# Defence Contractors vs Builders of Plastic Models **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775 "2005-09-28T01:38:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rippingtons\_fan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rippingtons_fan/32/11767_2.png) [@rippingtons\_fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rippingtons_fan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/1 "2005-09-28T01:38:58Z")
I saw on the CBS Evening News that defence conractors are seeking to make the companies that make plastic models pay royalties to them since these companies are making money off the contractors designs. Doesn’t the defence industry get enough money as it is? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/2 "2005-09-28T04:09:25Z")
Link? Revell and Monogram and Airfix and others have been making models of aircraft (and land vehicles) for years. How is this the first time that this has come up? The same companies have produced millions of kits of Chevies, Fords, Dodges, etc. Are the Big Three (or any other automakers) doing anything similar? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/3 "2005-09-28T04:09:40Z")
> [@rippingtons\_fan](#): > > I saw on the CBS Evening News that defence conractors are seeking to make the companies that make plastic models pay royalties to them since these companies are making money off the contractors designs. > Doesn’t the defence industry get enough money as it is? I heard about this a while back and according to some it might kill the plastic model hobby industry though that may be hyperbole. I don’t think there’s a lot of money in the model business so it might be a case of these companies just trying to protect their intellectual properties. As far as I’m concerned any image of a piece of govt. equipment should be permitted. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Curate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Curate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Curate)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/4 "2005-09-28T04:41:56Z")
A similar situation arose a few years ago when one of the major railroads indicted that they would no longer allow model companies to produce models painted in their liveries without some sort of royalties being paid. I don’t know how it worked out, but I haven’t noticed an absence of Union Pacific models lately. I seem to recall that when Lionel first started producing their diesel engines, the Santa Fe and New York Central actually paid some of the development costs for the opportunity to have their corporate images displayed in toy stores. Times change. Curate ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/5 "2005-09-28T04:43:17Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I heard about this a while back and according to some it might kill the plastic model hobby industry though that may be hyperbole. I don’t think there’s a lot of money in the model business so it might be a case of these companies just trying to protect their intellectual properties. As far as I’m concerned any image of a piece of govt. equipment should be permitted. > > Marc Exactly. Unless you could prove that such a model is a security or intellectual breach of technology I can’t imagine this flying very far. The publicity would not be worth it. I wondered about the stealth models when they came out but all the prototypes are available for public viewing. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/6 "2005-09-28T15:07:23Z")
I always assumed that they did pay royalties. And I thought that the companies helped with the design to make them accurate. Wasn’t there a big blowup about the stealth fighter coming out in model form before images of it were released to the general public? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/7 "2005-09-28T15:27:12Z")
The “F-19 Stealth Fighter” model (by Monogram IIRC) had almost no resemblance to the real F-117. It was guesswork based only on publicly-available information about what a stealth shape might look like. I’d always assumed that the manufacturers of the real products were happy to get free advertising and good will. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/8 "2005-09-28T15:38:49Z")
I really thought this was going to be a reference to _Austin Powers_. I think it’s silly, myself. It reminded me of the story I heard a year or so ago about the LAPD seeking to license it’s name to prevent/make money off the depiction of the LAPD in movies, television and such. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/9 "2005-09-28T17:09:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Link? Here’s one for [CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/27/eveningnews/main887340.shtml), and one for [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0314/054a.html). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/10 "2005-09-28T17:44:51Z")
> [@rippingtons\_fan](#): > > Doesn’t the defence industry get enough money as it is? Who determines what “enough money” is? You? I have stock in defense companies. They pay me dividends. I could sure use more. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/11 "2005-09-28T17:55:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who determines what “enough money” is? You? > > I have stock in defense companies. They pay me dividends. I could sure use more. You have to ask yourself if these lawsuits will be good for the stock, or bad for it. I think, given the soft spot plastic models hold in the minds of baby boomers (the prime investor class), you could see a backlash sell off that depresses the value of your stock. You better sell it now, just in case… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/12 "2005-09-28T18:22:28Z")
How are there going to be sufficient royalty revenues to pay the legal and administrative costs of going after them? How much money do these tunnel-minded legal zealots think the average 12 year old _has_, anyway? And that’s even before the damage to an inestimable asset, good will, is considered. Just because you \*can \* doesn’t mean you _should_, people. “Zealously defending a client’s interests” requires a broader view than we see on display here. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/13 "2005-09-28T19:05:08Z")
Not to speak for Bricker…no, wait a minute, let me speak for Bricker. He wasn’t saying that defense contractors suing plastic model makers was a good strategy, or that it was wise, or that it was likely to make money. It may very well be that refraining from harrassing plastic model makers will generate the defense contractors more money than attempting to shut them down. He was objecting to the notion that defense contractors make “enough” money, and that therefore they shouldn’t try to make more money. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/14 "2005-09-28T19:17:08Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > He wasn’t saying that defense contractors suing plastic model makers … was likely to make money. Sure looked like it to me. Maybe you _should_ let him speak for himself. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/15 "2005-09-28T19:31:54Z")
Let’s go to the instant replay, Bob. OK. Originally Posted by rippingtons\_fan: > [@](#): > > Doesn’t the defence industry get enough money as it is? Originally Posted by Bricker: > [@](#): > > Who determines what “enough money” is? You? > > I have stock in defense companies. They pay me dividends. I could sure use more. Bricker is clearly saying that he wants the companies he owns to make more money. Everybody needs more money, that’s why they call it money. Since he took the trouble to QUOTE **rippingtons\_fan** in his response, that lead me to the belief that he wanted to, you know, resond to **rippingtons\_fan** ’s statement. I can’t see how any other interpretation is reasonable. But perhaps Bricker will be along in a moment and will settle our little dispute. To get in a Bricker mood, how much do you want to bet that–if he chooses to respond–Bricker will confirm my intepretation over yours? Of course, there’s a Heisenberg effect going on here, so if you don’t want to bet I’ll understand. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/16 "2005-09-28T19:36:22Z")
The thread topic is plastic models and making money from them. The default assumption, until he says otherwise, is that that’s what \*Bricker \* was referring to. Okay, pal? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/17 "2005-09-28T19:47:20Z")
> [@](#): > > The thread topic is plastic models and making money from them. The default assumption, until he says otherwise, is that that’s what Bricker was referring to. Okay, pal? Settle down, people. Anyway, Bricker made no open statement about the wisdom of the lawsuit, so assuming there was one based on the “background” of the thread is perhaps unwarranted. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/18 "2005-09-28T20:11:17Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Settle down, people. > > Anyway, Bricker made no open statement about the wisdom of the lawsuit, so assuming there was one based on the “background” of the thread is perhaps unwarranted. The problem is that the OP digressed from the basic issue (is this a proper use of patent/trademark law?) with the “enough money” comment. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/19 "2005-09-28T22:08:08Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Wasn’t there a big blowup about the stealth fighter coming out in model form before images of it were released to the general public? I heard the following story, but I have no cite. When the SR-71 (or A-12) Blackbird was presented to the public, model makers naturally wanted to include it in their catalogues. Unfortunately for them, the aircraft’s dimensions were classified. There was an overhead view of the aircraft sitting on the ramp at Edwards (or Palmdale). ‘Tell us,’ said the model makers, ‘Are the dimensions of your ramp classified?’ ‘No,’ replied the Powers That Be, who told them the diemsions of the concrete squares that made up the ramp. The model makers used basic algebra to determine the dimensions of the aircraft from the large concrete grid the Air Force provided. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775/20 "2005-09-28T22:51:47Z")
From the _Forbes_ article: > [@](#): > > Modelmakers have long paid royalties to automakers and more recently to railroad companies for the rights to make cars and trains. Boeing collects a royalty for models of commercial planes, like the 747. But military aircraft are different, the modelmakers say. They were commissioned by the U.S. government, and therefore their trademarks should be in the public domain. “Since taxpayers paid for them, how does a company lay claim to it?” says Edward Sexton, vice president of product development at Revell-Monogram. A quarter of his company’s 300 different models are military aircraft. So the model guys have been paying royalties for years for commercial products, but not for military stuff and now the aircraft manufacturers want to lay a “new” assessment on their military equipment. I _tend_ to side with the manufacturers, with a couple of caveats: - No retroactive claims for sales prior to their first attempt to grab more cash; - Pre-existing copyright laws (or the statute of limitations 😉 ) apply to old birds (for Boeing to claim money for a North American plane (P-51) that has not been manufactured in over 50 years, simply because Boeing bought out the company that bought out the company that originally designed the plane, seems to be more than a bit over the top). (The modelmakers are also being a bit disingenuous. Many WWII era planes were private ventures for which the manufacturers hoped to find buyers, not military requisitions and even requisitioned aircraft were designed by the companies, not by the military. The North American P-51 was a private response to a British request. The fact that the USAAF decided to buy into it after it had been built does not seem to me to relieve Monogram-Revell from the obligation to compensate North American (then Rockwell, then Boeing). (I’d still declare a statute of limitation on ancient aircraft, but the modelmakers’ _argument_ is flawed.)) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defence-contractors-vs-builders-of-plastic-models/323775.md?page=2)