We need our own copyright attorney.

[mbauer]

Originally Posted by Mark Crowel

Mike,



They way I was planning to market them was this: for example, for the 1956 Studebaker, the advertising and labeling would read "1956 sedan. Resembles 1956 Studebaker". Each kit would also carry a disclaimer stating: "This model is an artistic interpretation of the real car's design, not an exact replica". Would I be legally safe in doing it this way?

I don't know! I would be real hesitant on using the word Studebaker. Even though they don't produce cars anymore that I know of. Do they still make the Avanti? Who ever bought the company out gets the rights so if anyone or business has done that, they would have the rights to the Studebaker name.

I was thinking of doing something similar with my SR71. It has been changed drastically from the original real world full size, but the Trademark says it would not be a good idea to state that when I try to sell it and still use the name SR71 Blackbird "Replica" or "Looks Like". To get my models to fly I have to do big changes while still trying to make them look "right". Some models just won't work an be able to keep their shape. None are to scale!

I think the secret is to change the actual name 10%. Not using the manufacturers name anywhere!

The report I mention was for an English Compostion class. It had nothing to do with legal courses. It was suggested by my professor because of my major of AutoCAD drafting.

It seems like every class I took had a legal aspect that needed looking at. No wonder the students now-days can't do the 3-Rs. They're to busy learning law!

Mike

BTW-Before going to school I purchased several "Test Prep Courses on CD", I did not know what the GRE, GMAT, and LSAT were, just that they were for college courses. Once they got to my house I found out they were for studying law mostly. What I found most interesting is that they were for Comprehension of the written words. Or in other words how do you translate or understand them. Which explains why there is never a open and closed case in court. everybody comprehends differently. The object is to make your translation believable to the judge and jury. I've been on 2-juries and finally learned what "reasonable dobut" means!

[markcrowel]

Mike,
The Studebaker National Museum in South Bend, IN owns the rights to the Studebaker name. Even after several attempts to get permission to use their name, I can't get an answer.

The National Packard Museum owns the Packard name, and Chrysler owns all the names that AMC owned, including Nash, Hudson, Rambler, Willys, Kaiser-Frazer, and Graham Paige.

See what a mess it is? There are too many gray areas, and too many things we modelers want to produce, but the legal issues are creating a litigation minefield. Thus my reason for starting this thread. Looking back through the posts, all any of can do is speculate about what we're allowed to do, because I doubt if any of us can afford to hire a lawyer. I sure can't!

[redhorse]

I believe actually with the SR-71 Blackbird you can use the name since it's govt. (public) property. I remember reading an article in FSM or some such magazine a number of years ago about that. Don't know if you can use Lockheed though.

[markcrowel]

[quote=Kugelfang;40652]I'd certainly recommend that if you are concerned about infringing upon someone else's copyright (or someone infringing upon your's) that you read the copyright laws of your country. Here is a link to US copyright law: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States . Lawyers can certainly offer advice but ultimately (at least in the US) it is the court system that interprets the law.



After all has been said, this person's advice (above) is the best.
The U.S. government sells complete copies of the copyright law for $28. Much less expensive than a lawyer. All that's required is the ambition to read.

I feel as if I've wasted everyone's time by starting this thread.

[mbauer]

Originally Posted by Mark Crowel

I feel as if I've wasted everyone's time by starting this thread.

Mark I don't think so. Most of the posts I read seemed to confuse copyright with trademark issue. Besides the idea of everybody getting together is still a good idea!

Thank you for looking at this objectively!
Mike

[whulsey]

There's still a lot of discussion over Chrysler's claims to some of those names, especially Kaiser-Frazer. That was since Kaiser only sold the Jeep name and manufacturering to AMC. They still had facilities in South American plus other Kaiser industries and businesses. The arguement from the Kaiser-Frazer Owners Club is the Kaiser family donated the rights to the KF cars to the club as caretakers. KFOC Life Member #2837.

[Maltedfalcon]

For some reason I have suddenly started receiving lots of queries about the copyrights on Micromodels, and are the original models public domain (no they are not)
To clarify I have put up a page on my website with information.

Matt Sparks
MicromodelsUSA

Micromodel History