Is this rumor true?

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

When I was at the model contest a couple months ago, I heard this guy talking about a new 1/48 B-17.

I said " Excuse me! Did you say a new 1/48 B-17."

He said " Yup, Tamiya has the molds made for it, they just aren’t going to sell it yet."

I asked why not and he replied " Because Boeing wants half of the money they make selling the kits, back when Monogram made the Boeing Giants, someone else was in charge and allowed them to make molds."

I was shocked at what I heard. Was this guy just insane? Or is this rumor really true?

2

assuming that Tamiya is actually going to market a B17, and then taking into fact the over priced status that most Tamigawa kits are these days; then I would blame them for raking in fifty to seventy dollars a kit. But there’s a glitch here. You see unless it was one of the fiirst three or four model B17’s, there wouldn’t be any copyrights. The Federal Government paid for the “E” and later designs; thus making the design government property. In Ben Rich’s book Skunk Works he points this out (refering to actually owns the design)

gary

3

No…

4

The Tamiya 1/48 B-17 is more a Dream then even a rumour.

One argument against it is that a large part of Tamiya’s market is Japan itself. Where home ownership is limited and most citizens are renters. Thus living spaces are much smaller then what we have in the states. Thus the number of modelers in Japan with the ability to display such a beast would be extremley limited.

Also Tamiya would not do anything that backward, make the molds before having a deal with Boeing?

Now can we talk about Tamiya doing a 1/32 P-51 or P-38!

5

The Tamiya 1/48 B-17 has been a rumour for at least 5 years. Aint gonna happen IMHO.

Regards, Rick

6

I’d settle for a Tamiya 1/48 Tomcat !!

7

Tamiya would have no problem releasing a B-17 but unfortunately one of the many reasons they haven’t has to do with licensing and trademark issues. Boeing is one of the most aggressive when it comes to this as they have locked down the use of their name and most of the systems they built, even those from WWII.

There was legislation in Congress to deal with this licensing issue but it lost momentum and never made it into the defense appropriations bill. One of the problems with our system, we allow our legislation to be inter mixed with other bills (typically good with bad ones) instead of having them stand alone on their own merit.

Anyway though no retro effective solution was passed I understand that all present and future contracts include language that the rights are publicly owned, not owned by the mfr for all taxpayer paid for systems/platforms.

Companies try to circumvent the licensing issue by not using specifics such as B-17 or Flying Fortress because Boeing has lead everyone to believe they own the rights to those trademarks. Plastic model companies bow to such giants of industry because they don’t have the depth of resources that they do such as pools of lawyers and cash to take the case to court. Intimidation rules in the corporate world.

However there is a David out there taking on the Goliath, it happened before when a mfr took on a major railroad. That set a precedence, one that had positive impact on the model railroad hobby. If our David wins, it will do much the same for us who build models.

The Goliaths were short sighted as usual, the profit from the licensing doesn’t even offset the cost they incur to have their attorneys get involved. Our hobby does more to improve their brand awareness than does many of their expensive advertising campaigns.

8

In fact, Tamiya recently did something very similar to what you described here when they released their 1/48th Humvees as “4x4 Utility Trucks” without naming them specifically as “Humvees”.

As fro the rumoured B-17’ kit, it’s been rumoured and speculated about for many years - believe it when you see it.

9

Trumpeter was even rumored to be making a 48th B-17, but when you ask the company itself, they said there’s really no market for it and the Revell version has the market cornered. They went ont to say the only true 48th B-17 market would be the shark tail versions of the Fort (B-D), but they predict that the cost to make the molds far out weighs how much they precdict would actually sell.

I don’t know where they got their numbers, but if’n they where to produce an early B-17 version, I for one would buy multiple copies!

10

it’s a mater of United States contractual law that simply states that if the Fed supplies the money for a project, then the project is intellectual property of the United States Government. Lockheed almost lost the rights to the SR-71 and later the F117 over this. If the Fed owns the rights, then the design is tax payer’s property

gary

11

They also did this with their 35th scale Opel Blitz German truck—just left the name “Opel” off of everything…

12

The Germans have a word for it, it’s “Quatsch!”

13

It’s so sad that this happens. I thought it would only affect modern aircraft.

That’s what happens when morons without passion for what their company does take the decissions.

14

I’m hoping against hope that this could happen… but not holding my breath.

15

I ofen come at copyright and intellectual property decisions dealing with useage of photographs, etc., because that’s where my job can take me. And yes, lawyers can certainly be a pain.

But my understanding of this kind of stuff goes something like this.

When the DOD submits requests for bids to the defense industry and an aircraft manufacturer wins a contract, the DOD has bought the aircraft that result, not the design. The manufacturers often can, with government dictated export controls, requiring different specs, etc. beause of the defense nature of the aircraft, market the aircraft to another country. Within those limitations, the manufacturer makes profits and keeps workers employed making more birds and selling “their” aircraft to an allied country. Another example would be Boeing, after contracting with the DOD for the KC-135, were able to take that basic airframe design and create the 707 airliner.

To use the photograph comparison, if I create a photograph as an independent photographer, (not as an employee) I own the photo. I can license rights for others to use the image, but I don’t sell them the photo, only the use of it. It is still my photo to offer to other customers for whatever price I want. The first user of the photo, once he’s used it for the use I allowed, can’t use it again without my permission.

Now it can get a little cloudy, as I understand it, when you get into the details of bidding on a DOD contract and if that sort of makes the manufacturer a DOD “employee.” Its also my understanding that those details get worked out in the contracts.

But as far as hobbyists go we aren’t buying an aircraft. We are buying a commercial representation of the design, a scale model kit, manufactured by a company, other than the aircraft manufacturer. The kit manufacturer created the kit for the purpose of making a profit of its own, not one for the original aircraft constructor. I don’t know how much cooperation the aircraft manufacturer gives to the kit company to get the details right, but if it does, there’s no doubt some compensation figured somewhere.

I know it is much more complicated than I’ve described it. It can certainly be debated how much any license fees would really need to be for such stuff, how it changes kit costs and availability.

By the way, what about the guys that build model cars? The DOD and the taxpayers cerrtainly don’t own the Corvette design. Does anybody know, has anybody read, anything on this and what Chevy requires or gets on this kind of thing?

I’m curious about that side of it.

16

Hey Hawkeye I remember when that happened I was still into ModelRailRoading that was CSX vs Athearns some newley hired marketing director . Took it on her own to cause trouble for Athearns and other companies. When CSX upper upper management got word what she did they promptley fired her and prompley appolgised to the MRR manufactures for any probluems she caused. aceses5[blns][proplr]

17

Okay, two opinions on who owns the copyright…who’s right?

18

the 707 predates the KC 135, if that matters. But I’ll take this into the real world when dealing with the Federal Government in military contracts. We all here probably know what the M1 tank is by now. I’m going to dig into a couple things on the basic tank.

  • the thermo imaging gunsite was a Hughes Aircraft development. The concept was strictly a Hughes idea. The Government then contracted them to development working prototypes, and even went so far as to foot the development costs. After that all blue prints came with a Federal tag on them, and once accepted for production became Government property. Thus also allowing the Fed to allow other bidders to produce the same parts at the end of the contract cycle.

  • The M1 tank was a Chrysler development. Or was it? If it was a Chrysler development, then it would seen natural that Gen. Dynamics would be paying a royalty. But perhaps Chrysler sold the M1 to G.D. That being the case how was it that G.M. also built M1 tanks? G.M. didn’t pay a royalty fee to General Dynamics. It’s because the Fed owns the design, and Chrysler couldn’t make delivery.

  • The basic powerpac on the M1 uses the X1100 automatic transmission. It started life as a Federal design, but it wouldn’t work. After three redesigns of the hydrostatic steer, the Fed gave up. Allison then completely redesigned the transmission, and it worked. The majority of the transmission was indeed an Allison design, but who foot the bill on the fourth design? TACOM did! But with the basic piece of intellectual property belonging to the Fed; the concept became Federal Prpperty. While this was going on Allison went ahead and developed the hydro steering with money out of Allison’s pocket. Thus giving them the right to seek intellectual property rights for the hydro steer mechanism even though it was i the middle of a Federally owned product.

  • The final drive on the M1 tank is another very interesting piece. It was either a Chrysler or G.M. design (I can’t remember), but it seems that it was an Allison design that was originally lumped in with the X1100 transmission during development. After the design was accepted production contracts were let to build them. After about six or seven years the contract to build the final drive went up to an outfit in Michigan, and they lost the contract two years later to somebody else. Who builds them now I don’t know, but I can safely tell you they are not paying a nickel’s worth of royalties. Why? The Fed paid for all the development and design while in progress. That particular piece was looked over by Catapillar to use in some of the off road equipment. The Fed OK’d the use of it because it helped cut the costs perunit. There were no royalties involved, and Cat would actually have to buy them from TACOM. The deal fell thru at the last moment. The GAO and TACOM reserve the right to bring alternate contractors in anytime they want to (GAO is really bad about this one), and every contract with a supplier has a similar clause written in it by law.

Me thinks that Tamigawa are just a little too greedy

gary

19

Another quick thought, what about the Vega and Douglus built Forts? I’m sure that those two companies wouldn’t have made a profit if they had to pay Boeing a fee for every Fort produced that the Army Air Force bought (at the same price that the AAF buys it from Boeing itself). That leads me to believe the Gov’t owns the design of the Fort.

And the B-24 for all that matter. Just look at Ford’s Willow Run factory. Or GM built Avengers.

Just a thought.

20

All rumors are true…it’s the truth that’s usually hard to believe.

[:)]