|
Post by Christian on Feb 19, 2004 17:24:18 GMT 1
maybe someone could shed a little light on licensing. another member pointed out that herpa only made touring car versions of the honda accord and the alfa 155. schucco produces the V8 star touring car versions of the jaguar s-type. can the racing teams give the licensing rights to the model companys, or do the team owners need some kind of permission from the car manufacturers to do so? thanks. No permission from the manufacturers needed in that case since the V8 Star cars don't carry the actual Jaguar, Lexus, VW etc. names. The silhouettes of the cars are modelled after the prototypes, but the similarity is only superficial. Apart from that licensing regulations are very strict (think F1 teams).
|
|
skunk
87thScale addict
5th B-day
Posts: 2,762
|
Post by skunk on Feb 24, 2004 4:42:20 GMT 1
If you’re interested, have a look at this page. There are two more pictures of Norev’s Citroën C2 and C3 on 1/87 scale. The pictures can be enlarged. www.mafma.com/lettre10.htmAt the top of this page, the following statement appears: The Ferrari 612 Scaglietti is planned by some manufacturers. Projects, masters or prototypes by BRIANZA at 1:12 scale. All in all, ther are 5 versions at 1:43. Fortunately it confirms the release of MATTEL's exclusivity. This is a good new, but there is the "tax" from FERRARI.
Now, we have the choice between more expensive FERRARI or no FERRARI.Is any 1/87 scale manufacturer going to pick up the gauntlet? I wonder just how high the licensing fees are? Questions, questions...
|
|
|
Post by hofan on Feb 26, 2004 11:00:27 GMT 1
I wonder if small companies that produce resine kits also needs a permission from Ferrari to make thier models? new ferraris like the 500 Marranello would be very nice in HO scale
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Feb 26, 2004 19:33:56 GMT 1
I wonder if small companies that produce resine kits also needs a permission from Ferrari to make thier models? Yes, certainly. I know of a dispute between Ferrari and a 1/87 model manufacturer that ended very ugly. Another case is Volkswagen: Provence Moulage (1/43 resin kits) had to retrospectively pay licensing fees last year because they made Bugatti models without permission.
|
|
Lee
Senior Member
Posts: 1,899
|
Post by Lee on Feb 27, 2004 5:02:30 GMT 1
I am afraid from the trend that I am seeing, that a lot more companies are going to go after licensing fees in the future than do now. I just wonder how far back in the past of models made can they go. And it might not just be the name but the design also.
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on Feb 27, 2004 5:46:38 GMT 1
Dear Sirs:
Take Chrysler for example:if one want to model Willys,Nash,Hudson,AMC and the Chrysler Brands has to pay licensing fees for all of these brands.I also heard of other ugly legal fights involving these fees and recently Mercedes was involved on a legal battle.
Other interesting development:AWM changing is name to AMW-pressure from BMW.
|
|
|
Post by superba on Feb 28, 2004 0:34:48 GMT 1
Has anyone noticed that the Sylvan Chrysler Windser is sold as a Windsor, not a Chrysler. I am sure it an licensing issue.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Feb 28, 2004 0:40:29 GMT 1
Has anyone noticed that the Sylvan Chrysler Windser is sold as a Windsor, not a Chrysler. I am sure it an licensing issue. The Chevrolets aren't called "Chevrolet" either, but some of the trucks have their proper names ... is White that easy to deal with??
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on Feb 28, 2004 5:36:18 GMT 1
Dear Christian:
I think that White does not exist any longer;is only Volvo now.I do not know how Western Star can be qualified as,though ( supposdely,the latter is/was a Canadian White).
|
|
BillC
87thScale addict
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by BillC on Feb 28, 2004 12:25:58 GMT 1
Western Star is part of Freightliner, a DaimlerChrysler subsidiary. Freightliner includes Freightliner, Sterling (formerly Ford) trucks, Western Star, Thomas-Built Buses, Orion Bus, American-LaFrance and Unimog (in the U.S., DaimlerChrysler does not sell Unimogs as Mercedes-Benz vehicles).
Volvo used to be Volvo/GMC/White. When Volvo bought out the rest of GM's part of their joint venture, it dropped the GMC and White names. Volvo also owns Mack and Autocar.
None of the big American automakers currently have a heavy truck division. However, Ford may re-enter the market once their agreement with DaimlerChrysler expires.
Licensing will continue to become a big issue. In the U.S., part of the problem is trademark law. If you allow the unlicensed use of a trademark, you can lose trademark protection. Certain trademarks also produce nice revenue streams, like Corvette.
There are a number of other legal issues, at least in the U.S.
In the U.S., trademark protection lasts as long as the owner keeps using it and renews it in a timely fashion. Proof of use is required by law.
From our point of view, the big problem is that none of the American manufacturers use promotional models in 1/87 scale. In fact, the American manufacturers don't use any promotional models as much is they did in the past. This means a modelmaker must venture the costs of production and marketing without any assurance of a large order. From what I understand, this has also already happened to Opel and Ford of Germany, due to cost-cutting. This makes Rietze's model of the Opel Vectra very special. The best way to keep this kind of investment going is to buy these models. The Rietze Opel, which is quite a nice model, is available in the U.S. through Noch.
|
|
|
Post by superba on Feb 28, 2004 13:59:14 GMT 1
A couple of years ago I was working for the Chief Financial Officer of Pittson. Pittson owns, Brinks Armored Car, BAX Global, Pittson Mining and Brink Home Sercurity.
We were trying to get money for a major project, as a joke I gave the CFO a Bank model of a Brinks Armored Car, the ERTL 1/32 1958 Chevy truck. I told him we could store the money we got in the toy.
He went ballistic, When he saw the logos, he wanted to know where I got the model, who sold it, who made it. Apparently he was not aware of any licencing agreements.
I forgot about the whole thing, a couple of weeks later, he made it a point to let me know that Pittson did have an agreement with Ertl.
The message here, I don't think these guys take this stuff lightly. This CFO was a real bull dog
When I seroiusly start selling models, I will try to get agreement, or do what Sylvan models does, rename the model.
What do other small resin casting companies do? Anybody have contact names within the auto manufacturers?
Joe
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on Feb 28, 2004 14:27:46 GMT 1
Dear Sirs:
A couple of years ago,Model Auto Review magazine was following this Court auction 'that can decide the future on modelmaking' (their quote).I do not remember the details but I know that was a car manufacture-Opel,if I am not wrong-and a model maker.The editors stated that if the car manufacturer would win,modelmakers would have a lot of troubles in the future.I do not know what the result was,but I been noticing that some models are not coming out because of these issues or are offered as generic-thus incorrect-items.
|
|
|
Post by cfesmire on Feb 28, 2004 15:34:07 GMT 1
I have observed this subject from afar for some time here and in other places. Not being associated with any large companies or traveling in circles with those who are, leaves me with a rather perplexed attitude towards licensing. I see billions of dollars being spent on advertising. We are bombarded with it in every aspect of our lives. One can rarely find a piece of clothing without some kind of logo on it and our automobiles look like rolling billboards. What is the issue large companies have with someone replicating thier product? (Note: I didn't say "reproducing") It would seem to me a form of flattery that would be encouraged. What concerns me about what I'm hearing is this is just another indication of the litigeous attitude of our society (perhaps modern civilization in general). Folks sue each other at the drop of a hat. Bravo to folks like Clare Gilbert at Sylvan, who, in addition to making some wonderful little kits, has bridged this issue and just plain gives us what we want, to hell with the patent and copyright lawyers. I am our local code enforcement officer (building inspector) and have all too much contact with lawyers. In trying to resolve disputes between our town and property owners, they have done no more than cloud issues, spread mistruths (lie) and generally make the process of settlement a long and costly one. (If we have any lawyers among us, shame on you, get back to reality eh?) Is this what goes on with licensing or is Joe's example more of the problem? Maybe I've spent too much time in the boonies. Chester
|
|
|
Post by superba on Feb 28, 2004 21:07:37 GMT 1
The irony is companies will spend millions on brand identity.
I worked for a one hundred year old firm, we changed our name and spent 40 million dollars to increase brand awareness.
Toy and model manufactures are helping many major corpoate players create brand awareness for the corporation, yet still have to pay the corporation licensing fees. The corporation benefits are numerous.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Feb 28, 2004 22:09:09 GMT 1
What do other small resin casting companies do? Anybody have contact names within the auto manufacturers? Some manufacturers take it easy while others will sue you. I am determined not to experience the latter and therefore I keep a low profile. There are no names on my models, though I sell them as "Ford" etc. on Ebay. Most likely Ford in Cologne will never even hear of my P6's existence. As for why manufacturers don't like unlicensed reproductions I can think of two reasons, one being that they don't want any bad models ('cheap toys') associated with their name. Often an auto manufacturer also has an exclusive contract with one modelmaker. To keep the contract valid they would have to prohibit any other modelling approaches.
|
|