One Sixth Warriors Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was playin' with my1/6 Stuart tank(yes, I'm 45 and still play with my toys:bagthinking)would that be nice if 21C make a true to scale Sherman or M1 tank. Then I'm thinking it gonna be expensive cause the size. I know the oil price play a big part. But, what about the license. Military aircrafts and vehicles are public domes. But when 21C made that Stuart. How much of the retail price goes into paying for the license? The same with HT or TS m14 for example. I paid $10. for my new HT m14. So, how much of that 10 bucks goes into paying for the license? Do anyone know? Do anyone wondering about that too?
 

·
"Load clear!"
Joined
·
206 Posts
I was playin' with my1/6 Stuart tank(yes, I'm 45 and still play with my toys:bagthinking)would that be nice if 21C make a true to scale Sherman or M1 tank. Then I'm thinking it gonna be expensive cause the size. I know the oil price play a big part. But, what about the license. Military aircrafts and vehicles are public domes. But when 21C made that Stuart. How much of the retail price goes into paying for the license? The same with HT or TS m14 for example. I paid $10. for my new HT m14. So, how much of that 10 bucks goes into paying for the license? Do anyone know? Do anyone wondering about that too?
Not sure. I remember a flap over this issue regarding plastic modeling a while back. I am not sure what the final resolve was or if it is still in contention. Below is from Wilkipedia:

A long lasting legal conflict exists between aerospace corporations and the manufacturers of plastic models. Manufacturers of aircraft have sought royalties from model makers for using their designs and intellectual property in their kits. Hobbyists argue that model kits provide free advertising for the makers of the real vehicles and that any royalties collected would be insignificant compared to the profits made from aircraft construction contracts. They also argue that forcing manufacturers to pay royalties and licensing fees would financially ruin all but the largest model kit makers. Some proponents of the aerospace industry contest that the issue is not of financial damages, but of intellectual property and brand image. In contrast, most of the world's commercial airlines allow their fleet to be modeled, as a form of publicity. Many cottage industry manufacturers, particularly of sci-fi subjects, avoid the issue by selling their products under generic untrademarked names (e.g. selling a figure that clearly depicts Batman as "Bat Hero Figure").
 

·
Fear is not an Option!
Joined
·
1,391 Posts
I have no idea about the cost stuff, But, I'm 48 and still play with my toys as well. I hope they find me sprawled out on top of my Sherman tank and a bunch of 1/6th scale troopers piled next to me and all around! YA...I'm a big old kid at heart.
 

·
Furious Genius
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
I doubt that there was any licensing fee to market a model of the long obsolete M5 series of armor. Nor would there be for the M4 Sherman tank. These are designs long in the public domain and so not subject to the same laws regarding copyright. Licensing for example would apply to the likeness of a living actor, part of their living is made from the marketing of their image. It would apply to the marketing of something using a brand name, or copyrighted logo, symbol, etc. I doubt if the HT M14 had any license fees associated with that as well. I don't think it would be subject to them, but look at how it is described by HT: "M14 (Vietnam version)" or "M14 (modern version)". Nothing copyrightable there. If you look on HT's website you will see a section devoted to "Licensed Items", quite separate from the other products that they produce. Short of a specific manufacturer of some fancy assed optic, light, or whatever I really don't think there is anything to license if you want to produce and sell a miniature of a weapon of war. When you think about it who would get the revenue for a license? Since the American taxpayer paid for all the U.S. weapons of war in every military conflict since the beginning of this country I guess the American taxpayer should get a cut of any proceeds from licensing.
 

·
In case of emergency....
Joined
·
1,997 Posts
There isn't currently any licensing issue over those older tank designs UNLESS they are using items from a specific manufacturer. For example, you could do a Sherman M4A3 but if you used the Ford engine, you might need a license. It's a very "iffy" legal area. The airplanes are different because many of them are specific to a single manufacturer (Boeing B17, for example) while the tanks tended to be produced by several different companies.

This issue HAS created problems for companies trying to make Jeep models since Daimler-Chrysler apparently only grants licenses for models of the Wyllis Overland versions and you'd have to get the OK from both Ford and D-C to do a Ford Jeep. Not sure who you'd need to OK a Bantam.
 

·
itchyrider
Joined
·
137 Posts
I have no idea about the cost stuff, But, I'm 48 and still play with my toys as well. I hope they find me sprawled out on top of my Sherman tank and a bunch of 1/6th scale troopers piled next to me and all around! YA...I'm a big old kid at heart.
I'm with you Bubba! I will be 53 YEARS OLD! and "still play with toys"
Like you, "they' can find me also "sprawled out on top of my Sherman tank and a bunch of 1/6th scale troopers piled next to me and all around! YA...I'm a big old kid at heart".

I cant take these toys with me...so...I am going to play with them, till I go to that "big sandbox in the sky".

itchyrider
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top