What happened to BBI?

[AV-8B Driver]

AV-8B:

I hate to tell you but this has been going on long before 2009. In the case of Disney, it has been going on for years. I am an educator and I remember hearing stories about Disney running around the Florida area looking for teachers and schools hanging Disney characters the kids made on classroom windows and trying to sue them. I remember Disney also trying to prevent schools from showing their movies during movie days in the school and stuff like that. Disney, as well as some other companies, have taken a very hard line on this. Other companies are not so hard line. It really depends on who you are dealing with.

I really believe the reason companies have began to pursue licensing is because of the money involved and that there are so many knock off products coming in from China these days. It is really bad and companies are getting fed up with it. The bad part of this is, if a company is selling knock off IPhones for example and someone buys one, then it blows up in their face...they aren't going to sue the knock off company, they are going to sue Apple. In many cases these knock offs look so close to the original people don't even know it. It is scary and companies are having to take drastic steps to protect their names and their brand. Licensing is also going to follow capitalism...I am sure if a company charges too much in licensing fees...no one will want to make any products representing their brand and the company will have to rethink how much they charge for licensing. I may be in the minority here, but I would rather buy a product that has been licensed by Boeing, Lockheed Martin because I know the company that made it took the appropriate and legal steps to obtain the rights to make that product. But that is just me. And honestly, I think if someone uses your stuff without permission...you have the right to sue them. I do photography, and if I found any of my copyrighted work in a publication or project without my permission...guess what...the person/company would be ordered to remove it or I would pursue them legally. Period.

I really don't know why you think the hobby is in such decline. I recently went to the bookstore and looked through model magazines. I was also at a recent IPMS meeting. There were many great builds at this show from a variety of people and the excitement and level of interest in the hobby seemed good. When looking through the magazines at the store, there were many great models and accessories available from a lot of great manufacturers. I also think the companies are starting to finally cater to people who want to build models differently. For example, I noticed those prebuilt kits which are advertised for kids to build with parents do really well at airshows I attend. I also noticed the Airfix kits that have everything included do very well at the local Barnes and Noble. I built the Battle of Britain set that I got on clearance and built it straight from the box. It was neat to do and while it wasn't pro quality, it was a fun project and the results were very decent for something built straight from the box. I really hate to tell you but the model interest seems to be alive and well given what I saw at this show and in the magazines I just read.

Now, I have no idea what is going on between yourself and Nick, you and Danny, and I have no clue if you made that Fokker or not. The one thing I do know is that you have a generally negative attitude toward everyone here as well as the hobby. Which makes me wonder, why are you even doing the hobby? If you hate it so much, and its coming to an end, and people are suing and the hobby is dying...why are you involved? If it were me and the hobby made me this upset and angry, I would leave it. You are entitled to your views and no one is saying you aren't, but the negative attitude displayed in some of your posts and toward the members here, some of them long-time members with a wonderful reputation, is disappointing and is not in the spirit of this forum. I would have thought that would have been conveyed to you after your argument with Nick...but I guess the message didn't sink in.

We like having you here, but please stop with the negativity and the attitude. It is uncalled for and not in the spirit of the forum or which it was created.

It has nothing to do with not liking the hobby. You are seeing product still out there due to contracts running on a time frame and lot runs. I know this complex to understand. That's why lawyers do this stuff. The UK just passed the law last year, and now forbids the use of anything that is an insignia, badge, flash, or logo of the UK Military. That means flags, roundels, insignia, flashes, badges, ribbons, bars......that is thousands of items. This is a Law....there is no licensing or use of them allowed period. It is not up for interpretation or debate. You cant even make them for use in our own home. This makes no sense and has nothing to do with China or money...

I don't hate the hobby, I don't like what read is happening... Yes, it does go on before 2009.. a lot of it started in 2005 when 3D printers first started to become commercially affordable... but...also when many defense companies began to merge.

Others are putting licensing fees so outrageous that it is impractical to buy, and be profitable. These Corporations know it so why are they doing it.?

A few here seem to understand what is going on, but in other forums...people get it and see what is happening.. Lockheed basically bought FSX from Microsoft, so now they won't license much IP to other SIM developers, They also bought a commercial SIM company. They bought Sikorsky at the end of 2005, and are making huge investments in areas that look like they are trying to create some kind of monopoly for their IP. Are they going to buy Tamiya and deny any other mfg'er IP rights? From the looks of DSC...maybe....

Is this being negative or suspicious? Considering what the UK MOD did.... for no monetary reason......I'm suspicious.

As far as Disney.. Read this and you decide....

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20160222- ... ffice.html

[Coreyeagle48]

Greetings:

With all due respect, I must disagree with a lot of your assessment of this situation.

There are millions of companies out there. Right now I am sitting around items made by Gateway, SanDisk, Panasonic, Epson and Logitech. There are also many other companies out there and we named a few...Disney, Lockheed Martin, Boeing. There are also thousands of organizations out there such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Royal Air Force, etc. These companies and organizations in some cases have billions of dollars invested in their products, name and reputation. They also have thousands of employees and interests in the world economy.

Let's be fully honest here, Boeing is not going to care if a person builds a model of a 747 in their basement and shows their friends during a Christmas party. Disney is not going to care if a four year old draws her parents a picture of Elsa from Frozen. The Royal Air Force is not going to care if someone takes a picture of their name on a Red Arrows BAE Hawk at an airshow then prints the picture and hangs it in a frame in their home. They do not care about this because there is no money involved. People are doing these activities for their own personal enjoyment and use.

The problem is, in the past 20 years or so, the world has used the wealth of information available through the Internet and social media to take advantage and take things for themselves. Companies in China have copied products that look very much like the real thing made by the actual company. Chinese companies have copied Iphones, purses and clothing. People who claim to be "in the hobby" have produced replicas of flight simulator aircraft, model decals and other items and then sold these items for a profit. Organizations have seen themselves fit to advertise themselves as part of another organization by including logos and trademarks from other organizations or companies on their own publications and correspondence when they actually have nothing to do with that organization.

The issue here is that this is not being done for amusement or enjoyment, it is being done to make money off another organization or company. Remember, some of these companies are worth billions of dollars and will defend their trademarks and designs. Under the law, they have a right to, and they should. For example if you want to use Disney designs, you should have to obtain their permission, especially if you are going to be selling the said product. Too many people over the years have been freely creating things and selling them copying company and organization trademarks and not adhering to the general courtesy of asking permission and obtaining it. As a result, some companies and organizations have gotten very aggressive in defending their proprietary trademarks and designs. Also by people buying items not made with proper licensing, it takes away from the companies that do have the proper licensing to make stuff for the said company. Since companies pay Disney, Hasbro, etc for licensing fees...this goes into the company profits. This affects the company in developing new products, hiring and keeping employees, etc.

I had a situation that related to this last year. I work at a local amusement park. The park, Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom, is part of the chain of parks owned by Cedar Fair Entertainment. Last year, I thought it would be a neat idea to make a calendar with photographs I took of the rides in the park to sell to friends and family as well as coworkers who enjoy the park. When I finished making the calendar, realizing the park as well as many of the rides in the park are trademarked, I asked the park general manager if I could sell the calendar and if the company cared. On my behalf he contacted Cedar Fair corporate, who thought the project was cool and granted me permission to make and sell the calendar. Even after this permission was granted, I made sure to state in my sales description that the calendar was not licensed or endorsed by the park in any way. They were very impressed and appreciative I asked for permission, and know people enjoy my photography, so they probably felt the calendar would be a free marketing tool for the park. Had they told me I could not make the calendar, I would have gladly respected their position and not made and sold the calendar. As a professional person, I was glad to get permission appropriately.

I had a similar situation last year when Allegiant Air wanted to use one of my photos as their photo of the week on their Facebook page. In that case, they contacted me and asked for permission to use the photo. Even though I am a single person and just have fun doing photography, this is another example of a company going through the proper process to legally obtain permission to use something.

My point is, that companies and people who want to reproduce items of another company or organization should respect the proper legal channels for obtaining permission and licensing to produce those items. People not properly obtaining permission is part of the reason why this situation has developed in such force. Some people have tremendously abused the system, and now the system is fighting back hard.

[Axis Nightmare]

Couldn't have been said better Corey.

[Dauntless]

Surely no one has to pay any royalties to a company who formerly made aircraft or armor under the Nazi regime?

Maybe a Volkswagen Bug because it was made postwar also in the same way, but a King Tiger tank?

Surely not anything made by Mitsubishi or Kawasaki during the war like the Zero or Tony, but one might have a copyright problem making modern aircraft or motorcycle models.

I wonder how that works for the Axis countries who lost?

I read somewhere that old WWII nose art, some created by Disney artists is copyrighted like the AVG Flying Tiger.

[AV-8B Driver]

[quote="Coreyeagle48"]Greetings:

With all due respect, I must disagree with a lot of your assessment of this situation.

There are millions of companies out there. Right now I am sitting around items made by Gateway, SanDisk, Panasonic, Epson and Logitech. There are also many other companies out there and we named a few...Disney, Lockheed Martin, Boeing. There are also thousands of organizations out there such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Royal Air Force, etc. These companies and organizations in some cases have billions of dollars invested in their products, name and reputation. They also have thousands of employees and interests in the world economy.

Let's be fully honest here, Boeing is not going to care if a person builds a model of a 747 in their basement and shows their friends during a Christmas party. Disney is not going to care if a four year old draws her parents a picture of Elsa from Frozen. The Royal Air Force is not going to care if someone takes a picture of their name on a Red Arrows BAE Hawk at an airshow then prints the picture and hangs it in a frame in their home. They do not care about this because there is no money involved. People are doing these activities for their own personal enjoyment and use.

The problem is, in the past 20 years or so, the world has used the wealth of information available through the Internet and social media to take advantage and take things for themselves. Companies in China have copied products that look very much like the real thing made by the actual company. Chinese companies have copied Iphones, purses and clothing. People who claim to be "in the hobby" have produced replicas of flight simulator aircraft, model decals and other items and then sold these items for a profit. Organizations have seen themselves fit to advertise themselves as part of another organization by including logos and trademarks from other organizations or companies on their own publications and correspondence when they actually have nothing to do with that organization.

The issue here is that this is not being done for amusement or enjoyment, it is being done to make money off another organization or company. Remember, some of these companies are worth billions of dollars and will defend their trademarks and designs. Under the law, they have a right to, and they should. For example if you want to use Disney designs, you should have to obtain their permission, especially if you are going to be selling the said product. Too many people over the years have been freely creating things and selling them copying company and organization trademarks and not adhering to the general courtesy of asking permission and obtaining it. As a result, some companies and organizations have gotten very aggressive in defending their proprietary trademarks and designs. Also by people buying items not made with proper licensing, it takes away from the companies that do have the proper licensing to make stuff for the said company. Since companies pay Disney, Hasbro, etc for licensing fees...this goes into the company profits. This affects the company in developing new products, hiring and keeping employees, etc.

I had a situation that related to this last year. I work at a local amusement park. The park, Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom, is part of the chain of parks owned by Cedar Fair Entertainment. Last year, I thought it would be a neat idea to make a calendar with photographs I took of the rides in the park to sell to friends and family as well as coworkers who enjoy the park. When I finished making the calendar, realizing the park as well as many of the rides in the park are trademarked, I asked the park general manager if I could sell the calendar and if the company cared. On my behalf he contacted Cedar Fair corporate, who thought the project was cool and granted me permission to make and sell the calendar. Even after this permission was granted, I made sure to state in my sales description that the calendar was not licensed or endorsed by the park in any way. They were very impressed and appreciative I asked for permission, and know people enjoy my photography, so they probably felt the calendar would be a free marketing tool for the park. Had they told me I could not make the calendar, I would have gladly respected their position and not made and sold the calendar. As a professional person, I was glad to get permission appropriately.

I had a similar situation last year when Allegiant Air wanted to use one of my photos as their photo of the week on their Facebook page. In that case, they contacted me and asked for permission to use the photo. Even though I am a single person and just have fun doing photography, this is another example of a company going through the proper process to legally obtain permission to use something.

My point is, that companies and people who want to reproduce items of another company or organization should respect the proper legal channels for obtaining permission and licensing to produce those items. People not properly obtaining permission is part of the reason why this situation has developed in such force. Some people have tremendously abused the system, and now the system is fighting back hard.[/quot

____________________________________________________

I'm not sure if I'm using the wrong terminology or what, but what you just stated is exactly what I was trying to convey, except for this point.

I was strictly talking about the UK MOD licensing law. Read the DOC. It clearly states that you cannot reproduce any Crown of the Royal Armed Forces period. Taking a picture is not a reproduction, drawing in Photoshop is. Whether we dislike what we read or not, the truth is that in several years we will not see a RAF Flash on any new model. The UK MOD has made that a law. In no way did I ever mention Boeing, ScanDisk....

However I did mention Lockheed buying Microsoft FXS. IF you look at DCS, they have one Lockheed aircraft..the A-10. Why just one ?? No F-16, F-35... If you go into the game, you will not even see a Sidewinder reference. This can only be explained by a lack of IP licensing.

I agree, if you want to use IP...pay for it, but it is harder now for some reason and Chinese knockoffs are not the reason... here is proof..

http://www.iam-media.com/files/Data%20c ... 202014.png

So again... why the higher licensing fees and a lack of content in media where there has always been a large abundance of it ???

Well... here may be the problem:

http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... udlow1.pdf

Companies are spending so much money litigating ownership of IP that securing it is very expensive, so licensing it is very expensive. Thus scooping up IP in "Mega Clusters" just like my Lockheed point and what they are doing by buying up a lot of stuff creating a huge IP portfolio... It is probably the result of a overly litigious society, so as the pdf states, go big or go home.

Unfortunately, many model makers cannot afford to "go big"...



As far as Disney, read the link. My point was that they just leaped over everyone in 3D scanning and printing resolution making a whole new technology that makes any other obsolete, and is 5 some years ahead of any current commercial technology. It will create a 3D database, then probe hundreds of 3D CAD files as once looking for items that match it's products dimensions, reproduce them, and will tell if it is a scan of their product. We will never see this tech, but it will be licensed for other Corporations to use to protect their IP.

[AV-8B Driver]

Surely no one has to pay any royalties to a company who formerly made aircraft or armor under the Nazi regime?

Maybe a Volkswagen Bug because it was made postwar also in the same way, but a King Tiger tank?

Surely not anything made by Mitsubishi or Kawasaki during the war like the Zero or Tony, but one might have a copyright problem making modern aircraft or motorcycle models.

I wonder how that works for the Axis countries who lost?

I read somewhere that old WWII nose art, some created by Disney artists is copyrighted like the AVG Flying Tiger.

As far as German corporations, yes you do need permission to use any trademark by Vwagan or Porsche... only items developed by the Government do not, like the V2, V1...

Mitsubishi was disbanded and decentralized. I have no idea who, if any owns the trademarks to it's IP. The names of Zero and such were only Allied designations for the aircraft.

[Nick_Karatzides]

~~ MOD EDIT - Let's keep this on topic please.... ~~

[AV-8B Driver]

I think this is on topic . . . . It is a discussion about a open ended question ... Was it a lack of demand, no tooling rights, High IP costs ? ... These are all valid responses since they're hypothesis with examples ...... BBI is a big company, so why did they stop with the good stuff ? They are still making toys with trademarks like the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and the Mi-24 Hind , M1A2 BATTLE TANK, but are are very much toys...

Also... why did they leave the Trademark "Abrams" out of the M1A2 Battle Tank ( General Dynamics ), but included the Trademark "Thunderbolt II" ( Lockheed ) with the A-10? also note this is the ONLY Lockheed IP aircraft in DCS World.....Smells ripe with IP issues.... and those toys appeal to a larger market. Either IP issues or low to no profit for true 1/18 likenesses..... all bad news. Well, at least they put a CIP on the M1A2....

http://www.blueboxtoys.com/our_brands/elite-force/

[Razor17019]

Razor, these guys are Elite Force and come on the smaller card that Target carried a couple of years back with $5 singles. They have fewer paint apps and slightly less articulation. I haven't seen for myself in the wild so I cannot confirm but believe it is the wave of singles shown at the FB page, two of which appeared in vehicles already (one guy with the gunboat and one guy with the lousy buggy).
https://www.facebook.com/bbi.EliteForce ... =3&theater

Digger,
I found the single carded BBI figures at my local Below 5 store. There were 2.99 each.
The quality of their uniform is not as good as the original BBI figures. I found all 4 in the store, but chose to get only 3 figures. 2 of Recce and 1 of Shooter. Patriot has a very feebleminded look on his face and Cobra I have in the original version.
Thanks for the great tip!
You can't beat 2.99 1/18 figures (even with a dim-witted expression on their face)

[AV-8B Driver]

.....