109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006) H.R. 4806: Military Toy Repl

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:58 am

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress.

2/28/2006--Introduced.
Military Toy Replica Act - Directs the Secretary of Defense to require that any contract entered into or renewed by the Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants to obtain licenses from, or pay fees to, the contractor for the use of military likenesses or designations on items provided under the contract.

109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 4806
2D SESSION

To prohibit defense contractors from requiring licenses or fees for use of
military likenesses and designations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services

A BILL
To prohibit defense contractors from requiring licenses or
fees for use of military likenesses and designations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ``Military Toy Replica
5 Act''.
6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DEFENSE CONTRACTORS REQUIR-

7 ING LICENSES OR FEES FOR USE OF MILI-

8 TARY LIKENESSES AND DESIGNATIONS.

9 The Secretary of Defense shall require that any con-
10 tract entered into or renewed by the Department of De-
2
1 fense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from
2 requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or
3 merchants to obtain licenses from or pay fees to the con-
4 tractor for the use of military likenesses or designations
5 on items provided under the contract.

HR 4806 IH

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:09 am

If this bill pass it could mean that other manufactures might start making 1:18 aircraft or that the ones that do could start making different aircraft.

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:14 am

I almost have to laugh about the fact that among all the other FAR more important things our Congretional representatives could be discussing, they are puting fourth resolutions concerning toys. I wonder if Representative Andrews (as cited in the text) collects small scale military toys like the rest of us

To be serious now... If our toy manufacturers do not have to pay licencing fees to defense contractors for replicating their products, it can only mean a boost to the toy manufacturers and may help to increase the chances that we will see some more aircraft or vehicles that may not have been seen otherwise... I'll be interested to see how this Congressional "Military Toy Replica Act" goes through.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:58 am

As much as I'd like to see it pass, defense contractors are a very active lobby group with alot of money to spread "good will" around.

That bill has an uphill race in order to pass. Just how many of our Congresspeople are interested in our toys anyway???

TTT

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:07 pm

Threetoughtrucks wrote:As much as I'd like to see it pass, defense contractors are a very active lobby group with alot of money to spread "good will" around.

That bill has an uphill race in order to pass. Just how many of our Congresspeople are interested in our toys anyway???

TTT

I agree with you but this bill is designed to prevent defense contractors from profiting off of something that was billed to the taxpayers. And with the recent problems with defense contractors using bribes to get their military defense projects funded. I don’t think there will be opposition to it.

If we want this act to pass we should all email or congress delegates and senators to vote for this measure.

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:23 pm

Actually a "real" letter (no email) to your congressman or senator does make an impression few people actually write to thier representatives. So when they do get a letter they take note of it. I had a friend who had been trying to get a work permit in the US for years. She was barely living here on her ex's childsupport and with the help of some friends. I offered to write my local senator and ask why it has been so long. Sure enough, two weeks later the permit came after I was told someone would look into it. So it does actually work. I think if each member here sent one letter to thier representitive that would be a strong sign of public support. I intend to send a letter myself asap.

Remember part of the cost of making or aircraft and tanks comes from license fees, removing that might just be the nudge some manufacturers need to produce more risky aircraft.

GAU-8 · Post by **GAU-8** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:38 pm

im hoping this will also cover flight sims.

thats great news indeed!

jeffrowse · Post by **jeffrowse** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:20 am

GAU-8 wrote:im hoping this will also cover flight sims.

I believe it does - it means any and all likenesses and designations and stems from the increasing number of companies - especially aircraft manufacturers (mentioning no names but 'springy sounds' and Brutish Waste-of-Space seem to be among the worst offenders) - who are grabbing even more money from people for what, as VMF115 points out, they have already paid for.
It's something to do with the way computer games are considered to be toys...

The normal excuse is that by using the likeness (image, sound, toy, computer model or whatever) you are "stealing" the Intellectual Property - the idea behind whatever it is you are buying - unless you pay the manufacturer a sum to cover "their" investment.
And the funniest thing about the two I hinted at above is that neither really did anything for most of what they want money for anyway! They acquired most of "their" designs by buying other companies!!

As to what "representative" politicians (of any country) should be doing, it's whatever their constituents tell them to. It's just a shame most of them seem to think us Voters are here for them to kick whenever they feel like it...

worldwar2buff · Post by **worldwar2buff** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:42 am

tmanthegreat wrote:I almost have to laugh about the fact that among all the other FAR more important things our Congretional representatives could be discussing, they are puting fourth resolutions concerning toys. I wonder if Representative Andrews (as cited in the text) collects small scale military toys like the rest of us

I agree, but unfortunately a government/country our size does have to take up all sorts of inane legislation.

luftpanzer · Post by **luftpanzer** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:12 am

Well we most have a lot representatives that collect military toys, build nmodels or play games. Or all 3. Must be nice to have a fat salary, kick backs, bribes etc to be able to afford all that.

Jason of Admiral Toys · Post by **Jason of Admiral Toys** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 am

I thought I would put my two cents in on this one as well.

I will break down the act and show you were it fails to help most manufacturers:

Military Toy Replica Act - Directs the Secretary of Defense to require that any contract entered into (this means from the time the act is put into law) or renewed (this means renewing an existing contract from the time the act is put into law) by the Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants to obtain licenses from, or pay fees to, the contractor for the use of military likenesses or designations on items provided under the contract.

The law does nothing to assist in limiting our royalties on last year’s models. For example, if the contract for the A-10 was renewed on July 1 of this year by the DOD and the act is signed into law today, we would still have to pay royalties on the A-10. This act only protects manufacturers on paying royalites for products whose contracts are entered into or renewed AFTER the act is signed.

As for royalties:
Boeing for example…. Royalties are paid on the name (trademark) of the aircraft. Many people think that we are paying to say Boeing on the side of our box. This is wrong. We are paying to write F-86 or Sabre Jet on the side of the box. Boeing then requires us to put their licensing mark (Boeing) on the boxes that contain one of their trademarks. I had one gentleman write me a nice letter stating that we should have saved our money on the Boeing logo and put it into a better pilot. I got a good laugh... he is correct about the pilot but wrong about paying Boeing. Their logo is pretty much free, we pay to say F-86.

The only aircraft that Boeing has rights to that requires a license for the SHAPE of the aircraft is the 747. They do not have the rights to the likeness of the Sabre, 104, F-4, F… In essence one could remove all trademarks, i.e. F-86, Sabre Jet, North American from our boxes and not have to put Boeing on the box or pay for royalties.

Why don’t we do this? Because you would not by our product if I called the very familiar Sabre Jet F-86… the Jason Jet. I like the ring of it, but the idea is not a winning idea.

So the market itself is perpetuating the payments of royalties because of the words, not the shape, you expect to see on the box.

Regards,
Jason

KAMIKAZE · Post by **KAMIKAZE** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Hmmmm. Jason Jet. Jet Jason. I like it. Lets make 100 special additions.

Mark

GAU-8 · Post by **GAU-8** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:12 am

if the "JASON JET" is exactly the same..but at a 20 dollar LOWER pricepoint..

im all for "jason jet"s , a P-3rdyNINE "air-snake"

or the "F.U.! CURSER!" corsair

as long as any other insignia are the same. and the new name is on a sticker sheet that you can simply not apply