25 replies to this topic

[HeartBreaker1317]

Though this piece of legislation is a bit old ((Circa January, 2007)) I think it's newsworthy enough as it would mean quite a bit to U.S. softers.

I searched and couldn't find any threads on it, so here it is -
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-607

Maybe Cybergun will come off its patent trollign horse if this gets passed. Write your congressmen Americans, and help get this passed!

[lin_pointer]

what dose the act say?

[HeartBreaker1317]

All DoD contracts must stipulate that Real Steel manufacturers cannot demand or collect royalties from replica manufacturers. This applies to everything from airsoft to model airplanes, but obviously here the concern is firearms and their associated kit, along with soldier-y stuff.

Also, concievably, you could build a replica Hummer, or M1A1 Abrams, but that's a different forum altogether.

[Para Bellum]

So it basically says anyone can make replicas without having to pay royalties? What about trademarked replicas?

I doubt much will change even if it is passed since most guns are made by Chinese or Japanese companies that really dont care whether or not it's legal.

[aznsk8s87]

Yes, but we can't import them. IE, I can't bring back my guns to the states because they have KAC markings which were not licensed and therefore illegal. This law will change all that if it is passed.

[statikzero]

Essentially, allowing anyone to make money copying something that someone else has worked hard for, without reprocussions.

Edited by statikzero, 04 January 2008 - 12:40 PM.

[aznsk8s87]

Not quite; they're merely copying the design; something that used up very little money in comparison to the "bigger picture". It's not like they're letting companies copy the guns themselves; just the trademarks on them...

[Jagdraben]

Essentially, allowing anyone to make money copying something that someone else has worked hard for, without reprocussions.

Making money copying something someone else is making for the government of the United States. They're making their money, and s___-loads of it. They don't need royalties from replica items to make money.

[Jimisin73]

I have to agree with Jag... it's not like the bill says it's ok to counterfeit their products, it just extends fair use to replicas. I mean really, how does puting a "Colt" trademark on an AEG infringe on Colt's firearms business? The engineering of the AEG is totally distinct from that of the real steel and and AEG isn't in anyway a competing product. The only similarity is the shape and the pretty little picture / text / trademark

[TheKurodaVagrant]

When I first saw the name, I thought it was an American VCRB clone. I nearly hit the roof.

Then I read the summary and now I have to say I'm both relieved and a fan of this proposal. Besides, I've always seen airsoft guns as a form of free advertising for real-steel companies.

Edited by TheKurodaVagrant, 04 January 2008 - 05:42 PM.

[Jagdraben]

I have to agree with Jag... it's not like the bill says it's ok to counterfeit their products, it just extends fair use to replicas. I mean really, how does puting a "Colt" trademark on an AEG infringe on Colt's firearms business? The engineering of the AEG is totally distinct from that of the real steel and and AEG isn't in anyway a competing product. The only similarity is the shape and the pretty little picture / text / trademark

It doesn't just cover airsoft guns but toys, as well. I have a model F-35B that says under the wing 'F-35 Joint Strike Fighter™: used under license'. So now toy companies are having to get licenses from Boeing and AM to make toy versions of the vehicles and equipment used by the US military. I'm pretty sure that if you looked at F-14 and F-15 models and toys made a decade or more ago, you wouldn't find anything saying 'F-14D Tomcat™: used under license'. Of course, there is still a purpose and a point to getting said licensing, even if this legislation is passed: Collectors would buy the officially licensed stuff simply because there would be no question about the scale and proportions being accurate.

/ramble

[HeartBreaker1317]

When I first saw the name, I thought it was an American VCRB clone. I nearly hit the roof.

Then I read the summary and now I have to say I'm both relieved and a fan of this proposal. Besides, I've always seen airsoft guns as a form of free advertising for real-steel companies.

I'd never suggest trying to get the U.S. Legislature to pass anything cloning the VCRA, cheap and ACM or not .

I don't understand the real steel manufacturers position in trade dress litigation, as airsoft models are not actually competing with their product (("Hmmm, excuse me Mr. Gun Store Operator, I'm looking at these two products and trying to decide which fits my needs better." Gun Store Operator looks at the customer's picks. "Well, this one here is very useful for such activities as small to medium game hunting, home defense, and was made at the Springfield armoury. This one is useless for any form of hunting, home defence, &c., but is perfect if you want to run around at an airsoft game shooting at your buddies and having a good time. It was also made in Japan, or maybe Hong Kong." "Oh, but I think that last one would be perfect for hunting, as it's much cheaper, so I'm going to buy that." - See, it doesn't make sense.)) and it would be like Coca Cola suing a snowboard manufacturer who uses a similar profile to a 'coke bottle' with red colouring and a white stripe. To products which, while appearing similar, are so different that 'Only a Moron in a Hurry' could fail to distinguish them ((Thank god for British Judges and their collective additions to the legal vernacular.)).

Edited by HeartBreaker1317, 04 January 2008 - 06:30 PM.

[vbtb110]

When I first saw the name, I thought it was an American VCRB clone. I nearly hit the roof.

Same here

I think that this bill would be great, no more maimed Metal Bodies or RAS kits, to name a few

[UrPeaceKeeper]

While I havent read the bill yet from the sounds of it something like this doesnt apply to trades but the style. For instance, Colt cant sue an airsoft manufacturer for labeling something as an "M4" because the term includes many different companies that produce Carbine length M16's. Likewise M16's are not soley produced by Armalite, FN, Oly Arms, etc so calling a replica made by G&P an M16 is legal w/out having to pay royalties for using said name. It does not make having FN Trades on a G&P legal to come into the US however. I think that may be a little better insight into the issue. Maybe if I get time later I'll look into it a little more in depth but I'm preping for a Renaissance Festival in nearly freezing temperatures!

[Para Bellum]

Yea I'm pretty sure its just likeness not trademarks that can be copied.

[statikzero]

While I havent read the bill yet from the sounds of it something like this doesnt apply to trades but the style. For instance, Colt cant sue an airsoft manufacturer for labeling something as an "M4" because the term includes many different companies that produce Carbine length M16's. Likewise M16's are not soley produced by Armalite, FN, Oly Arms, etc so calling a replica made by G&P an M16 is legal w/out having to pay royalties for using said name. It does not make having FN Trades on a G&P legal to come into the US however. I think that may be a little better insight into the issue. Maybe if I get time later I'll look into it a little more in depth but I'm preping for a Renaissance Festival in nearly freezing temperatures!

OK, Let me retract my last statement. I didn't fully understand what the bill stated.


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


This would then include the design/style (likeness) and the type or model number (designation).

My only question: Why is it any different than what they are doing now?

Edited by statikzero, 04 January 2008 - 11:01 PM.

[Tank]

I know that one of the concerns of real steel manufactures regarding replicas using their trades is that an end user may think that their airsoft M4 was actually made by Colt (for example). This could be a problem when Colt has to deal with end users trying to have their airsoft gun serviced.

I've seen it happen.
I've talked to a Police Officer who thought he bought an M4 that was actually made by Armalite when he had, in reality, purchased a Classic Army. He was upset to find out that he had "paid extra to get an Armalite" only to find out Armalite doesn't make a single part on his gun.

Edited by Tank, 05 January 2008 - 12:04 AM.

[Jagdraben]

Classic Army, however, has been licensed by ArmaLite to use ArmaLite's trademarks. Just as they have been licensed by DS Arms to use their trades on their SA 58-series FALs and by SAR to use SAR trades on their M41-series G3s. And by Steyr to use their trades on their AUG-series.

In other words, the only problem here is that your cop friend didn't do his research.

EDIT: And by Arsenal to use their trades on their Kalashnikovs.

Edited by Jagdraben, 05 January 2008 - 12:12 AM.

[aznsk8s87]

It doesn't just cover airsoft guns but toys, as well. I have a model F-35B that says under the wing 'F-35 Joint Strike Fighter™: used under license'. So now toy companies are having to get licenses from Boeing and AM to make toy versions of the vehicles and equipment used by the US military. I'm pretty sure that if you looked at F-14 and F-15 models and toys made a decade or more ago, you wouldn't find anything saying 'F-14D Tomcat™: used under license'. Of course, there is still a purpose and a point to getting said licensing, even if this legislation is passed: Collectors would buy the officially licensed stuff simply because there would be no question about the scale and proportions being accurate.

/ramble

I wouldn't be so sure. Sig Arms (US) sells the KJ version of the P226 and P229 on their website, so endorsement and licensing doesn't necessarily mean quality

[Jagdraben]

The quality of the licensed replicas depends, in large part, on how much quality the lincenser expects. SiG, obviously, decided that quality wasn't that important.