Hamil or Hemil?

[Rjel]

I noticed on the P-51s prop the brand name is Hemiltan Standard, not Hamilton Standard. Was this done for copyright purposes? The placards inside the P-51s have North American Aviation on them and the NAA logo on the rudder pedals so that doesn't seems to be an issue there. Both companies no longer exist, at least under the brand names as they were during WWII. Just curious as to why?

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Rjel

[Skycat1969]

Sharp eye! I'm assuming the misspelling is intentional to avoid litigation. Notice also that "-ton" became "-tan" (Hamilton vs. Hemiltan). The same decal is also on the P-47D-22 propeller.

[LukeFF]

Yes, it was done to avoid potential copyright issues. It's the same thing with the Lend-Lease tires on the GAZ AA truck - they say "Goodbear" instead of Goodyear.

[oc2209]

They should also have a message under it:

 

If you can read this, you're playing the game all wrong. 

[Gambit21]

 

That’s 2 L’s son.

[firdimigdi]

So the reason we don't have Lesserschmitts is simply because someone paid the licensing fees? How disappointing.

[Strewth]

Yep.
After WWII all the aircraft companies encouraged model makers to promote their equipment.
Then the bean counters and lawyers got involved and seen the opportunity for $$$$$$ because of a (now defunct) name.

GREED!

Nothing else.

Scabby grubs seeing the opportunity to make money from redundant equipment.
Kind of like a used diaper and wanting to charge for viewing it.

GRUBS!

[Raptorattacker]

It's odd innit?

Edited April 10, 2022 by Raptorattacker

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I guess we were lucky WW2 never made it to continental U.S. land battles.   The Battle of Al Bundy, New Chork just wouldn't seem right.

[Avimimus]

On 4/10/2022 at 12:41 AM, LukeFF said:

Yes, it was done to avoid potential copyright issues. It's the same thing with the Lend-Lease tires on the GAZ AA truck - they say "Goodbear" instead of Goodyear.

 

Ah! That is amusing.

 

I still find it absurd that contemporary companies could try to make trademark claims against depictions of historical hardware that people died in during the war. One would think that remembering history and the dead (and seventy years having passed) would take precedence. Sometimes I do not understand the U.S.

[Beebop]

Corporations are always looking for any way to monitize their brand name under the guise of copyright infringement. The Devs learned thier

 lesson from Ubisoft's use of full aircraft names when they released "Pacific Fighters" then passed the costs to 1C. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's not just in the US either.  Try selling a scale model of any Ferrari and see what happens if you don't pay the license fee to Ferrari S.P.A.

[Beebop]

What irks me is IMO US taxpayers paid for those planes and there is no longer any useful proprietary technology that would reveal any company secrets.  Greed I say. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

40 minutes ago, Beebop said:

What irks me is IMO US taxpayers paid for those planes and there is no longer any useful proprietary technology that would reveal any company secrets.  Greed I say. 

It's not even productive. Those companies could've had some free advertising while we'd have historically correct names. Now we've got Hemiltan and Goodbear, and nobody gains a thing.

[jollyjack]

On 4/11/2022 at 7:44 AM, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I guess we were lucky WW2 never made it to continental U.S. land battles.   The Battle of Al Bundy, New Chork just wouldn't seem right.

 

His Dodge was a battle of it's own ..

 

[jollyjack]

On 4/10/2022 at 12:24 PM, Raptorattacker said:

It's odd innit?

 

There's a song in that statement, called Off Limit ..

[BornToBattle]

On 4/13/2022 at 9:25 AM, Avimimus said:

 

Ah! That is amusing.

 

I still find it absurd that contemporary companies could try to make trademark claims against depictions of historical hardware that people died in during the war. One would think that remembering history and the dead (and seventy years having passed) would take precedence. Sometimes I do not understand the U.S.

 

I read somewheres (or saw a video) concerning the top things that surprise tourist to when visiting America and near the top of the list was how every other commercial on TV seemed there were lawyers looking to sue somebody for something. In the “old days” they called these people “ambulance chasers”. Nowadays it’s just such a common occurrence it’s not even noticed anymore. I agree, the US is lawsuit crazy beyond belief and it’s absolutely mind boggling how many cases actually are awarded due to utter stupidity on the part of the plaintiff.

[Avimimus]

30 minutes ago, BornToBattle said:

I read somewheres (or saw a video) concerning the top things that surprise tourist to when visiting America and near the top of the list was how every other commercial on TV seemed there were lawyers looking to sue somebody for something. In the “old days” they called these people “ambulance chasers”. Nowadays it’s just such a common occurrence it’s not even noticed anymore. I agree, the US is lawsuit crazy beyond belief and it’s absolutely mind boggling how many cases actually are awarded due to utter stupidity on the part of the plaintiff.

 

Interesting. I was thinking more about how intellectual property laws tend to favour the powerful, rather than the overall litigiousness (I think that is the right word).

 

FWIW - my impressions of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were:

1) Americans in person were even more polite (and better drivers) than Canadians.

2) The few newspapers I encountered had more opinion pieces and more aggressively put opinion (i.e. argument rather than discussion). So less polite.

3) There were a lot of ads for medications and medical insurance (a much stronger impression than the ads for lawyers).

4) There was a distinct lack of road-signs and street illumination (maybe 1/3rd as many lights on the city streets) and women seemed to often be accompanied. In comparison driving through Montreal on the way back at night was like going towards land populated by fairies. Whereas places like Portland were very dark and mysterious.

 

Anyway, travelling is actually worth it sometimes. The little things are often the interesting ones. I'll never forget one particular telephone pole in Salem for instance.

 

P.S. I think (1) might be more related to that part of New England though, I've encountered American tourists and immigrants from other parts of the U.S. who seem less polite.

 

 

  

On 4/13/2022 at 1:05 PM, Beebop said:

What irks me is IMO US taxpayers paid for those planes and there is no longer any useful proprietary technology that would reveal any company secrets.  Greed I say. 

 

I agree.

 

On 4/13/2022 at 12:35 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's not just in the US either.  Try selling a scale model of any Ferrari and see what happens if you don't pay the license fee to Ferrari S.P.A.

 

Is that true within the EU? Or is it just a risk if one sells the scale model in the U.S. (opening one up to a lawsuit there)? Generally Europe has been a bit saner with regard to copyright (but I'm not sure about trademarks), and with the development of the Internet there was a big push to expand intellectual property rights in a way that limits fair use and its equivalents (i.e. the idea of having a public library, for instance, probably wouldn't be possible today in Canada if libraries hadn't been 'grandfathered in' through already existing prior to the present ideological turn).

[Canvas25]

I'm no lawyer, but I read somewhere that in the US if they don't file a copyright suit against something small, then when something big comes up they won't have a case if they have not defended their copyright in the past.

[JG7_X-Man]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:38 AM, Firdimigdi said:

So the reason we don't have Lesserschmitts is simply because someone paid the licensing fees? How disappointing.

 

Nope - Defunct: 1989.

Edited April 17, 2022 by JG7_X-Man

[Strewth]

On 4/17/2022 at 9:37 AM, Canvas25 said:

I'm no lawyer, but I read somewhere that in the US if they don't file a copyright suit against something small, then when something big comes up they won't have a case if they have not defended their copyright in the past.

A company copyrighting equipment designed and manufactured under contract for the military is really a SCAM of the first order.
Most of the equipment only existed because of a requirement AND PAYMENT by the government. If anything the copyright should belong to the government.
"Small" copyright claims are just a pitiful excuse to extract money out of civilians and small enterprises. A legitimate large copyright case would be self supporting.

When plastic model aircraft became popular, there were no copyrights and the market flourished with good priced kits everywhere. The companies were actually happy to have their names out there and recognised. Once the kits became very popular and the companies saw a possibility to make money from it themselves, they all dived in and demanded payment for the name(s).

We are not even flying an actual aircraft made from aluminium, steel, perspex and timber. We are bouncing around cyberspace with a cluster of 1's and 0's pretending to be pixels.

It is a disgusting cheap money grab by greedy corporate giants. Nothing else.

Cheers.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Strewth

[Canvas25]

Here's a long but interesting thread from 2009 on the same subject:

 

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-10544.html