Border Models has issued a statement about their impending release of the Avro Lancaster Mk.I/III
This is partial text from the full article (usually with photos) at https://aeroscale.net/news/lancaster-update
Border Models has issued a statement about their impending release of the Avro Lancaster Mk.I/III
Wow pistols at dawn - sounds convincing enough although I’d like to hear Jackson’s side of the story too. But if there were so many errors…and it was going to cost so much to rectify them…and Hong Kong Models’ 1:32 Mk. 1 release has been on the market for a couple of years already…what kind of business decision was it for Border to go ahead anyway?
Too bad it has come to this - squabbling and the potential for a bunch of lawyers getting rich over it .
There is no doubt that Wingnut Wings brought a wonderful group of products to the modeling world and I for one was sorry to hear of their demise .
I hope Border does well with the big Lanc - were I a wealthy man I would buy one just to support their effort ,
and as I have no room to display it I would gift it to someone like HG Barnes to lavish his talents upon it . That would be fun to watch !
I like Border. They’re sassy.
I don’t see this ending well for anyone. Probably not smart on Borders part to release a statement of ongoing legal matter like some kid that got mad on Facebook. I for one really like borders products but I can see this getting ugly
You contract to buy a car, you do not pay, they sell the car to someone else. You contract with someone to make something, and you do not pay for it, the manufacturer has the right to sell the product to someone else to recover their loss.
Jackson may have intellectual property in the design drawings used to manufacture the mould, but the mould belongs to the manufacturer until paid for. He did not pay them, so it is NOT his property. If Border had purchased all the design drawings, etc, whether they used them or not, that would be a different story,
Your business goes bust. The Receivers go in. They sell off the business assets to recover what they can to pay creditors. Whether what they sell is your design or not, you have forfeited the right to demand ownership and control of the disposal - and absolutelky no right to influence the new owner. So what is Jackson’s beef? He had no intention of using the mould. and no intention for paying for it. He also had no intention to sell it, as he did not even own it! If any money ends up with Jackson, it should go to his creditors, but like most companies, there are probably so many related companies that the one owing money is likely not one that will be used to claim any financial recovery.
This is a blatant money grab from an opportunist. If the mould was not now being used, he would have gladly let it be turned to slag…
Well said . Common sense would have the world agreeing with this . However, there are lawyers involved and they sure know how to put a spin on things like common sense . Another interesting factor is Mr. Jackson , whom I assume is a New Zealand National , is dealing with China - a foreign country and a giant one to boot .
If they just wave their collective middle fingers at him what exactly can he do ?
I’d agree with all that Peter (assuming what we’ve been told is 100% factual) but I wonder what the legal position is if the designs had been copyrighted before submission to the mould manufacturer?
A bit like a song - if I wrote it, and then recorded it, but didn’t pay the recording studio…I don’t believe they’d be entitled to give the music to someone else to record and make money from. Their claim could only extend as far as my unpaid recording bill. I think they’d have to take me to court before they did anything else, to get a ruling that they would be entitled to use the royalties owed to me (if another artist were to record my song) to pay off my unpaid bill.
That’s what I think would happen between nationals of two countries that had signed up to international copyright laws anyway…but in this case we’re dealing with one country that doesn’t seem to honour intellectual property
I don’t think it’s quite like that. Border seem aware of the IP issues. They clearly state they don’t have the CAD work, only the physical moulds. It’s a ricky question whether production from the moulds in effect recreates or uses the IP. I suspect that’s why Border say they have modified the moulds and corrected errors.
What seems absurd is Wingnuts now spending what must be large sums on lawyers rather than buying back the moulds in the first place. Wingnuts seemed quite happy to owe large sums to mouldmakers (if what Border says is true and that seems to fit with e.g. Meng) but now gets aggressive when those mouldmakers try and recoup their losses.
Seems fair enough when Wingnuts appear to be threatening retailers and calling Border names. They have a right to defend their reputation.
Wingnut Wings may not be spending any big money yet - the legal team may be working on a contingency basis.
No win , no pay .
Edit - I am uncertain of the status of WnW at this point .
Did they go into receivership/ bankruptcy or did they simply let the staff go and stop producing and stop paying their bills ? If they did legally go bust then does that effect their position on being able to sue ?
Again , a sad ending for an entity that took the modeling world by surprise with extremely high quality products and subjects that others wouldn’t touch and unique buy direct marketing.
I doubt very much if this is on a no win, no fee basis, given the money has to come out if a Chinese company that probably has very little cash. My understanding of WNW is that they laid off everyone but are not in either administration or bankruptcy. Some months ago they appeared to be trading- selling kits at an NZ airshow - and their website simply says they are “paused”.
I suspect WNW owners were somewhat taken by surprise that anybody was willing to step in and take on the Lancaster project given its size and cost. They may have believed they could safely ignore the mould maker as they had nobody to turn to.
First welcome Tim, I think that makes at least five of us now. I’d be surprised if Wingnut’s CADS were as full of errors as Border claims but whatever that’s one of their arguments i.e. they created something better. It seems Border bid for the original moulds alongside other companies in good faith so presumably any dispute (if Wingnuts still exists in Administration) ought to be solely with the mould manufacturer. While they claim they didn’t get paid for their work I still think it’s moot whether they had any legal right to auction off the moulds, unless they’d got clearance to do so from the Administrators on their behalf in order to recover the debt. Doesn’t sound like that happened, which appears to be Jackson’s position but if all the allegations are true he’s got some credibility issues. And probably no Court the Chinese will recognise.
Anyhow at somewhere between £450 & £800 a pop depending on which rumour turns out to be true, kit owners should be able to form a fairly exclusive little club.
Some background from last year about Wingnut’s demise…
Some sprue shots - speed through all the waffle…
As much as I admire Peter Jackson and his creative abilities, I just don’t see that he (or the defunct WNW) “owns” the potential scale model that would be produced from the molds or the molds, themselves.
He might as well claim ownership of the Lancaster design itself.
There are any number of examples of creative processes used to create tangible items which do not confer ownership or control of those items to the person or persons involved in the initial creative process. There are layers of separation from the individual, personal creative process and their ultimate use in manufacturing. As a corporate entity, WNW’s assets, including the products of the creative processes of its employees (who were, themselves, already paid for their efforts), are subject to sale by its creditors who may have possession of those assets to resolve WNW’s debts to them.
Furthermore, there is a long and well established industry practice whereby the molds for this or that scale model kit have been sold and resold with no concern or residual remuneration to the individual or individuals who originally did the research and designs that enabled those molds to be cut. Many model companies have gone out of business over the years resulting in sales of their assets to pay off their debts, and the molds they once owned are generally among the most important of these assets to be sold to resolve their debts. WNW is no different.
In short, PJ and WNW has defaulted on the debt to the company that cut the molds. The molds were certainly the assets which secured the contract between WNW and the mold cutting company, and possession, control and selling those assets to make good the defaulted debt is reasonable and legal. This is similar in concept to a bank repossessing a home or automobile in recompense for a defaulted loan on those assets. The car, the home and these molds are the collateral that secured the debt between the two parties.
PJ and WNW, no doubt still owns and retains custody of files cabinets (real and virtual) full of the intellectual property used to design and create those molds, but that has no practical implications with regard to the future production of any kits made from the molds. You might as well also say that the British government also has the same claim on any scale Lancaster model ever produced or ever to be produced.
I’m on the side of Border with this one. Sorry, PJ and WNW, but you no longer own the molds nor the rights to anything produced by the use of those molds. You defaulted on your debt, and the assets that secured that debt now belong to your creditor. Be glad that perhaps your creditor considers your debt resolved and paid with the sale of the molds to Border.
While I do like the subject, I don’t have the time, space, or money for it! (And no, the resulting divorce might give me the time, but losing the house would take away the space and money…) But I do find it interesting (in that horrific “watching a car crash unfold” kinda way) to see this spat played out publicly over social media. No doubt there will be lawyers sorting it out - and becoming the only real winners - but it may be ages before the rest of us find out the true ins and outs of the matter. What a strange new world we live in…
The only people that are going to make money from this are, as usual, the lawyers
Had to satisfy my curiosity, and googled Lancasters wingspan…… which is 31 meters… which means at 1:32 scale the model wingspan would be 97cm!!! what a monster!!! is there a market for such a large kit set!!! no wonder the tooling to produce is so expensive.
Holy Cow. I wasn’t ready for open warfare, but I’m now more likely than ever to buy one of these monsters.