All Marlboro Decals being withdrawn

[BullittStang]

It's kind of a sad state of affairs really. But it's not just Phillip Morris who's putting the squeeze on modeler's.

Has anybody noticed that Tamiya's latest McLaren re-issues don't have any Goodyear markings. Or that Bosch is on the hunt.

The Marlboro issue (yeah..I'll use it..so sue me...go ahead ), makes sense to me because of the anti-Tobacco treaty, especially here in the U.S., what with our tendency to have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to lawsuit. But it seems the other cases are just greed.

Are there any lawyers on these forum. I'm just wondering what the law is on something like this. I mean, all we're doing is making a scale replica of a licensed product that's already in the public domain. If McLaren allows Tamiya to produce a scale replica of their cars, doesn't that include everything that the original car had, include all markings and liveries. Isn't that part of the sponsorship agreement with the team, that as part of the sponsorship, the sponsor allows the team to use it's trademark.

What next, remove all historical references to tobacco in race cars? I can see it now, some needle nosed dweeb photoshopping every picture in existence of James Hunt's McLaren M23.

[drunken monkey]

You don't need a lawyer to understand this.
If you look at it purely on a contractural basis, these decal makers; the ones who are making products with the trademarked logos/images on them, do not have a contract (i.e are not licensed) to use those logos. Even when a car manufacturer gives license to a model company to produce a kit of their cars, that is just for the car. They don't have the right to give consent for the use of sponsorship logos because
i) that initial sponsorship is for the car, for the race for the contract period, which is normally for the period in which the car ran
ii) they (the car company) don't own the logos

That is where you are wrong regarding the whole issue of licensing and licensed products. The car is licensed; the images and logos are not. That's why you won't have

needle nosed dweeb photoshopping every picture in existence of James Hunt's McLaren M23

.
That's also why you won't find them asking for previously released products that had those logos to be removed because at the time of production; they were licensed. What is being targeted now, are third party producers of logos. In this instance, it just happens to be a tabacco company. As you pointed out, it's not just tabacco logos that are being controlled.


I'll say it again; I don't think this is anything to do with the non-advertising of tabacco.

[speeddemon92]

i have to agree- it is a sorry state of affairs. i ani't no lawyer but when flicking through a 2004 gp ledgends catalouge they were making a great deal of fuss over seling 2 of senna's cars in full tobacco decals in diecast. this was because on 1st of july '04 new laws came though that ment baccy decals on model cars became illegal un the uk (not 100% sure though), so pm could be covering his own back - not to be seen as to not be doing anything about it. but why give up precious baccy advertiseing in brittan? i was going to get the early 90's ferrari name decals (mansell, prost etc.) but couldn't find them unfotunately, so i'll have to find some on ebay

RIP acurate scale modeling

[drunken monkey]

Hmm, now that you mention it.....
That date was when ALL tobacco advertising was banned. Thing is, if that was the reason for the pulling of the product, I'd imagine it wouldn't be the logo owner going after you. Wouldn't it be the ASA or similar applying the pressure?

This sounds like a bit of a grey area to me. As mentioned in the post before mine, at the end of the day, licensed or not, the original "image" of the car, as it were, is already in the public domain. Does this qualify as advertising?

If it's purely to do with licensing, then I see scope for exploiting the wording of definitions of "personal use" and the whole thing about selling products with trademarked logos (much like they do at some bars are alcohol licensing).
If it's to do with the ban of tobacco advertising; then it seems like a grey area as to wether or not this is advertising.

I imagine that somewhere along the line, Marlboro will hold some liability if they don't enforce/control the use of their logos; hence them doing this.

[MPWR]

Originally Posted by BullittStang

I mean, all we're doing is making a scale replica of a licensed product that's already in the public domain. If McLaren allows Tamiya to produce a scale replica of their cars, doesn't that include everything that the original car had, include all markings and liveries. Isn't that part of the sponsorship agreement with the team, that as part of the sponsorship, the sponsor allows the team to use it's trademark.

Not at all. The license for a model of a McLaren car that Tamiya has allows only something similar to "the name McLaren, the McLaren logo(s), and the unique design of the McLaren MP4/XX".

Every other sponsor logo on that car can be included on the decal sheet (and box art) only if Tamiya has specific permission from that individual company.


This has nothing at all to do with Marlboro being a tobacco company, or with advertising prohibition. If Coca-Cola decals were being sold, lawyers from the Coca-Cola company would issue a cease and desist in exactly the same way (just as soon as they found out about it).

This will happen again with other companies. Any oil company, tuner part company, and especially car manufacturer that catches wind of their logos being sold on unlicensed products will immediately do the same. 'Tolerance' of this kind of use ended about ten years ago- and it has nothing to do with screwing scale modelers. Corporations believe they simply cannot risk losing control of their names and logos.

[potsie]

I agree that this is indeed bad news, and depending on the motivation behind it could have huge impact on modelling. If the reason is the ban on tobacco advertising, then I guess we are on borrowed time for Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Winfield etc. This is bad, but not as bad as a general crackdown on unlicensed logos - this will affect almost all aftermarket suppliers of decals.

On the side-topic of banned tobacco advertising affecting old photos etc, I have already seen this at the Australian GP. In the merchandising area there are a number of vendors selling prints of classic GP cars, as you would expect. On the displayed examples of these prints they must cover any tobacco advertising, be it on the car or on signs in the background, with masking tape, as this would be classed as "static advertising". At least if you bought the print the photo is un-altered - but for how long?

The local company Biante, producer of diecast models of Australian Touring Cars, had a long battle with the government to be allowed to produce historic race cars with the correct tobacco liveries, but to no avail.

[rsxse240]

so all of you do yourself a favor, get scans of decal sheets, and start printing your own decals for yourself NOW so you don't need to worry about if and/or when they will never be allowed in public sight!

oh, just so I'm on the same page as everyone else

I agree.... haha

[willimo]

I know we are a tiny group, and have no way to afford real influence, but I wonder if there would be a way to change public policy on this sort of thing? I would expect it motivated more by the rules against advertising than refusal to grant licensure. Perhaps if we mobilize as citizens of our respective representative governments, we could affect a change in the rules. Every day laws and regulations are changed and clarified; we're not asking much. Perhaps a small, clear loophole could be written into the law to allow for our accurate scale models and other facsimiles of historic motorsport subjects that are intended for private collection.

[BullittStang]

Originally Posted by potsie

The local company Biante, producer of diecast models of Australian Touring Cars, had a long battle with the government to be allowed to produce historic race cars with the correct tobacco liveries, but to no avail.

We're having the same discussion over at F1M.com, and somebody mentioned that at McLaren HQ in Woking, all tobacco signage has been removed from ALL the cars, even those cars from before anti-tobacco legislation.

Again, it comes down to the belief that model cars and die-cast are considered toys, not adult collectables.

Fer chrissakes, if it isn't the Religious Right Wing Nutjobs telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my home, it's the Loony Liberal Left trying to protect me from myself. Unbelievable.

[Hiroboy]

Originally Posted by BullittStang

We're having the same discussion over at F1M.com, and somebody mentioned that at McLaren HQ in Woking, all tobacco signage has been removed from ALL the cars, even those cars from before anti-tobacco legislation.

I was told this on my recent visit to Donington Grand Prix Collection, glad I got some photo before they take them away for the repaint.

[appleseed]

Marlboro is a brand and they're just protecting the brand that PM has created with billions of dollars over decades. They want to control what their brand is associated with. Plain and simple. The fact that they're a tobacco company/brand has no bearing in this case. We may be using it for model cars or whatnot but others can just as easily print and paste it on something rather un-Marlboro-like such as bras or panties or whatever the case may be. I don't think they're after modelers per se, just anyone who utilizes their brand without authorization.

[klutz_100]

Originally Posted by appleseed

The fact that they're a tobacco company/brand has no bearing in this case.

I am not so sure about that. I think it probably has a lot to do with it.

I guess the want to be seen to be taking positive action about enforcing bans on promoting tobacco products, otherwise they are leaving themselves exposed to possible further fines and litigation. As the copyright owners they are in the best position to take action in this area i.e. unlicensed usage of their logos.

[kingkai]

Why not banning smoking sigarettes. We can have our decals up for sale again. (said the non-smoker )

I find it all rather ridiculous: I see a 1/20 Ferrari F2001 with malboro in my room, O lets start smoking malboro...
(But I said that before with the same issue, with real racing. I see nearly every two-weeks a GP on telly from my 5th to now (22years old) with Malboro and those lovely McLarens with West livery. And never touched a bloody sigarette).

[Spike2933]

Originally Posted by kingkai

Why not banning smoking sigarettes. We can have our decals up for sale again. (said the non-smoker )

I find it all rather ridiculous: I see a 1/20 Ferrari F2001 with malboro in my room, O lets start smoking malboro...
(But I said that before with the same issue, with real racing. I see nearly every two-weeks a GP on telly from my 5th to now (22years old) with Malboro and those lovely McLarens with West livery. And never touched a bloody sigarette).

same here, I got the same F1 car and a 1/43 Mclaren F1 GTR from renaissance that have Marlboro.

I have never picked a cigarette in my life and don't plan too, (waste of money)

I got the China, San Marino, and Brazil GP to make and they have the Barcode or Marlboro branding, am I allowed to post them on here

[Guido]

I really can not be bothered with this whole thing (except for the fact that it's a waste of money for people like Hiroboy). First of all I never smoked their cigarettes - for some reason I just couldn't. And when they then pulled out at McLaren to go to Ferrari I decided I was never erver going to build a model carrying the Marlboro logo.

So, historically incorrect scale models? For sure not. The MP4/4 drove in Hockenheim and at Paul Ricard without the logo's and so on for every other year. One is perfectly capable of building an historical correct model withoth the Marlboro logo's. Besides, if you can't buy it, make it, no?