Companies like Lockheed aren't spending their money trying to make the coolest designs- their research and development is all about how to make the best, fastest, most powerful, and most effecient machine for their clients. In many cases, the client is the US government.

I can understand how a company like Porsche would want to copyright or trademark a distinctive look of it's car, but does this same idea apply to the look of an F-22 fighter?

And taking that extension further, did Michael Bay have to license the design of the F-22 from Lockheed when he used actual F-22 fighters in Transformers? Or was he safe since he used fighter jets that were owned by the US government? Would his use of blowing them up "disparage" the F-22, which is the common complaint against allowing people to make their own models.

Did he have to get a license from Lockheed for Industrial Light and Magic to do their special effects work to transform Starscream into an F-22?
Though, in all likelihood, the F-22/ Starscream is probably covered under the license between Hasbo, the toy maker, and Lockheed.

Of course, this raises another point: how many licenses does Hasbro have in its "Transformers" line of toys? I know a lot of the later toys were officially licensed by GM and Chevrolet, but what about the earliest toys? Did Hasbro get licenses for a Transformer that turned into an an airplane that was obviously an F-15 or a car that was obviously a Porsche?
Or was Hasbro safe because this was 20 years before companies realized they could issue cease & desist orders to anyone making models that looked like their products.
So, is this where digital products are heading? Will digital model-makers need licenses just like Hasbro and Hot Wheels and Matchbox?

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions