Military model licensing and royalty fees issue

[Jeff Zimmerman]

Folks,

I took the advice from some of our other fellow modelers here in the US and
wrote my Congressman about this issue. I did get a letter back from him.
Here is what he wrote,

"Dear Mr Zimmerman,

Thank your for your e-mail regarding the International Plastic Modelers
Society in Ohio. It was good to hear from you.

I can understand the concerns of IPMS that some companies are demanding
licensing and royalty payments for military aircraft replicas. I appreciate
your bringing this issue to my attention. As the 109th Congress has just
begun, legislation dealing with this issue has not been introduced. Please
rest assured, hoever, that I will remember your comments.

Again, thank you for being in touch. Please continue to let me know when I
can be of assistance."

Note: Any typos in the above are mine, not the Congressman's.

It's obvious that he was not aware this was going on but now he does, and he
knows that at least one consituent doesn't like it. I would urge ALL
modelers of military subjects, here in the US, to write their Congress
representative about this. The more Congress hears from ANY modeler, the
better. They like e-mail better these days, since the scare with the nasty
stuff being sent in letters from a couple years ago. However, I did send a
hard copy letter with the same content as my e-mail.

I'm not an attorney but I believe the bottom line here is that we, as
taxpayers, should not have to pay licensing or royalty fees on replicas of
military subjects, as we have already paid for these items. The
manufacturers did not choose the designations or the names of these
subjects. The US government did/does that. There are more reasons than just
that but, I think this sort of logic is the best way to address the issue.
It would allow the model manufacturers to utilize examples like F-16 Falcon
or M1A1 Abrahms as a legal method to advertise their products.

This entire issue has the same spin as something else I had heard about a
few years ago. The United States Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio was
considering charging an entrance fee to the museum. The govenrment said that
they cannot charge the taxpayers to view items that the taxpayers had
already paid for. That means there is a precedence for this entire issue. I
think we just need to make get the lawmakers in DC to understand that and
act accordingly. Please write your Congressman. It only takes a few minutes
to compose a message. If you don't know who your Congress representative is,
check out this site, http://www.house.gov

To all my fellow modelers that make their living in the legal field, please
do not take this as a personal attack on yourself, or your profession in any
way. I just think that the attorneys from these big companies are looking
for any additional revenue source. It's not their fault, it's the way
capitolism works.


Jeff Zimmerman
IPMS#29172
President - IPMS/Eddie Rickenbacker Chapter
Columbus, Ohio

[MIKE]

Though I believe Boeing, for example, may be able to retain rights to prevent others from making duplicate aircraft, such as full scale P-51 Mustangs which are 100% identical and sold as military aircraft. However, the other side of the coin is that Boeing did not fund the design of the A-36 or P-51. The British and American governments did. Both are funded by and act on behalf of their respective peoples for defense purposes. Beyond that, these publicly funded designs have been in the public domain for well That was a directive from Ryanover a half century. Therefore, I do not believe Boeing or any other such contractor has any right to prevent others from making/selling small plastic reinterpretations of those designs for purposes which do not directly compete against Boeing's business of military vehicle construction