A question of ethics and the law

[Mike Griffin]

SIG has discontinued manufacturing CL kits.  Before I ask this question let me be clear that I personally IN NO WAY have any interest in this.  My question is simply one of curiosity.  If another manufacturer wanted to kit SIGs designs, q what would they have to do in order to produce them? 

Mike

[jim gilmore]

i would think buy the rights...

[Joe Just]

Check and see if there are Copy Rights before entering into any negotiations. Get a lawyer to check any arrangement offered by the previous manufacturer.  Any interest you might show would of course automatically increase the value, or you just might get luck and get the rights for free.
Joe

[Les McDonald]

Why not just call them on the phone or send a nice letter, ask them if it's possible and see what they say.
It really isn't complicated.

[Steve Helmick]

If you wanted to kit the Fancherized Twister, that would be between you and Ted. Being considerably modified
puts SIG out of the picture, as I understand it. I hope somebody does it!  Steve

[Mike Griffin]

I would like to see someone at least pick up the Banshee and Twister.  These two kits have been bashed a lot over the years.  Maybe someone could take the Banshee for example, move the wing forward and call it something different.

[Tim Wescott]

Ethically, if you wanted exact copies, it's probably best to start by approaching Sig management and asking to buy the rights to the designs.

Again ethically, the Fancherized Twister is different enough from an original Twister that if you found a different name for it then you could just sell the thing.  The world is full of products that are heavily derived from competitor's designs; it's just a done thing.

Legally, you can't copyright the design of a physical thing.  You can copyright the design documents, and you can either copyright or trademark the name (I'm not sure which).  But that doesn't keep someone from selling a plane with the exact same construction as a Twister that's named "Ha Ha I Stole Your Design".

Again legally, holding copyright (or a registered trademark, or a patent) doesn't make it illegal for someone else to make them -- it just means that if they do, you can try to sue the bejabbers out of them.  But first you have to catch them, then you have to take things to court, then you have to win, and then you have to make the judgment stick.

So practically, you could probably make the kits, with xeroxed plans sheets and everything, and unless the current management at Sig cared, you could get away with selling them.  It's not ethical (at least to my mind), but there's a good chance that if you don't put "Sig" on the box and if you white out the name "Sig" anywhere it shows on the plans, Sig's lawyer will tell them not to bother chasing you down.

If you did sell "Sig Twister" or "Sig Banshee" kits in any volume, then Sig would probably feel like they had to pay attention (you'd be confusing the buying public about who Sig really is, and hurting them financially), and they would probably be wise to send you very lawyerly nasty-grams with words like "cease" and "desist" and "injunctive relief", followed up by trying to sue the bejabbers out of you if you didn't, indeed, cease and desist.

[Paul Taylor]

Did I not read where Walter is cutting F-Twisters.

[Andrew Hathaway]

But why?  The status quo for over 20 years has been to modify the Twister and Banshee, hardly anyone ever builds them stock.  The designs are too old to be modern, but too new to be OTS/Classic eligible, so there's no reason to build one stock.  As easy as they are to build from plans, there's not much need for a kit either.  

[Dave_Trible]

I'd suspect that since these must not be showing any profit for them and don't fit into any future vision they have for the business they'd consider it a deal if you would simply buy any remaining supplies and tooling they have.  Not really worth any expenditure to defend.  Yes a phone call from a SERIOUS inquirer might be all it takes.  The only other thing might be assignment of legal liability for damages from YOUR kits.

Dave

[Dick Pacini]

Did I not read where Walter is cutting F-Twisters.

He most certainly did.  I have one still in the box.

[Mike Scholtes]

As Mike started by saying, he has no personal interest in obtaining the license to make them or buy the rights.

Just because Sig has decided to discontinue the production doesn't mean Sig doesn't still own the rights, whether copyright (plans) or trademark (product name and appearance). Doubt there are any patents in connection with such a simple, standard construction model.

The original possessor of the rights sold them to Sig eons ago, and Sig owns them in perpetuity. Sig could in theory stop any unauthorized maker from using the name or image. However if Sig abandons the commercial use of the mark, as it apparently has decided to do, the use passes into the public domain. This is a tricky point and has generated litigation forever. For anyone wanting to sell a model plane called a "Twister," Fancherized or not, better buy or license the rights from Sig or obtain their consent to the use of the mark (aka name).

[Brett Buck]

As Mike started by saying, he has no personal interest in obtaining the license to make them or buy the rights.

Just because Sig has decided to discontinue the production doesn't mean Sig doesn't still own the rights, whether copyright (plans) or trademark (product name and appearance). Doubt there are any patents in connection with such a simple, standard construction model.

The original possessor of the rights sold them to Sig eons ago, and Sig owns them in perpetuity. Sig could in theory stop any unauthorized maker from using the name or image. However if Sig abandons the commercial use of the mark, as it apparently has decided to do, the use passes into the public domain. This is a tricky point and has generated litigation forever. For anyone wanting to sell a model plane called a "Twister," Fancherized or not, better buy or license the rights from Sig or obtain their consent to the use of the mark (aka name).

   Make something roughly equivalent, and call it a Tornado. Problem solved.

    Brett

[Mike Scholtes]

I think that pretty much describes what we have been doing with the Nobler for the last 62 years.

[Brett Buck]

I think that pretty much describes what we have been doing with the Nobler for the last 62 years.

  Indeed. But you have to admit, it seems to work.

    Brett

[Mike Scholtes]

Now that I think of it there was actually a fair amount of litigation over the original bellcrank-based CL system, with Jim Walker suing to protect his patents. Lots of weird and unsuccessful alternatives were tried. Of course that was a patent, worth a lot more than model plane trademarks since an infringing use of the IDEA is actionable, so a simple name change won't avoid the problem. If there was any money in selling CL models there may have been more litigation down the years. A "Bingmaster"  or "Bobler" that looked just like you-know-what would have been sue-able over. Lucky for us modelers our sport never attracted the big money.

[Ward Van Duzer]

How about a "Twisted Teddy"?

Sorry Ted...


Ward-O

[Sean McEntee]

   Make something roughly equivalent, and call it a Tornado. Problem solved.

    Brett

     Exactly.  Slap some wingtips and change the canopy a bit and it's a 35-40 sized Akromaster (did it in the late 90s/early 2000s). Look at how many designs came from the Nobler.

Tornado, Cyclone, Vortex, or other weather phenomena coupled with a slight cosmetic change and it's a whole new airplane

Same thing with the Banshee, except more research in mythology would be needed. Valkyrie perhaps....

[john e. holliday]

As simple as both designs are, why do you need a full size plan.  Do like Sterling in the early days.   One sheet of paper with drawings showing how the parts go together with written instructions.    Cut the parts and sell parts kits.  I know of one out fit that is doing laser cutting of kits and you supply your own plans from other sources.  Check out the Vendors corner and you will find them.

[Leester]

I might be wrong but didn't Alan Brickhaus put a built up fuselage on a Twister and call it the "Tornado" I had the plans and the FM article. Will have to dig it up..

Can't believe that I found it right away. Flying Models plan CF869

[Tim Wescott]

I might be wrong but didn't Alan Brickhaus put a built up fuselage on a Twister and call it the "Tornado" I had the plans and the FM article. Will have to dig it up..

You could do that with a Fancherized Twister.  With that wing you probably don't want a fuselage fancier than the "Hobo", but it'd be a nice plane.

[ChrisSarnowski]

You can get Allen's plans for the Tornado here.

http://carstensbookstore.com/tornado.html

[rustler]

Some years ago, with Ted's O.K., I commissioned some laser cut Fancher-Twisters with RSM. Not too successful financially, as it ran a bit overbudget. Eric may still have the cutting files, - feel free to check with him, I have no further interest.

[Scott Richlen]

Why would anyone want to continue to produce the SIG line-up of CL kits?
1) SIG is stopping production since they aren't exactly selling like hot-cakes...
2) Their line-up of kits are as old as the hills...
3) Many of them are absolute dogs - take the Mustang or the Zlin Acrobat for instance...
4) Many of them are poorly designed - e.g., there are multiple mods needed on the Banshee - bellcrank inadequately mounted, nose too long, etc...
5) The ones that do fly somewhat competitively have a long list of mods to make them so - e.g., the Fancherized Twister...
6) A surprising number of them have heavy or poor balsa - e.g., you need to bend your knees when you try to pick up my Sig Chipmunk kit ...

There are lots of successful designs that have not been kitted yet, so why not go after them?  Or just give us something fresh and original.

If you are really desperate for a SIG kit, I'll sell you my Chipmunk kit - just remember to wear your back brace when you come to  pick it up...

Scott

[Mike Griffin]

Hi Scott

I have a question for you pertaining to your post.  If what you say is true, then how do you explain the thousands of RINGMASTERS that have been produced over the years and still remains the best selling design since the 50's?  I seriously doubt Matt Kania would believe what he started when he designed it.  When I announced that I would completely build, cover and paint the RSM Take Apart Ringmaster for folks if they wanted one, I thought I might get 2 or 3 orders at the most.  I got 17 orders for them.  One person bought 3 and a couple of other folks bought 2.   I am not disputing the fact that over the years we have learned much about how to make a stunt ship better, but I also think there is a lot of nostalgia and sentiment attached to the these older designs like the Ringmaster, The Banshee, The Flight Streak, The Twister, etc. etc.

The Stunt Community is only one part of the Control Line Flying contingent... there are a ton more sport flyers that never go to contest and could care less if they ever learn a pattern.  They are in it for just the fun.

Getting back to my original intent with this thread, I still think there is a market for these older designs albeit they are not the best flyers in the stable.

Mike

[Ted Fancher]

He most certainly did.  I have one still in the box.

Hey, Dick.  How does it fly?


Oh.....wait...

[Mike Griffin]

Now that was funny Ted. 

Mike

[Ted Fancher]

Why would anyone want to continue to produce the SIG line-up of CL kits?
1) SIG is stopping production since they aren't exactly selling like hot-cakes...
2) Their line-up of kits are as old as the hills...
3) Many of them are absolute dogs - take the Mustang or the Zlin Acrobat for instance...
4) Many of them are poorly designed - e.g., there are multiple mods needed on the Banshee - bellcrank inadequately mounted, nose too long, etc...
5) The ones that do fly somewhat competitively have a long list of mods to make them so - e.g., the Fancherized Twister...
6) A surprising number of them have heavy or poor balsa - e.g., you need to bend your knees when you try to pick up my Sig Chipmunk kit ...

There are lots of successful designs that have not been kitted yet, so why not go after them?  Or just give us something fresh and original.

If you are really desperate for a SIG kit, I'll sell you my Chipmunk kit - just remember to wear your back brace when you come to  pick it up...

Scott

Although, Scott.

I remember at an infamously windy Lincoln,  Nebraska nats where Les McDonald got blown out of his fourleaf clovers on each of his three Walker Cup flights (famously shouting over his shoulder to the judges on the third flight "watch out, here it comes again"), that Todd Lee (then a senior) flew a Sig Mustang with a sort of rich running example of the much maligned Fox .35 through three very decent and well scored flights.  David Fitzgerald, as a kid, flew those Chipmonks to a record setting number of consecutive Nats Junior and Senior championships as well.

They weren't all terrible.

Ted

p.s.  Important to note that Les was flying as part of the top five during the era when the JR and SR champs flew along with the top five flyoff and their scores and the Open champion's (all sans appearance points) were used to determine the Walker Cup winner.  IIRC, that was the last year that a gentleman by the name of Gieseke won his last of a then unprecedented four Open/Walker Cup victories.

[Andrew Hathaway]

Why would anyone want to continue to produce the SIG line-up of CL kits?
1) SIG is stopping production since they aren't exactly selling like hot-cakes...
2) Their line-up of kits are as old as the hills...
3) Many of them are absolute dogs - take the Mustang or the Zlin Acrobat for instance...
4) Many of them are poorly designed - e.g., there are multiple mods needed on the Banshee - bellcrank inadequately mounted, nose too long, etc...
5) The ones that do fly somewhat competitively have a long list of mods to make them so - e.g., the Fancherized Twister...
6) A surprising number of them have heavy or poor balsa - e.g., you need to bend your knees when you try to pick up my Sig Chipmunk kit ...

There are lots of successful designs that have not been kitted yet, so why not go after them?  Or just give us something fresh and original.

If you are really desperate for a SIG kit, I'll sell you my Chipmunk kit - just remember to wear your back brace when you come to  pick it up...

Scott

This is all accurate, if a little harsh.  The Ringmaster is still popular because it's OTS legal, and if simply built light with modern controls it actually doesn't fly completely terrible.  By OTS standards they fly pretty well, but the Sig kits aren't judged by OTS standards since they're not eligible.  Sig kits have to compete with modern kits, by which standard they were pretty terrible.

Are Todd Lee's Mustang or David Fitzgerald's Chipmonks really relevant when neither plane were likely built from the kit, or built anything close to stock per the plans?  The list of things to change to fix the Mustang starts with throwing away everything but the foam wing cores and the landing gear. 

[Steve Helmick]

With the Mustang, you'd want to core the foam wing or throw it out and make a built up version.

Not that long ago, the new owners of SIG issued a proclamation that anybody reproducing their kits or plans would be persecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't know what their specific gripe was. Might have been somebody selling copies of Berkley or Fox plans on eBay, as well as SIG designs. SIG owns the rights to both Berkley and Fox designs, but you'd think the age of those copyrights would be outdated, unless renewed? I think the statement might have said that since they still had plans (for sale) for those designs, as well as some of those swell pressed steel cowls and canopies, well, it's just not fair. Sounds like they'd like to sell off whatever they can, and I don't blame them for that.      

[Dick Pacini]

Hey, Dick.  How does it fly?


Oh.....wait...

Actually, Ted, you did such a great job with the design and Walter did such a great job with the kit...

You have heard the term, "It worked right out of the box."  This one worked well still in the box.  

[EddyR]

With the Sig straight wing profiles why would you need a kit. They are so simple to build all one needs is the numbers. When the Twister was new most people used the plans and sheeted the wing leading edge back to the spar and it was a better flying model. I put the gear in the wing and made the body look like a Mustang.  I flew it for years and then gave it away.

[Juan Valentin]

Hello Mike
                  I did like Eddyr I took the Twister plan and Built a P-51B mustang loosely based on it. I made the ribs 1/8 thicker and covered the leading edge to the spar,made the fuse 2 inches longer from the flaps to the elevator,added a balsawood cheek and a turtledeck and moved the gear to the wings. It flew beautifully getting thru the pattern real good. I lost it when I had a brain fade and pulled the wrong way close to the ground. by covering the leading edge you can make the leading edge blunter. It flew great and looked real good. I also did a twister but changed the shape of the fuse a little, rudder and added wing tips also used SIG Fazer aluminum L/G. Here are some pics.
                                                                                                  Juan

[Scott Richlen]

Well guys, I stand by what I said.  A couple of you managed to identify an exception or two, but there will always be an exception or two.  And a sale of 17 Ringmasters (which isn't from the SIG line-up, which is what I was talking about) is not exactly a tidal wave (sorry, but its true.)  And when guys like Todd Lee and Fitzgerald fly, well, they could probably fly most anything and win.  And it has already been pointed out that both the Chipmunk and the P-51 were modified.

So, if everyone bought 17 Chipmunks, 17 Mustangs, and 17 Twisters from SIG maybe they'd continue to produce CL kits?  Don't think so.

Sometimes our nostalgia gets the better of us.  I'll admit that the SIG Twister was a reasonably good stunt trainer and that the Magnum had its day.  The Chipmunk was pretty good too.  But lately they have not sold like hot-cakes and I don't recall seeing any for quite some time at Brodaks.  But I'm sure that someone will be able to point out an exception or two; however, if you point out a Fancherized Twister, you'll have pretty much made my point.

Lastly, I'm sorry if I rained on someone's parade or hurt their (nostalgic) feelings, but it is what it is (or was what it was?) 

Scott 

[Mike Griffin]

Well guys, I have certainly enjoyed and appreciated all the viewpoints that have been contributed in this thread.  I think Scott is right about the nostalgia factor connected to control line.  Allen Brickhaus and I had many conversations about that over the years and did a lot of hangar flying about it. 

And yeah Scott, building 17 take apart Ringmasters for other folks for $125.00 each is not setting the world on fire or making me any money, in fact I dont think I will even break even on this but you want to hear something funny...I really dont care.  I am pushing 70 and any plane I build for anybody makes me smile.  Especially if it is an old fuddy ruddy design because I am just a sentimental old dude.  Besides, it gave me something to do for a few months and is making someone else happy too.

Mike

[Scott Richlen]

Hey Mike:

Just so you know - guys like you in the CL cottage industry keep all of us going.  So I do appreciate what you do.  I just think it might go to better things than some of the old SiG designs.  Keep moving forward!

Scott

[Mike Griffin]

Thank you Scott I appreciate the compliment.  I have slowed down a lot because of the back and knee surgeries from a lot of football many years ago but I still do what Incan when I can.  I am just one of those guys who loves any model that flies and more than that, the people who fly them.


Take care
Mike

[Tim Wescott]

Just so you know - guys like you in the CL cottage industry keep all of us going.  So I do appreciate what you do.  I just think it might go to better things than some of the old SiG designs.  Keep moving forward!

I think that both the Twister and Banshee, after Fancherization*, are good planes -- they fly well, and the wing structure, although prone to warps, is also prone to surviving some pretty serious crashes in repairable condition.

And kits are great training for scratch-building.

Is there anything in the Brodak lineup that really takes the place of these kits?

* "Fancherization", in the case of the Banshee, meaning moving the wing forward in the fuselage and possibly upping the tail area.

[dirty dan]

There doesn't seem a lot to discuss here. Prior to there being a discernible demand for now-discontinued SIG kits we have to run through all those put up for sale at swap meets and on eBay. That could take years. And then when supply falls short of demand, as indicated by large selling prices for said kits, I do think there is opportunity here. And that opportunity is for a motivated fellow to make a run of Twister kits, see disappointing sales numbers, limited profits and thus developing a good understanding of why SIG discontinued their kits in the first place. (As in, be careful what you wish for.)

I do have a suggestion: If a person were to be serious about producing any of SIG's kits, early on tell them you not only want to buy the rights to specific kits but you also want to buy the tooling.

Dan