" Like Sand Through The Hourglass, These Are The Days of Our Lives . . .

Dave Fitch

I can't speak to all the legal issues here, but I will say it was a pleasure meeting Carl and his family at NARAM 52. I think the best thing we could do at this point is support Carl by purchasing product from him. I put my money where my mouth is and just purchased a Sat 1 B and Orbital Transporter. I hope you can agree this is our best way of showing we care.

__________________
NAR # 91740SR
C.R.A.S.H. - NAR Section #482
SAM Member #0153

"I said Lunch, not Launch!"

- Far Out Space Nuts

There are no re-runs in the continuing story of life.

__________________
Kit (aka Cranky Kong)

I'm just a roadie for the banned...

It would be quite hard for Estes, or any model rocket maker, to assert copyright infringement of a *scale* or *semi-scale* model of a real rocket where the other company is copying the *real* rocket, rather than its competitor's model kit.

The problem is that when you make a scale model of something, the thing you are modeling is not *original* to you. To get copyright protection, originality is required. The standard is very low concerning what "originality" is - it doesn't take much! Since the rocket kit you are providing to the public is a model of a real rocket made by (usually) the government, you have no copyright interest in the rocket's intrinsic design - it's not original to you. All you have a copyright interest in is your particular *implementation* of that design in your model of the rocket. Someone who offers a scale model of the same rocket has to be copying *your model*, not the original rocket, in order to be in violation of your copyright.

So, even if Estes has previously issued a scale model of a real rocket such as the Little Joe II, it seems to me that, as long as the company offering another scale model of the real NASA rocket is offering its own scale model of the rocket, and is not simply copying the Estes kit, there should be no copyright infringement. (Of course trademark law still applies - you can't use the Estes logo or other Estes trademarked words or symbols.)

On the other hand, Estes' *original* designs (and the other original designs they own the rights to) are easier to protect. A rocket with a unique *shape* (for example, the Satellite Interceptor), would be easier to assert copyright to (hence the use of the word "sculptural" in the Estes' lawyers' letter - to assert the copyright interest in unique rocket designs).

In addition, Estes could also assert copyright protection for distinctive paint schemes, graphics, and markings on a model rocket, even if the rocket has a fairly generic shape (3FNC or 4FNC, for example) that would otherwise be hard to assert a copyright to. The "Big Bertha" rocket comes to mind here because it is a fairly generic design (although one of my favorites). You could make and sell a Big Bertha-like rocket, but you would have to change the graphics and perhaps the paint, as Estes might have a copyright interest in the paint scheme and graphics. You also could not call your similar-looking rocket a "Big Bertha". Quest's "Big Betty" rocket kit is such an offering - a cool, Big Bertha-like rocket that does not violate, IMHO, any of Estes' intellectual property rights.

(Just FYI: The United States Government does not hold a copyright interest in any of its ordinarily copyrightable "works" - written, visual, musical, etcetera. These works can be protected (for example, CIA reports can be classified as "secret" and not released to the public) but the Government holds no copyright interest under the copyright laws. That is why NASA probably would not care if Estes or anyone else claimed copyright to the Little Joe II or to the intrinsic design of any other NASA rocket. But I doubt that the Patent and Trademark office would give someone a trademark for "Little Joe II" or that the Copyright office would process a copyright request for the intrinsic design of an existing NASA rocket, should a model kit company try to do so. )

I read in this thread that Estes and Semroc have or will soon enter into a licensing agreement. Yay! That is so good to hear. That was exactly my thought when I read Carl's initial post - a win-win licensing agreement between Estes and Semroc to allow Semroc to keep providing us with the classic, nostalgic kits we BAR's desire!

- Brock

Actually, a copyright is hard to lose. In 1976 Congress changed the copyright laws. Works created after 1963 were allowed a generous extension period (this extension was made automatic in 1992). Later copyright laws have made even more extensions to the amount of time a copyright is valid. Works created from 1923 to 1963 had to be actively renewed when their first term expired to take advantage of the second, extended copyright period.

(Trivia: Because of the renewal requirement, many copyrights that had to be renewed before 1992 were lost due to the failure to renew. Also, any work created *before* 1923 is considered out of copyright and in the public domain. For a timeline of the copyright laws, showing when works went (or will go) out of copyright based on their creation date, see this web site:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm)

You may be thinking of the loss of a *trademark* due to acquiescence. Yes, trademarks, such as "Estes," and the Estes oval logo, if not protected from use by others, can be lost. You should trademark any word, symbol, image or "mark" you want to use to identify your goods in the flow of commerce (in your "trade") (hence the word, "trademark"). Copyright protects your *original* works that are written, musical, or visually distinctive in some way. It is a pretty broad term and can include the distinct *shape* of something (sculpture can be copyrighted). Trademarks are generally for words or images you want to apply to *all* of the goods you offer. Copyright protection, generally, protects specific works you create that fit the definition of a copyrightable "work".

For all practical purposes, a vigilantly protected trademark can be renewed indefinitely. A copyright, on the other hand, will eventually expire, although the current laws provide for many years of protection.

- Brock

All it takes is one lawyer on the staff who doesn't have enough to keep him looking busy one day...

Gotta bill those hours.

Yes, but arguably, rockets may be patented, but not copyrighted. Copyright just doesn't apply to such physical objects. And any patents on rockets that Semroc kits would long since have run out.

The problem is that it is expensive to successfully make that argument....

Yes. The old little guys have proven that they can provide the rockets and parts we want. Estes hasn't. I'm not one to buy a pig in a poke. Why should we grant the new Estes any good will until they've earned it? And bullying Semroc is not the way to earn good will.

Edited away, because I didn't read to the end before posting...

So glad about the happy ending. At least I hope it is a happy ending. I actually haven't read the last six or seven pages yet. Just up to the good news post from Carl....

It seems that this topic has lost it's steam, and that's good. An agreement has been made between Semroc and Hobbico, the present owner of Estes.

How much more can be said???

It's like being in a car with the motor off, we are going knowhere.

It looks like we are going in reverse here, Barry is gone and Estes has a new owner......PERIOD.

More , speculation as we have had for the past 19 years, when will it ever end?

There are so many model rocket companies around, with their own niche, providing specialty items that another company isn't, which is good.

Also keep in mind, who the original designers were, don't you think they deserve alittle credit for their popular designs that have retained their popularity to this day.

Enough is enoug in my opinion...............