market viewing, those Sunoco tank cars, produced in the late 1940's, are still advertising for that company each time someone looks at them!

[sjordan2]

As has been covered on another thread, China does not participate in international agreements regarding intellectual property. They have their own system, which allows Chinese manufacturers to obtain patents for products that are pirated copies of other products, including automobiles and trucks.

For those who want more info on Jay's superb build of the Ferrari 250 California spyder, here's a review and build of the original Italeri kit by Alex Kustov...

http://www.italianhorses.net/Gallery/Italeri/Ital250Cal/250CalSp.htm

[fumi]

As has been covered on another thread, China does not participate in international agreements regarding intellectual property. They have their own system, which allows Chinese manufacturers to obtain patents for products that are pirated copies of other products, including automobiles and trucks.

Wrong. China has been part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty since 1993.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=6

You can't obtain patents for pirated copies. Of course, pirates wouldn't bother with patents in first place.

Patents also need to be applied in each country where protection is sought. A lot of the troubles stem from cases where foreign companies did not bother to apply the patents in China, and someone else took the design and applied it for themselves.

I suggest anyone not familiar with patent laws in China to read up on it instead of making things up. And foreign companies do win patent cases in China, if the patents were applied properly.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/07/design-patents-in-china-applications-infringement-and-enforcement/id=40026/

[Dr. Cranky]

Silvester, every country in the world KNOWS that China DOES NOT respect copyright law. Whatever the formal COMMUNIST PARTY PROPAGANDA/LINE is CHINA DOES NOT RESPECT copyright law.

[Brett Barrow]

Silvester, every country in the world KNOWS that China DOES NOT respect copyright law. Whatever the formal COMMUNIST PARTY PROPAGANDA/LINE is CHINA DOES NOT RESPECT copyright law.

Silvester was speaking to patent law, not copyright law. Patent law covers inventions, not artistic creations. Patent law as it applies to making scale models would have more to do with the processes of making the molds, shooting the plastic, ways the parts fit/lock together, the machines that make boxes, decal printing, etc...

China has plenty of problems when it comes to IP laws, no doubt. Most of it stems from lack of enforcement of the laws they have, but I think the major factor is that the Chinese were never taught about copyright and patent law until only very recently. It's a western concept and every Asian country has had to learn it as they modernize, the exact same thing happened in Japan and Korea post-war. China (the country) respects those laws, but the average Chinese person doesn't even know they exist, it's an entirely foreign concept to them.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[sjordan2]

Wrong. China has been part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty since 1993.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=6

You can't obtain patents for pirated copies. Of course, pirates wouldn't bother with patents in first place.

Patents also need to be applied in each country where protection is sought. A lot of the troubles stem from cases where foreign companies did not bother to apply the patents in China, and someone else took the design and applied it for themselves.

I suggest anyone not familiar with patent laws in China to read up on it instead of making things up. And foreign companies do win patent cases in China, if the patents were applied properly.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/07/design-patents-in-china-applications-infringement-and-enforcement/id=40026/

You appear to be correct and I seem to have been misinformed on certain matters. This has a lot to do with the fact that they seem not to observe automotive patents or copyrights very closely (Wikipedia):

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been acknowledged and protected in the People's Republic of China since 1979. The People's Republic of China has acceded to the major international conventions on protection of IPRs. Domestically, protection of intellectual property law has also been established by government legislation, administrative regulations, and decrees in the areas of trademark, copyright and patent. This has led to the creation of a comprehensive legal framework to protect both local and foreign intellectual property. Despite this, copyright violations are common in the PRC,^[1] and intellectual property violations are committed by prominent members of the automotive and electronics industries.

Edited July 16, 2014 by sjordan2

[Art Anderson]

It is my understanding that, generally speaking, of course, that the toy train manufacturers have used real life railroad names and likenesses for years, without paying a dime in licensing fees or royalties.

IIUC, correctly Union Pacific started suing those using the UP name and trade dress in the manufacture of model trains. I understand that the founder of MTH was able to reach an agreement with UP to allow the name to be used without charge.

I would think that the major car companies would want as many models issued of their current line-up as possible, merely to help advertise and excite the buying public.

That happened with a number of railroads, and a few "trademark trolls". One almost legendary case involved the logo of the former Pennsylvania Railroad (merged with the New York Central in the late 60's to form the ill-fated Penn Central RR). It took a savvy Federal Judge to rule that not only was PRR completely gone, but that it's "Keystone" shaped herald with the letters PRR was a piece of American Heritage by that point in time (the middle 1980's, and therefore in the Public Domain.

Pretty much, the use of railroad heralds and names has become a non-issue--virtually all US railroads see them as pretty good PR.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Per model kits and other products produced in China, Korea or other countries without proper subject licencing... it's not a matter of how the laws or lawlessness is in the country of origin, but the same in the country where they are being offered for sale. How many times do we read news accounts of raids at US flea markets and other venues that seize fake designer bags, glasses... you name it. And shirts with sports team logos, car company logos and the like?

It would be more effective for Ferarri to pursue with US marshals to sieze those kits from US hobby distributors once they hit here. Once it was known that they'd be grabbed up, nobody would invest in them out of that fear. End of market. End of manufacture.

China is notorious for counterfit merchandise, everything from pharmaceuticals to cigarettes. A few years ago there was a sting in NJ where Chinese nationals were arrested for importing fake cigarettes. The news report said that these were popular brands like Marlboro and Newport, and the packaging was very accurate, complete with fake NJ tax seals.

BTW, in case nobody noticed, the Ferrari kit in question (I have one on my desk!) WAS NOT MADE IN CHINA--but rather in the Republic of Korea, which is where the manufacturer, Academy, operates.

Art

[Harry P.]

Here's an example of how China respects copyrights...

http://sharepowered.com/the-worst-chinese-car-knockoffs-rip-offs-auto/#

[Joe Handley]

Here's an example of how China respects copyrights...

http://sharepowered.com/the-worst-chinese-car-knockoffs-rip-offs-auto/#

I'm not sure what us uglier, the Prado or the Shuttle?!

[fumi]

Here's an example of how China respects copyrights...

http://sharepowered.com/the-worst-chinese-car-knockoffs-rip-offs-auto/#

Other than a resemblance of the headlight and grille area most of them don't look even close. In the case of Tongji Auto Roadster vs Audi R8, I can't see any resemblance at all.

And how old are these? At least the Shuanghuan Laibao SRV was from before year 2000. The Geely Merrie 300 Mercedes lookalike was never produced. The current BYD F6 looks nothing like the one in your link at all.

Edited July 18, 2014 by fumi

[Harry P.]

Other than a resemblance of the headlight and grille area most of them don't look even close. In the case of Tongji Auto Roadster vs Audi R8, I can't see any resemblance at all.

And how old are these? At least the Shuanghuan Laibao SRV was from before year 2000. The Geely Merrie 300 Mercedes lookalike was never produced. The current BYD F6 looks nothing like the one in your link at all.

You can't see any resemblance? Time to get glasses, maybe?

Here's another one. Don't tell me you can't see that this one is an almost direct copy of a Mini Cooper:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/china-s-lifan-320-copies-mini-cooper-57654.html

And even more...

http://www.ridelust.com/5-amazing-automotive-rip-offs-from-china/

[Brett Barrow]

***Gasps, clutches pearls*** We Americans at no point in our storied history would have ever done anything so egregious as to copy the styling of another car!!!

And folks say today's cars look alike...

[Harry P.]

Ferdinand Porsche "borrowed" the design of the Beetle from the Tatra 97. So much so that Tatra sued Porshe. And Porsche was willing to settle. Then Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, halted Tatra production, and made the lawsuit against Porsche conveniently disappear.

After the war, Tatra reopened the suit, this time naming Volkswagen. VW lost and wound up paying Tatra three million Deutsche Mark in damages.

[Art Anderson]

***Gasps, clutches pearls*** We Americans at no point in our storied history would have ever done anything so egregious as to copy the styling of another car!!!

And folks say today's cars look alike...

Of course, in the era of these cars, Brett, there really was very little that could have been done to make totally different shaped car bodies. Consider that 1932 was still in the era of carbon steel sheet metal, which couldn't be drawn (stamped) into deeply drawn complex shapes (the sheet metal in every one of the cars pictured was actually stamped out in relatively small sections), and further, with the '32 Ford Tudor and the Plymouth sedan, the other cars here have bodies that were still constructed of wooden framing, merely covered with a sheet metal skin.

That alone severely limited the styling possibilities. That said, while of course there were just only so many ways to give your company's offerings much in the way of unique styling (save for those automakers producing custom-styled, custom crafted "Coachbuilt" body shells), mostly limited to "signature" features, such as a grille or radiator shape, which was the primary identifier for most makes of cars.

And yes, there were copycat situations: The one I think of most often from that era was Packard vs Buick: Packard, from almost their beginning, had used a radiator shell, with a distinct "Ox-Yoke" top surface (EVERY Packard to the very end in 1958 had at least a hint of that identifying shape or line). In the early 20's (before Harley Earl), Buick virtually copied that same shape radiator, which prompted a lawsuit from Packard. The issue was resolved by Buick's simply altering their radiator, removing the "double S curve" at the top to which Packard had objected. And of course, if you look at any 1932 Chevrolet, then at a '32 Cadillac, there was a very direct styling coordination. Harley Earl (with apparently the approval of Cadillac and GM management) had the '32 Chevrolet styled very much to look like a "Baby Cadillac" (which to many eyes it does), and Edsel Ford pulled off the very same thing with Fords, from Model A well into the 1930's, many years of Fords (particularly the Deuce) literally aping the lordly (and costly) Lincoln.

There was at least one unabashed case of copy-cat styling though, in the early 30's! The stylists at Briggs Body Company, then the supplier of bodies to Chrysler Corporation (which company produced virtually none of their bodies in-house until their buyout of Briggs, completed in 1954) deliberately copied the stance, lines and proportions of the rather radical 1930-32 Cord L-29 Front Drive when styling the 1930-33 Chrysler and Chrysler Imperial. Probably Auburn Automobile Company, maker of the Cord was not willing to take on Chrysler over this, as the L-29, by 1931, was already a considerable sales failure.

I remember asking my dad, probably when I was perhaps 9 or 10 (about 60 years ago now) just why so many of the cars he'd point out from the 1930's (there were still a fair number of them on the road in the middle 1950's) why they all seemed to look so very much alike, and his answer was? "It was a time when very few people even trusted a car that looked "radical"--"We were all (and Dad was in his late 20's/early 30's in the first part of the decade 1930-1940) pretty conservative with what money we had to buy new cars with back then--if a car looked too different from all the others, people really did wonder why they spent so much on styling and not under the hood where it counted (to us)."

So, that was a key part of my education as a young kid as to why cars tended to look as they did, and why.

Art

[Brett Barrow]

Oh, I'm sure they were easy to tell apart in their day, I was just having a little fun!

The bigger point I was trying to make (and have been trying to make) is that the Chinese are at a similar period in their in industrialization and modernization as the US was then. We're basically able and set back and watch them go through their own industrial revolution with all its challenges in labor relations, intellectual property, patents, copyrights, etc...