SlotForum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
I dunno about anyone else but I'm really wanting to see some different cars in the 1960/70 Trans Am vein.

Clearly Scalextric has the rights to Ford and Chevrolet with three variations on each (not counting team numbers). What about the rest of the field?

Does Carrera hold the copyright to all Daimler Chrysler brands which would include the AAR "Cuda and the Dodge Challenger and also probably the AMC Javelin (connected to the Jeep brand).

I like the look of the Noisy Muse Jav but I'd love to see some RTR's

Carrera seems to be focused on Classic Nascar, Scalex on Trans Am. What are the chances we'll see some other cars?

Cheers

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
I hope we see lots more from either manufacturer
I wonder if the current owners of any historic trans am cars should have the copyright? For example "Here's my 1969 Camaro, sure you can reproduce it in 1/32 scale! Let's talk royalties..."
After all the manufacturers have long since stopped making and indeed supporting some of these old cars.

Can someone explain copyright law to me in just a couple of sentences?



Mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
It just might be the case that copyright was (at least earlier) not really applied to cars after some years. One of the result was that third party manufacturers were able to make and sell part to your car without much problems in many european countries. Later on (I think in the eighties) some manufacturers started to 'patent' some of their 'shapes' and treat them as 'intellectual property', 'patterns' or similar. The intention was to make it impossible for third party manufacturers of car parts to undersell 'authorized' parts. Then ofcourse there was a legislative response in some countries which stated that this monopolistic behaviour was inapropriate and tried to counteract it. I do not think that those efforts were very succesful.
Anyway, the rumour has it that there is a 30 year limit on old cars (but not car and manufacturer names etc). When it comes to the racing liveries - this is another matter. They would also be creations wich belong to someone - not necessarily the car maker itself though. Might be an artist, or the racing company that designed the car, even the drivers sometimes.

It would be interesting if someone from the slotcar industry could give us some hints about how they go forth when trying to sort these and similar licencing matters.

//peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
On all the cars I have of Ford and G.M. their license is on the package and the car. The Porsches and the Ferraris have no marks and thus, no obvious copyright. I agree that the liveries are another matter, but it seems some mark would be present if royalties were being paid. Some of the cars like the Scaley dallartas reflect the license in their higher prices for "real" cars (the IRL mark on the intake scoop flag). The cars with driver's or team names may also be somehow licenced, but possibly a one time or run fee is all. It seems the Porsches are up for grabs. Free advertising for the rest so perhaps no objection (tobacco or booze for instance). Copyrights must be renewed every so many years , so maybe some are simply not renewed or enforced over long periods.

Others? (maybe Lawyers?)

pondering in Livonia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
To the best of my knowledge on the subject, there is no statute of limitations on the reserved rights to do something.

I beleive the only exception to this might be if a replica of something was desired, the company was out of business and there was no known heir to the business that might have the rights reserved.

BUT>>>

You still need to deal with securing the rights to use the name and/or likeness of anything else used on the same subject that was manufactured by another company.

In other words...if a Hubster XYZ car was built in 1945 for only one year and they sold 200 cars then went out of business with no known claimants to the Hubster XYZ, then you can replicate it. If the tires that were on it were goodyear...then you would still need the permission of Goodyear to replicate the likeness and the name on the tire. If not, then a generic tire would need to be used.
 

·
Brian Ferguson
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
The model won't necessarily contain any indication that the product is licenced, even if it is. That may be a stipulation by the licensor, but not always. In some cases, the model maker may WANT to incorporate such notice, in order to lend greater credibility to their product.

As Brian alluded to, it isn't just the car shape or identity that needs research for licensing requirements. Beyond tires, as he mentioned, there can be issues over sponsor decals/tampos, race team paint schemes, etc. Many groups can have a piece of a given race car, and unless they relinquished their rights at the time, they too must be considered in any reproduction.

Something as simple as a spark plug manufacturer's decal could be a sticking point.

Any copyrighted, trademarked, or patented products, designs, logos, etc. must be investigated. Approvals must be obtained whenever someone holds the rights if those rights weren't waived when the original car was created. And no formal process is required in some cases for someone to actually have ownership of a trademark or copyright - prior use will often stand up in court!

Also, just because one slot manufacturer is producing specific cars does not mean that others can't. That would require an "exclusive" license which is usually VERY expensive to obtain. BMW M3's, for example, are being modelled by more than one company and the GT40 has likewise been done by two. And yes, BMW and Ford hold the rights. My Fly GT40 has a licensing sticker but my M3 doesn't.

The more I think about it, the more I wish I was a lawyer...


NOT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
about Trans Am - on the Goodwood festival of speed I saw a very interesting book about Trans Am ( I do not remember the exact title). The book had quite a few pictures and included (I think) a complete history of the race and its development from beginning to end. I did not buy it since it was full price even though the copy was slightly damaged. Now however I cannot remember the title or the name of the authors so I do not really know what to ask for...

Anyway If you guys know which book it might be or know of a really good book about the Trans Am - especially the cars... please do not hesitate to use the keyboard....


oh sorry if I highjacked the thread
who knows might be some relevant infor of interest in that book


//peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Hi

Ya, the name is "TRANS-AM". Grin...really!

As for the rest, the usual hold up is the trademarked name. For a very long time, at least in the U.S. the car manufacturers were unconcerned with trademark violations. Their feeling was that if you were a kid buying a Ford MODEL KIT, you might be a customer in the future.
Then the lawyers pointed out that, under the law, if you do not defend your TM every time you hear about it, you release it to the public domain. Make free.
I don't know what the current practice is but, initially, Ford, Chevy and all were charging something really nominal for a non-exclusive licence. Like a Buck.

The problem for Scaley and Nascar and Trans Am, actually, is more subtle. They have to get licences for all the SPONSORS on the car AND the team logos. I don't know about the Trans Ams, but what I hear is that with NASCAR, the TEAMS are charging dearly for their logos and driver names. Add in the mix with the difficulties that so many race cars are Tobacco sponsored and Scaley has a lot of problems to solve just to sell a few thousand cars.
Personally, I have purchased more of the unlicenced stuff than licenced. With the Dallara's, for instance, the licenced cars are $40 locally. But the Fantasy cars are $20, and white is $18. I have purchased NONE of the licenced cars, but 8 of the others. As an aside, Sam Hornish of last years Pennzoil team comes here to ski, and some of the team fabrication is done here. So, there are couple dozen signed cars around here parked on a shelf. I don't collect.

Fate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
The copyright, license crap really is rediculous sometimes.

QUOTE And yes, BMW and Ford hold the rights. My Fly GT40 has a licensing sticker but my M3 doesn't.

and there is the rub...I think Ford may be licensed, but not Ford GT 40. I read where Ford does not own the right's any more gt40, let it lapse or sold it, got bought and sold a couple of times, and now some french toy company owns it. Hense, they can't even use it on their new high powered copycat gt 40 sports car.

How about plain white of each and every model, don't even call a Javelin, but we will all know, and then just sell a bunch of decals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
Let me see if I can make sense of this.

Advertisers will pay vast amounts of money to a racing team to have their Brand/Logo placed on the racing car. They reckon the exposure to onlookers will encourage sales and improve their own profitability.
OK, that seems a simple principle.

If a model car manufacturer wants to place the same Brand/Logo on a model car, the same advertiser not only thinks they should not pay the model car maker for the advertising but that, conversely (perversely), the model car maker should pay the advertiser as well.

Is it me or does anyone else find this just a tiny bit incongruous, contradictory and impossible to reconcile?


Is the next move for advertisers to charge publishers for the privilege of reproducing their Brand/Logos in the publishers' magazine?
Is the world completely loopy?
 

·
Brian Ferguson
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
Loopy, Tropi? I probably would have used stronger language.


But, yeah, that's about it.

In part, I suppose the trademark holders want to maintain control over the use of their "property". Can't really blame them for that, I suppose. Many will actually authorize the use of their logos without a fee. But if they don't attempt to maintain control over the logo's use they can lose the rights to it.

The ones who charge for the use of their logo or name on a model are a different story. They are trying to extort money from a source of free advertising, IMO. It's their product that should earn them profit, not licencing fees to other parties. It's a case of attempting to get a slice of the model maker's profit, the rationale being that the model maker wouldn't be able to make money without them. In essence, they are trying to make money from the very same situation that they paid money for in the first place.


And it can get even more complex. When Villeneuve drove for Williams, the team's deal with sponsors included all rights to the use of the sponsor logos on models, clothing, etc. Williams became the rights holder in all of the specified areas. Villeneuve further confounded things because, under his contract, he retained the right to the use of his name and helmet pattern. You will find very few authorized models, clothing, or even art work of Villeneuve's days in the Williams F1, because the fees charged by the team and Villeneuve were exhorbitant. The original sponsors had no say in it, they had relinquished their rights to the team. As a Canadian, I was always a Villeneuve fan, but he lost some respect from me for his part in this nonsense.


Rant over...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
QUOTE (VOA @ 3 Apr 2004, 11:07)The copyright, license crap really is rediculous sometimes.

QUOTE And yes, BMW and Ford hold the rights. My Fly GT40 has a licensing sticker but my M3 doesn't.

and there is the rub...I think Ford may be licensed, but not Ford GT 40. I read where Ford does not own the right's any more gt40, let it lapse or sold it, got bought and sold a couple of times, and now some french toy company owns it. Hense, they can't even use it on their new high powered copycat gt 40 sports car.

How about plain white of each and every model, don't even call a Javelin, but we will all know, and then just sell a bunch of decals?
There is a company in the Mid west US that makes aftermarket parts and accessories for the GT-40. Ford never saw the need to revisit the GT-40 so they sold everything to them including the rights to the name.

When the Ford GT concept car came around, for wanted to call it the GT-40 but that was quickly put on the back burner since this guy has a veritable gold mine going and was not about to give up the name or the rights for anything.

Shelby put the slam on anything that is a cobra replica as well. He will bring anybody to court that even alludes to the cobra name in their replicas. There is no known shelby authorized replica out there. Even Bob Bondurants company Factory Five racing makes replicas authentic to the Cobras (roadster and daytonas) but the name is not used anyplace.

Click the picture below

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Tropi said:
QUOTE Advertisers will pay vast amounts of money to a racing team to have their Brand/Logo placed on the racing car. They reckon the exposure to onlookers will encourage sales and improve their own profitability.
OK, that seems a simple principle.

If a model car manufacturer wants to place the same Brand/Logo on a model car, the same advertiser not only thinks they should not pay the model car maker for the advertising but that, conversely (perversely), the model car maker should pay the advertiser as well.

You have captured the essence of the difference between advertising and merchandising


If the truth be told, the trouble is not with the advertisers per se, but all the pony tail wearing advertising execs and law merchants (first up against the wall when the revolution comes!!).

Silly really, but all I want is a Sam Posey Dodge Challenger that I don't have to build from scratch that is a match for the Scaley Mustangs and Camaros (so that excludes Carrera/Ninco/etc....)
.

Cheers
Steve


PS apologies to any Slot Forum Members in either the legal or advertising professions. Your devotion to slots redeems you
 
1 - 13 of 13 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