Hosted by Darren Baker
Yet another stryker topic
afv_rob
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 04:14 AM UTC
Ok I know pople must be sick to death of these stryker posts. Just a quick question, ive seen from here that it appears many model companies are not allowed to produce a kit due to the fact who ever makes the real stryker wont let them and they will charge companies a hell of a lot of money for using their brand, my question is why doesnt a company produce a vehicle identical to a stryker but not call it a stryker-call it an army troop carrier or something and then whoever makes the stryker vehicle cant charge the model company cos in actual fact they havent produced a stryker, they ahve produced a model that looks like a stryker-if you get what I mean.
MonkeyGun
Joined: August 07, 2005
KitMaker: 943 posts
Armorama: 825 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 05:25 AM UTC
I can see your point Rob but I dont think just renaming a kit would fly.
A similiar situation arose with a flight sim game where they included aircraft for which the original company did not give permission and demanded royalties, the sollution that the software company suggested was to rename the aircraft like hmmm Avenging instead of Avenger but they also had to make some changes in the aircraft model so it did not appear exactly like the real thing for copyright purposes.
So in my personal opinion if a kit company released a kit renamed and as a representation for want of a better word, even though im not a "rivet counter" I dont think I would want to buy a kit that was not accurate.
Ian
A similiar situation arose with a flight sim game where they included aircraft for which the original company did not give permission and demanded royalties, the sollution that the software company suggested was to rename the aircraft like hmmm Avenging instead of Avenger but they also had to make some changes in the aircraft model so it did not appear exactly like the real thing for copyright purposes.
So in my personal opinion if a kit company released a kit renamed and as a representation for want of a better word, even though im not a "rivet counter" I dont think I would want to buy a kit that was not accurate.
Ian
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 06:45 AM UTC
Agree with Ian, it is not only the name that is licsensed, but the whole design. You can not copy a design and call it something different and get away with it. It would be the same as copying a 1968 Camaro and calling it a Camareno and trying to sell it. GM would be all over it. Sorry, just the way it works.
kglack43
Joined: September 18, 2003
KitMaker: 842 posts
Armorama: 607 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 06:58 AM UTC
then how about someone producing a blank vehicle body, the correct size, angles and in a scale that we could add the fiddly bits such as hinges, hook-up points, headlamps, lights, guns... and all the finishing touches that would make it a stryker.
would a shell be ok to produce?
kevin
would a shell be ok to produce?
kevin
Petition2God
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 06:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
why doesnt a company produce a vehicle identical to a stryker but not call it a stryker-call it an army troop carrier or something and then whoever makes the stryker vehicle cant charge the model company cos in actual fact they havent produced a stryker, they ahve produced a model that looks like a stryker-if you get what I mean.
Well, from American intellectual property law point of view, such action still would not fly. It would still be an infringement of trademark. The purpose of trademark law is not to cause confusion as to who made the product and what the product is in the eyes of reasonable consumers. This so called, "Stryker-look-alike," is obviously designed to look "substantially" similar or very close to the real Stryker. So the purpose of the kit is to infringe a trademark to begin with. And a judge will point out that in the eyes of reasonable modelers, it will cause a confusion with a model of "real Stryker."
You see people who make fake Air Jordans cannot get away with their infringement just because the swish or flying Jordan symbols are slightly different when the rest of shoe design is very similar. (Besides they are the ugliest and most overpriced shoes out there)
Petition2God
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 07:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
would a shell be ok to produce?
kevin
It would still be difficult to get away with a "shell" because like Gino pointed out, the whole design, including the shape itself needs to be licensed. As I said in my previous post, intention of the product is important also. Obviously, the intention and purpose of this basic shell/blank body kit is to depict Stryker and would not pass a judicial scrutiny.
Neo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 916 posts
Armorama: 758 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 07:55 AM UTC
It nice that we, the US TAXPAYERS, actually funded both the design and production – so are we going to see a cut of those royalty payments.
Q. What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A. A good start!
Q. What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A. A good start!
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 08:50 PM UTC
There are cases being looked at right now to decide who owns a design if it is produced for the US Military or US Govt. So far as I know, nothing has been fully decided one way or the other yet.
Personally, I think if the courts decide on the side of the manufacturer then it will become a much more expensive proposal to make a miniature of anything. Also, then the aftermarket companies will probably be liable and go out of business. My gut feeling is that military equipment will become "public domain" so as to keep the people happy...like the "tax free" status of some internet purchases. Who knows?
As for copyright infringement, I know a jdge here in MN who has dealt with this very subject. The Law states that the original has to have more than 80% of its design in common with the copy. As to what differences must be etc... ??
PS. Better to fight in court than in the streets, lawyers or not. Adn it is the "bean counters" causing the problems, not the lawyers..damned bean counters! :-)
Personally, I think if the courts decide on the side of the manufacturer then it will become a much more expensive proposal to make a miniature of anything. Also, then the aftermarket companies will probably be liable and go out of business. My gut feeling is that military equipment will become "public domain" so as to keep the people happy...like the "tax free" status of some internet purchases. Who knows?
As for copyright infringement, I know a jdge here in MN who has dealt with this very subject. The Law states that the original has to have more than 80% of its design in common with the copy. As to what differences must be etc... ??
PS. Better to fight in court than in the streets, lawyers or not. Adn it is the "bean counters" causing the problems, not the lawyers..damned bean counters! :-)
afv_rob
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:44 PM UTC
Thanks to all who offered some info on this matter-now I understand a bit better. The real reason I raised it was becuase partly what Dragon did with their pzkpfw tires (not as big a subject by no means) but they fact they go away with writing continentau, and im sure over companies have dodged the copyright laws-ok so the tires are not a complete model. But yes I undertand now.
Guess we will have to wait for someone to get permission to use the brand.
Guess we will have to wait for someone to get permission to use the brand.
2CAVTrooper
Joined: October 21, 2005
KitMaker: 310 posts
Armorama: 302 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 05:19 AM UTC
I find it funny how General Dynamics Land Systems is the only company demanding royalties for any kits made of one of their vehicles. I wonder why they don't make the same demands for the Abrams kits out there, or the Los Angeles class SSN's, etc?
I wonder if they will share those royalties with the surviving Stryker family members?
It's probably some low level management cubicle rat who's making the demand to make himself feel important.
I wonder if they will share those royalties with the surviving Stryker family members?
It's probably some low level management cubicle rat who's making the demand to make himself feel important.
Petition2God
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Monday, January 16, 2006 - 06:12 AM UTC
Well, the problem comes from those big corporations or military manufacturers wanting every cent they can get out of anybody.
Tamiya has been doing their business legitimately in this area as far as I can tell. If you look at the box of 1/35 Willys Jeep kit, you will notice a label, acknowledging license by Jeep Chrysler.
Unfortunately for poor aftermarket companies, they have to deal with big old guys of this capitalist society.
Tamiya has been doing their business legitimately in this area as far as I can tell. If you look at the box of 1/35 Willys Jeep kit, you will notice a label, acknowledging license by Jeep Chrysler.
Unfortunately for poor aftermarket companies, they have to deal with big old guys of this capitalist society.
cardinal
Joined: October 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,008 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 01:05 AM UTC
Ric_Cody
Joined: May 22, 2005
KitMaker: 299 posts
Armorama: 294 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 01:58 AM UTC
Just a few issues that I am noting about this model from the pics posted at Prime Portal.
The weapons mount is inaccurate where the rear of the .50 cal is mounted. There is no selinoid for firing the .50 cal. There is some sort of shield infront of the VC hatch (the one behind the weapons mount) dont know what that is. The DVE (drivers vision enhancer) is mounted in the old position in front of the drivers hatch. It is now positioned up to the right of the drivers hatch. Also the EPLRS antennae is mounted in between the two rear air sentry hatches, that should be mounted to the right rear of the hull for the ICV version. Also for the most recent vehicles that have been issued there is only a step ring on the left front tire, not all 8 anymore.
Ric
The weapons mount is inaccurate where the rear of the .50 cal is mounted. There is no selinoid for firing the .50 cal. There is some sort of shield infront of the VC hatch (the one behind the weapons mount) dont know what that is. The DVE (drivers vision enhancer) is mounted in the old position in front of the drivers hatch. It is now positioned up to the right of the drivers hatch. Also the EPLRS antennae is mounted in between the two rear air sentry hatches, that should be mounted to the right rear of the hull for the ICV version. Also for the most recent vehicles that have been issued there is only a step ring on the left front tire, not all 8 anymore.
Ric
2CAVTrooper
Joined: October 21, 2005
KitMaker: 310 posts
Armorama: 302 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 07:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just a few issues that I am noting about this model from the pics posted at Prime Portal.
The weapons mount is inaccurate where the rear of the .50 cal is mounted. There is no selinoid for firing the .50 cal. There is some sort of shield infront of the VC hatch (the one behind the weapons mount) dont know what that is. The DVE (drivers vision enhancer) is mounted in the old position in front of the drivers hatch. It is now positioned up to the right of the drivers hatch. Also the EPLRS antennae is mounted in between the two rear air sentry hatches, that should be mounted to the right rear of the hull for the ICV version. Also for the most recent vehicles that have been issued there is only a step ring on the left front tire, not all 8 anymore.
Ric
It's still early yet so they'll probably change it between now and the release date.
Ric_Cody
Joined: May 22, 2005
KitMaker: 299 posts
Armorama: 294 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 08:28 AM UTC
lets hope that someone from trumpeter is monitoring this website
Ric
Ric
Petition2God
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 11:24 AM UTC
Interesting. I thought the posts were going to be about patent and trade mark infringement issues with AM General in making Stryker models but our keen eyes are already picking up errors on the prototype model. That's what I love about this site. Our experts with keen eyes! The good ol' days of complaining about legal issues are gone! Time for scrutinizing the model now. I am gonna buy this kit no matter what though. I've been waiting and complaining for too long. Regardless, yes, I am hoping for the best as well.
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 07:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I am gonna buy this kit no matter what though. I've been waiting and complaining for too long. Regardless, yes, I am hoping for the best as well.
I agree. We can fix the errors. Its getting the base model in the first place. And once you have a successful model (and I hope this is a successful model), then other competitors will pick on it and compete for a better model and more variants.
Jeff
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.