Licensing question

[viejoronnie]

Back in the "Golden Era" era of slot racing, did the manufacturers spend much/ any in fees to license the original 1:1 car design/names, unlike today, where the static model kit/slot car packaging has numerous notes on 1:1 vehicle trademark/licensing.

I can only remember that Jim Hall had a big input to the Cox products, but that when Strombecker made the Chapparal coupe, Strombecker called it the "American Coupe".

I wonder how much of the cost of today's offerings are the result of licensing fees.

[waaytoomuchintothis]

I remember people being furious at Teresa about Earnhardt's high fees. And there have been several liveries we couldn't get in some cars because the fees were too high, or the rights were refused. Makes me want to slap teeth out of faces.

[RazorJon]

I have to say no, the cost of using a name or doing a kit was way cheaper back in the day.

heck if not for slot cars, no one would know what a Cheetah is lol


Wonder if NASCAR would come back if the kids could play with the cars of their hero's ?

[4380r]

[Modlerbob]

According to wikipedia toy manufacturers weren't required to obtain licenses for their replicas until the 1980s. Many of the smaller manufacturers were driven out of business after the advent of license requirements.

[mattb]

Back in the 60's those companies probably felt somewhat honored to have their cars modeled. It was good publicity and advertising. I'm sure they got paid in most all cases, but probably not the crazy fees they would want today. Because of the large numbers of kids modeling and slotting a small amount per unit was probably a lot of money when compared to the cost of real racing back then.

I would think the major model companies had blanket deals with the big 3. They probably had some kind of exclusivity with that company. Ed Roth probably made more in licensing fees than anybody.

I always thought it was funny that there was never a static model of the Dean Jeffries Manta Ray.

[DaveKennedy]

Very few people will still allow use of their intellectual property without charging a fee. I have had discussions with a number of teams and families and drivers that will allow use with an exchange of finished slot cars as "payment". But yes, generally licensing is making it VERY hard to do much without tons of money changing hands. I now work for Scalextric and we pretty much pay licensing for everything, but we are part of a very short list that do.

[proxieken]

[Changing-Gearz]

I have always tried to get permission for doing a car and have sign off of the final product by somebody "official"
So far I've had a 5% deal - and some "send me 5 cars" deal.....

I went to Ford 2 years ago (early on) and wanted to get a license for 2-3 older models.... I chased it down to an agency that handles everything (they also handle 2-3 manufacturers for US business). It didn't seem like it was going to be a big deal and they finally said - just fill out this paperwork and return it. It was 18 pages of questions - in small font.... I kicked it to the back burner!

Last year I had a notice from Shapeways that BMW was going to initiate lawsuits for anyone using BMW in the title of the product a certain way.... I had to reword everything from "Fly BMW M1 Chassis" to "CG Chassis for Fly BMW M1" - I don't think anyone in the process knew that Fly was a manufacturer, and not an adjective from the 70's...

I don't know how a company can market some products and not get shut down... It seems laws in the EU for using the name Porsche or Corvette on a product are not what they are in the US.... And if they do find you - you go out of business and reemerge in 4 months as something else... You don't see officially licensed on many boxes and like Dave said - the list of people who do it right is extremely short!!

[slothead]

CG Slotcars might be our best expert about this. The college I'm associated with recently opened a 3D lab with 2 printers, a laser cutter, etc. that members of the community can use. Some students and faculty have used it to make models of game pieces, toys, and even molecules. When I took the tour I instantly thought about slot cars. Many of my dirt modified cars have identical plastic chassis I designed and built out of sheet styrene - the design is very simple and could be easily copied for 3D printing. But, given the new technology available if I wanted to 'copy' other existing chassis or bodies, would it be wrong to do so? I'm assuming there is no issue if it's for personal use, but might be illegal if the items are offered for sale.

FYI - my latest slot car is the CG Slotcars Shadow DN4 I got from SCC. Very unique car which I'll do a review of soon.

Slothead

[DaveKennedy]

Further... there isn't any consistency about this because it whether a company will go after someone they feel has illegally made a model without at least permission. I've dealt with different rules from the larger companies I've worked for being VERY cautious about this only to see untold numbers of blatantly illegal cars being sold via the gray market ("samples" being shipped directly from Europe to the US dealers and sold). Numerous times i've had ideas for cars only to be shot down because it wouldn't get approved by the major car company not liking it, not wanting to allow it, a team not having that sponsor anymore so they don't want to allow you to make it, because you need driver/team/sponsor/sanctioning body approvals and one link in that chain says "no" and viola, no car... and on, and on and on... why don't the major companies go after them? It's simple, to get what monies from them? If they sue them for tons of money, can they actually recover that? No. If they sue them for tons of money they have to spend tons of money only to maybe recover a small amount which would likely not cover the legal fees. So what we're left with is the largest companies play by the rules and the smaller companies can get away with it because they can get away with it because it doesn't make financial sense.

This is the truth of it... there is NO black and white with this, period.

There are only many, many muddy shades of gray.

[Changing-Gearz]

Dave is the expert.
I'm just trying to figure the whole process out!
I was also going to point out the same thing Dave has - to initiate a lawsuit on infringement is extremely expensive. I think with the Shapeways issue last year - BMW saw a fat cat in Shapeways - so Shapeways jumped to either change the name or delete items entirely...
But you never know how aggressive a company can be to protect their name.....

3D has raised many issues the last 2-3 years... Ford actually put free 3D files out last year on their website (I think Porsche has done it as well). To download it and print at home isn't a problem.... To turn around and put it on shapeways for sale - was only a problem if you called it a Ford GT... If you called it a turd blender (but it's still the same shape etc as a Ford GT)... Thats fine. Thats the Strombecker trick pointed out earlier in the thread "American Coupe"

Matt

[DaveKennedy]

I'm far from an expert on this but over time I've collected these memories of maybe 80% of the time being told "no, we can't do that because of licensing" and those recollections stick with me because I'm a bitter, bitter old man ;)

[proxieken]

So calling a car- "American car #1" will help keep the license guys away?

That would be awesome. :banana-dance:

[waaytoomuchintothis]

When our for-rent congress allowed the gigantic lobby effort that pushed the RIAA into law, these kinds of lawsuits became the goldmine for litigators that it is today. It also made it almost impossible to get a patent or copyright that can't be flipped by a corporation with lots of money and lawyers. For many decades, I have mailed my manuscripts to myself by registered mail, and left them sealed, creating evidentiary proof that I was the originator and sole owner. Then I let the publishers see it. Legally, that was airtight, no contest, but after RIAA, it means nothing at all. RIAA is specifically set up to create lawsuits that favor big money rather than fair and equitable treatment under the law. Everybody knew it, nobody cared, exactly like the recent failure of net neutrality, also from our for-rent congress.