Warbird Information Exchange

Here’s a topic that may be of interest to warbird enthusiasts. It is certainly one of interest to model builders, both real and virtual, and also an example of why it’s a good idea to pay attention to legislation regarding technology and intellectual property law.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/li ... -liberator

Lockheed is the bad guy in this case, but Grumman aircraft has been guilty of similar abuses (players of the flight sim IL-2 will know), both companies taking inspiration from the automobile manufacturers, who began hassling modelmakers and video game companies for licensing fees years ago. (This is why many racing games now use cars with fictitious names, and why it is difficult to find resin model kits...their manufacturers cannot afford the fees demanded by these companies). When corporate lawyers begin to take their IP land grab campaigns to the internet, we all have reason to fear, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gives them the power to demand the removal of online content without any due process. This law is well-intended but over-reaching, and online companies live in fear of it. I have invoked it myself to have content removed from an online store (someone was selling t-shirts with unauthorized copies of my artwork on them), and all it takes is a single email to make someone else’s website disappear. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how such a law is ripe for abuse.

I know this may seem like a trivial thing, but this is how rights are lost...one tiny piece at a time. I.P. Law is a topic that does not get much mainstream press, but in the information society we are building, it is of crucial importance to our future freedoms.

Read about it, get mad about it, and support organizations like the EFF, who are fighting to do something about it.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

...Which is why you never see BOEING 707273747576777 on the lid of a model kit. You will see the type i.e.; 727 but not the manufacturer of that aircraft being represented which is pretty damned petty and small time IMHO.
So the question is, What is black and brown and looks good on a lawyer/
















A doberman-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

There already has been a something put forward in congress about companies doing govt military business that they can't demand licensing fee's from U.S. manufactures of model kits. Not sure if it ever got through it was attached to a defence spending bill and only covered U.S. manufactures and was to cover future military equipment not past stuff.

I can't see how them can lay claim to a government designation. Until someone has the money (legal fee's) to put a stop to this kind of thing I don't see it stopping.

I'll see if I can find out what happen to that bill if it made it through or not.

Mike

Some current model kit packaging, taken directly from a retailer of new kits:








Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

August

That's ridiculous. B-24 is not a protected name, it is a designation. Liberator, then maybe I could see that, although that is equally stupid. LM didn't even have anything to do with B-24s. Hell, they were 2 seperate companys.

There is more about the in's and out's of the whole thing here:

http://www.johnmacneill.com/WWII_Bomber.html

Regarding model kits: the Inspector was partly right: you won't see Boeing's name on any model kits unless the model company paid for the right to do so. It may sound reasonable at first, but what the aircraft companies are doing is asserting more rights than they have: trademarks exist to prevent brand confusion. Since there is little danger of confusing a 1:32 scale plastic model with a real 707 built by Boeing, it should not really qualify for trademark protection. It is, in fact, possible to hold a trademark for an identical name in one of over forty different trademark categories. Sadly, the categories are not well thought out, and the trademark office suffers from the same lack of sensible warm bodies that the patent office does, so it is easy for companies to trademark stuff that shouldn't even qualify for trademark protection. (Like "B-24")

By charging licensing fees they are not entitled to, they are stifling the efforts of smaller model manufacturers and game developers who cannot afford such fees. This is also why existing model kits cost so much more today than they used to.

Grumman tried the same stunt with Ubisoft games, effectively preventing them from including the TBM in their otherwise excellent flight sim, Pacific Fighters. As is typical in these cases, the smaller company caved to the threat of a costly legal battle that Grumman most likely would have lost had it actually gone to trial.

Here's an interesting thread on the issue, albeit an old one.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332614/posts

I'd be curious to hear how the proposed legislation is coming along...anybody know?

Edit: This is the latest thing I can find on the issue:

http://www.hmahobby.org/legislature.html

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

Well apparently Bingo games all over the world will have to be changed to eliminate the confusion of a Bingo ball and a vintage bomber.

Bingo caller: The next number is B 24, not to be confused with a bomber from the former airgroup Consolidated

My local hobby store told me about a year or two ago, a certain manufacturer of helicopters and planes, tried to strong-arm model companies on royalities for models of military planes and copters , including all the models that they ever sold of them. They lost as the designs of military stuff belong to the American (Public) Government as they were paid for them by government funds.

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!