|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 8:47:02 GMT -6
We all know what this is. 60's build Show Rod by Steve Scott. You are wondering where this is going I am sure. Well I will tell you.
Some wont be happy about this.
Being the big fan I am of this car I was trying to get the Copy Rights to have the kit re-done. But as Steve Scott fell in the 100 year law for Copy Rights I was unable to get it. Every one knows Steve is not going to give them up either. Nor can just any one contact him. We all know how hard it is to find him as a lot of people have tried. But moving on.
I contacted Revell last year about this. In our many conversations in trying to find out how to do it I found out the Trade Mark was abandoned by Revell a few years ago. We all know the story behind Revell and Steve Scott and why Revell sent the dies to Germany. This is also why the kit was never reproduced. Revell owned the Trade Mark and Steve Scott owned the Copy Rights.
So I looked the Trade Mark up and found this to be true. Revell did abandon the trade mark. I contacted the Trade Mark Office to find out how to pick it up. Well a few members here kept the lid on this for quit some time now. But I now own the Trade Mark name Uncertain T. I had to wait to say anything to let the dispute period pass and it has. I just got confirmation that it is passed and is mine. I dont see the kit being ever re-issued by me or any one as Steve Scott seems to have no interest in it. But Being the fan I am, I thought it would be cool to own something no one else has. A nice addition to my collection if you will. I love the Uncertain T and now own the name.
I know not every one will understand this venture of mine. I dont expect everyone to. But I wanted something no one else had. I wont tell you what it cost me in February to get this rolling. I am going to love having it hang on the wall next to all my other goodies.
Ken...
|
|
|
Post by customcruiserroy on Oct 16, 2009 10:19:34 GMT -6
Sounds good since I guess you can keep the name. I personally don't think it means no nevermind since it's the car that people want.
A little note: no one, not even Scott, can stop a person from making a full scale version of the car. Car body styles are not copyrightable. You can check case law on that. But, we mere mortals are happy to make the smaller scale version. Scott could sue the people who cast models using the original model though. And that is a fact. Case law. That is why Revell can't reissue them. Except for a big company like Revell, the issue would be it wouldn't be worth suing someone unless they pump them out on a grand scale.
As the trademark is now new and actually not associated with the original car (you didn't buy the trademark from Revell), that cuts down on its worth, in my humble opinion.
Oh, and someone on one of these groups actually had contact with Scott a few years ago I think. I can't remember who at the moment.
Have a good one!!
RSS
|
|
|
Post by Paul B. Canney on Oct 16, 2009 10:28:56 GMT -6
We all know what this is. 60's build Show Rod by Steve Scott. You are wondering where this is going I am sure. Well I will tell you. Some wont be happy about this. Being the big fan I am of this car I was trying to get the Copy Rights to have the kit re-done. But as Steve Scott fell in the 100 year law for Copy Rights I was unable to get it. Every one knows Steve is not going to give them up either. Nor can just any one contact him. We all know how hard it is to find him as a lot of people have tried. But moving on. I contacted Revell last year about this. In our many conversations in trying to find out how to do it I found out the Trade Mark was abandoned by Revell a few years ago. We all know the story behind Revell and Steve Scott and why Revell sent the dies to Germany. This is also why the kit was never reproduced. Revell owned the Trade Mark and Steve Scott owned the Copy Rights. So I looked the Trade Mark up and found this to be true. Revell did abandon the trade mark. I contacted the Trade Mark Office to find out how to pick it up. Well a few members here kept the lid on this for quit some time now. But I now own the Trade Mark name Uncertain T. I had to wait to say anything to let the dispute period pass and it has. I just got confirmation that it is passed and is mine. I dont see the kit being ever re-issued by me or any one as Steve Scott seems to have no interest in it. But Being the fan I am, I thought it would be cool to own something no one else has. A nice addition to my collection if you will. I love the Uncertain T and now own the name. I know not every one will understand this venture of mine. I dont expect everyone to. But I wanted something no one else had. I wont tell you what it cost me in February to get this rolling. I am going to love having it hang on the wall next to all my other goodies. Ken... well.. this is kinda cool
|
|
|
Post by mykturk on Oct 16, 2009 10:30:16 GMT -6
WellI find it VERY COOL myself. I do understand how it all works being a patent holder.
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 10:41:08 GMT -6
I did not do it for worth or to make kits and lots of money. I did it because I thought it was cool to have. Like owning a kit. It is just I own more than a kit now. I also think it will look cool next to all the signed stuff I own.
Thank Paul and mykturk
Ken...
|
|
|
Post by Tory on Oct 16, 2009 10:46:47 GMT -6
So does this mean that if Steve Scott wanted to resurrect the car and start showing it again he would have to get permission from you to call it the Uncertain T? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass!
Anyhow, I think its pretty cool to own the name. if Revell ever convinces him to allow them to re-issue the kit, they will now still have to get your permission to use the name. I say put it to them!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 10:59:14 GMT -6
So does this mean that if Steve Scott wanted to resurrect the car and start showing it again he would have to get permission from you to call it the Uncertain T? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass! Anyhow, I think its pretty cool to own the name. if Revell ever convinces him to allow them to re-issue the kit, they will now still have to get your permission to use the name. I say put it to them!!!! Steve Scott can call the car what he wants to. He just cant make cash off the name selling stuff I believe. Revell on the other hand cant do anything with out me and Steve. And you know Revell will get what is coming to them for what they pulled all those years ago. Ken...
|
|
|
Post by A.J. on Oct 16, 2009 11:07:43 GMT -6
That's an interesting scenerio Tory. I'd wonder that myself. I however don't think that Steve would have to ask for permission to show the car under the name being that he is the creator of the car and the name. It's like TD owning the creative rights to all his designs and names. I'm sure Monogram still owned the trademarks and copyrights for most of them but he was still able to sell the concept and names to other companies to make diecast and such. There are so many loops and catches in the legal stuff that it's hard to say what would happen. Maybe it's true that if the car would be to surface they'd have to go through Ken to be able to use the name but I'm doubting it. That is just my opinion by the way.
But Tory, why would anyone want to put it to Revell if they wanted to reissue the kit? They are finally bringing stuff back that we've all wanted. This sort of statement actually discourages the idea of bringing kits back. Don't get me wrong though, I think anyone that has something in the original creative part of it namely Steve in this case should receive compensation for the use of the concept. As for Ken buying the trademarked name, to me that's like buying stock at this point with no real promise of return Since he didn't buy it for that reason it doesn't matter anyway. A very cool item to have I suppose.
As for convincing Steve Scott to bring it back, I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The car may surface some day but the kit has seen it's day in my opinion and unfortunately it probably won't be back anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by A.J. on Oct 16, 2009 11:10:26 GMT -6
Ok, I'm also confused here. Both Tory and Ken play mention of putting it to Revell for what they did. What did they do? Was there a conversation somewhere here on the corner that I missed on the history of Revell? I'd like to know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2009 11:29:59 GMT -6
I don't see Revell having any interest in a reissue on T anyway. Good for you if you wanted to spend the time and money getting the rights to the name....to each his own. The current wave of reissues is in part due to Tom Daniel willing to be reasonable and understanding todays hobby economics. I see RM doing a few more as long as we keep buying. Horn Toad and Dog Catcher would not be out of the question with Tom's willingness to work with them.
|
|
|
Post by Starry Eyes on Oct 16, 2009 11:35:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Oct 16, 2009 11:55:01 GMT -6
So are the same people in charge of Revell, that were in charge when all this happened. Yes it would seem pretty dumb to "Give it to them" if they did decide to rerelease a kit we have all been wanting.
|
|
|
Post by JerryG on Oct 16, 2009 12:23:31 GMT -6
What ever the story is it's pretty dang Kool Ken! Good for you having something that is well recognized. I'm sure someone will say it doesn't matter but it matters to you and thats all that counts. Hold off until maybe someday...sombody will market something with that name...make lot's of money......then hire Jackie Chiles and go after them..... "I am outraged! This is lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!"
|
|
|
Post by scurvy on Oct 16, 2009 12:24:16 GMT -6
Revell could very easily change the body - maybe an add-on pickup bed or something - add a few parts and re-issue the kit, containing a bunch of the old parts that don't appear in the instructions so that it could still be built in the original manner by a builder who knows what's what. Will they? Probably not.
Cool to own the TM though. That's definitely a one-of-a-kind collectible.
|
|
|
Post by buzzconroy on Oct 16, 2009 12:30:14 GMT -6
Why doesnt Steve Scott want his showrod reissued? Its money in his pocket?
randy
|
|
|
Post by Starry Eyes on Oct 16, 2009 12:41:00 GMT -6
Why doesnt Steve Scott want his showrod reissued? Its money in his pocket? randy Randy I believe it's his out of pocket expense ...
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 13:28:37 GMT -6
From what I understand of the story Revell was taking the Molds to Germany to cut Steve Scott out. There was (from what I understand) a disagreement about the Copy Rights and Trade Mark. From what Revell told me, They got the trade mark to protect the rights to the kit. Not sure if this is all correct. But from what I was told Revell tried to cut Steve out of the picture. I tried to get that in writing from the person I talked to at Revell but they hung up the phone on me. Revell did tell me something close to that. So we may never know for sure. Unless Steve tells us. Maybe Not..... Now as for sticking it to Revell. I did say that. But I meant to charge them for the back stabbing. But you are right about the re-issues. That kind of talk wont get us many new re-issues. So I retract my statement. What was done is done. Now as for me making money on the name. I would be lying if I said I did not think about it. Not as a kit though. Maybe some T-Shirts or something. But I dont know what I may do other than have it as part of my collection. But you never know. For now I am happy just having the Trade Mark. Ken...
|
|
|
Post by Paul B. Canney on Oct 16, 2009 13:39:53 GMT -6
the Trade Mark was abandoned by Revell a few years ago. (AND THIS IS JUST A GUESS) this sounds like the genious of Ed Sexton
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 13:42:46 GMT -6
the Trade Mark was abandoned by Revell a few years ago. (AND THIS IS JUST A GUESS) this sounds like the genius of Ed Sexton How did you know Paul? He is the first person I talked to at Revell. Then the Copy Right division. And so on. Ken...
|
|
|
Post by nightstalker on Oct 16, 2009 14:49:19 GMT -6
I think it's cool you have the TM Ken. Maybe you have no plans right away for it. But you never know what will come down the road.
|
|
|
Post by A.J. on Oct 16, 2009 14:55:54 GMT -6
I rememeber way back when we got the idea we were going to petition the companies to reissue show rod kits. I think somebody posted Ed's email on the board and we flooded him. He got p'd and asked that the addy be removed. Oh, the good ole days when there were only a few of us on here. Fun times.
|
|
|
Post by styreneaddict on Oct 16, 2009 15:56:21 GMT -6
Have to throw in some reality on this one as there are a lot of really important misconceptions being thrown out in this disussion.
Trademarks are used in commercial applications to keep the value of names, logos, appearance of packaging, etc. protected. To obtain a trademark you have to state that you are a business, that you are using the mark in commerce and you have to declare the category of goods that you are applying it to.
Without an active commercial use and a business enterprise attached to a trademark, there is a presumption of abandonment. If a business originally holds the trademark, it can renew forever as long as there is commercial use or it can leave the mark to abandonment. If you don't have commercial use, you can't just get a trademark and hold it without a supporting business to block others, in a similar fashion to the way domain names are hoarded.
Copyright is for the protection of the originator of a work, this can be art, music, design, literature, some kind of original creation. Long ago copyrights had to be reigstered and maintained for validity, but for most instances registration is not necessary as a formal process like trademarks are. Copyright belongs to the original artist or it can be assigned, but the orignial artist always has control until he/she legally reassigns it by agreement.
The intersection of trademark and copyright comes in where the copyright owner, in this case Steve Scott, allowed Monogram to produce the Uncertain T model under license. Monogram could reproduce and sell the design in model kit form, agreed to some sort of compensation, and they could register the trade name Uncertain T as producer of hobby kits, though they didn't have to.
The name of the design IS the Uncertain T, and it was named that by Steve Scott not Monogram. This was documentable through magazine coverage and show appearances before the model was licensed. It is very unlikely that any defensible case could be made that Steve Scott could not repeat the business act of licenseing for production of his design, and it could be called the Uncertain T , produced by anyone he wanted to license, unless he assigned the rights to the Uncertain T name specifically as part of the Monogram agreement which is also unlikely.
Clearly this name blocking is possible with the right legal construction, such as what has happened with the conflict of Mattel's trademark ownership of the Dragon Wagon name which can't be used by Monogram/Revell for the upcoming reissue kit. In this case we are dealing with a different set of players, and some level of detail we don't know or need to know about, but it clearly is not individuals getting into the middle of it.
Another popular misconception it that purchase of a work assumes ownership rights, this is not the case. If you owned the Uncertain T, you could not negotiate royalties with a model company for the rights to it. This would still be the right of Steve Scott or an assignee if one existed. You couldn't do much with the car save enjoy it and show it, just like a painting. You could not make Fiberglas Uncertain T bodies or groups of assembled parts that even looked like a copy of the design without opening yourself up for copyright infringement litigation. This applies to scale models just the same.
Those resin copies on ebay using the Uncertain T name as a scale model would have been in violation of Monogram/Revell's ownership of the trademark, had they kept the ownership of it valid. More seriously though they are copying Steve Scott's work which make them an outright copyright violation, this entitles Steve to multiple damages in judgement if it is litigated.
Steve Scott is responsible for policing his copyright, and seeing things that haven't gotten properly stopped does not endorse them as legal copies and the producers are taking a pretty big risk.
Lastly the system of copyright and trademark protection might frustrate us as consumers and might even make things more expensive, but it also allows the copyright owner to control his own image in what gets produced and how it is done. I also see a lot of complaints about hastily made resin copies that are essentially low quality rip offs, are inaccurate, with fly by night operations that aren't accountable behind them. This doesn't help us at all and I'd rather have Tom Daniel or Steve Scott approve something worthwhile or live with their judgement and move on.
So before you ask, no I am not a lawyer, but I am a businessman, and I do know about these situations as I deal with them all the time.
More importantly, I read this board looking for interesting sharing and observations about the models, tips, information, what everyone is doing model wise, the core stuff that is what brought everyone here in the first place. I feel like I know many of you well from your comments and I really like the enthusiasm for showrods. The reason I don't comment is just this example, too much of this non core type of thread, WHAT does this stuff have to do with showrod model enthusiasm??? Is the fascination with this kind of topic really more important than the equivalent time building models? I don't think so and I'd rather be building than worrring about some background business jockeying that isn't any of my business and I can't do anything about anyway.
How bout we all drop this nonsense and spend our time building, sharing, and enjoying showrod models instead of getting into stuff like this please? I think this stuff turns more people off than on to joining in and keeping things fun.
Lets stick to model building and enjoyment and leave the business manipulation and all this behind the scenes out of it, especially where we may not have enough expertise anyway. Life is complicated and negative enough without overlaying this stuff on top of a perfectly fun hobby.
Just another lurker's opinion, back to the shadows for me!
All the best, and happy showrod modeling to you all!
|
|
|
Post by ShowRodFreak Don V. on Oct 16, 2009 16:12:06 GMT -6
Wow .....you should be a Lawyer...LOL Bring on the plastic.
|
|
|
Post by Starry Eyes on Oct 16, 2009 16:41:03 GMT -6
Ken - I just got off the phone with Steve Scott. Back in '61-'62 Steve Scott was in the process of building the "T" of which the product manager at that time for Monogram visited Steve's garage. During the build Steve had allowed certain people to visit -some of the poeple that came were allowed in and some weren't depending on their intentions, this was a huge secret at the time of the build!! As time went on, Steve placed a "contest" written on a chalk board in the garage for the people he alllowed to enter. This was a "name the car" contest of which Steve offered $50 to the winner. Again as time went on, different names came and went. When one day Steve decided to take another look at the names on the board . Steve picked a portion of the name the Monogram product manager had written so Steve paid the product manager 1/2 of the prize money which would have been $25.00 for his efforts to attempt or help name the "T" . Something to remember too is, most of the people answering the phone at these model companies are likely to tell you any kind of fish story. The reason the "T" kit was placed aside was because real hot rod model kits like Steve's "T" died when the muscle car era began. This in turn effecting the sales of hot rods kits in a negative manner. A few years later when Steve returned from the military ,Steve asked for the model molds that he was promised , he was told they were destroyed with many others that were not going to ever be reissued to make room.. The trademark that Revell Monogram owned was for the Box-art not the actual car. Not sure who you spoke with at Rev/Mono as it really makes no difference to me, but I believe I'd be certain of the integrity of their information before making it public .. There was similar incident where an individual named Steve Rowe went public with false information regarding Steve Scott and tried to profit from it.. let's just say it didn't work out well for Steve Rowe...
Chuck Darnell
|
|
|
Post by customcruiserroy on Oct 16, 2009 16:43:25 GMT -6
He is right about active use. I have done several trademark applications and I can tell you you have to use it or lose it. Not only use it, but defend it as well. Ever hear of Xerox? Lost their protection because they didn't do enough to protect the use of the word. Look it up. That's a fact!
As for copyrighting 1:1 cars, nope. Remember the car in Miami Vice? That was a clone of a Ferrari. The only reason they guy was sued for making them was because he used the emblems. Look it up. True fact. There is case law on that as well. He took off the emblems and away he went. Now, if someone wanted to buy and put the emblem back on, that was up to them.
Models of cars are copyrightable and can get you in hard core trouble. But like I said before, it would not be worth it to anyone unless the violator was pumping out a grip of them.
Regardless of who had the name first, if he can't prove he had been using it for as long as he said, then it is lost. I think Scott would be hard pressed to say he has protecting the mark (without using it in commerce). That is why Revell lost it. Abandoned.
Enough said. Who is building anything fun today? I am still working on the Vampire Van. I cut it apart to better paint it.
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 17:49:57 GMT -6
Revell had the trade mark till December 17, 2004. What did they use it for? ?? hhhhhmmmmm makes you wonder if anyone knows anything. Thanks Jerry. That's all it means. But people want to take it all out in never never land. I wont hold you all up any longer. Get back to your beloved plastic. I think I will get out on this fine day and ride the Harley for a bit. It is good to be in Texas. Ken...
|
|
|
Post by Paul B. Canney on Oct 16, 2009 19:05:55 GMT -6
One thing is for sure, The Uncertain T subject never gets old.
It still is cool knowing the Copyright is in good hands. Whatever power it may or may not have, there's a lot of folklore , mystery and history that goes with it. It's way cooler than owning the Copyright to "Yugo"
Now as far as the molds being in Germany.. remember where the Tijuana Taxi molds allegedly were.
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Hillbilly on Oct 16, 2009 19:11:15 GMT -6
One thing is for sure, The Uncertain T subject never gets old. It still is cool knowing the Copyright is in good hands. Whatever power it may or may not have, there's a lot of folklore , mystery and history that goes with it. It's way cooler than owning the Copyright to "Yugo" Now as far as the molds being in Germany.. remember where the Tijuana Taxi molds allegedly were. Yugo... It has been a while. Definitely better than that. And you are right. The molds could be anywhere. PS... It never gets old.... Ken...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 15:42:26 GMT -6
Revell could very easily change the body - maybe an add-on pickup bed or something - add a few parts and re-issue the kit, containing a bunch of the old parts that don't appear in the instructions so that it could still be built in the original manner by a builder who knows what's what. Will they? Probably not. Cool to own the TM though. That's definitely a one-of-a-kind collectible. Funny you should mention the truck bed... Scratch built body, w/a truck bed.
|
|
|
Post by ShowRodFreak Don V. on Oct 26, 2009 13:57:42 GMT -6
humm wasn't AJ doing the same thing . Look Good thou. Love the color
|
|