|
|
Post by PennCentral on May 5, 2016 8:49:50 GMT -8
I'm honestly not trolling here, just curious. Does anyone actually care if a model train is officially licensed? Is it just advertising crap? I can't think of a single instance where I've ever thought to myself, "I'd really like to buy that covered hopper but it's not officially licensed. I guess I'll wait for another company to make one someday that is licensed...."
You know what the first thing that goes through my mind when I see "Officially Licensed"? NFL collector train set. Franklin Mint collectible garbage. "Gone with the Wind" Masterpiece Collectible Plates from the Bradford Exchange and all the other crap that is advertised during Matlock marathons on the old peoples channel. Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe I'm turning into Andy Rooney.
Jason C
Not sure I should give a crap, Indiana
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian on May 5, 2016 10:11:39 GMT -8
None of any of that. It is legal talk for copyright or trademark permission. No reason you should give a crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on May 5, 2016 10:14:04 GMT -8
I've never paid attention to it when buying trains. Seems more academic to me.
|
|
cvacr
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by cvacr on May 5, 2016 10:18:06 GMT -8
None of any of that. It is legal talk for copyright or trademark permission. No reason you should give a crap. Exactly. If it's NOT licensed, that might not make a difference to the buyer, but the *manufacturer* can find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit pretty quickly... |
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on May 5, 2016 10:45:24 GMT -8
Could this be a case where saying too much lowers the perceived value of a product in the eyes of a potential buyer?
I get what Jason is saying, many ads that contain the "Officially Licensed" claim are for products of questionable value. These ads are attempting to justify the (usually high) price of the item by giving it an air of authenticity. In fact I often wonder if the companies whose names are used really make the time to look at the quality of the products or are simply taking in some easy money.
Some railroads do still require payment of licensing fees but I don't think this necessarily adds any value in the advertising. I notice that some model manufacturers simply indicate with an asterisk and a small note at the bottom of the page which models had to be licensed.
With experience we know which manufacturers make good products so in the long run the words in an ad probably don't affect our purchase decision that much.
Perhaps it's an indication that there are a growing number of HO 'collectors' in today's market and they do respond to this kind of advertising.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on May 5, 2016 11:48:04 GMT -8
None of any of that. It is legal talk for copyright or trademark permission. No reason you should give a crap. Even though, legally, they are the same; there are two kinds of "officially licensed". There's the kind where the licensee believes there's money to be made in doing the licensing. This would be things like NFL licensing. The licensee hence demands significant money for the usage. Then there's the model railroad kind. It appears to have really started in our area of interest when UP thought they could make some money off their name. They found out pretty quickly that, not only is there no money in model railroading; but there IS a passle of possible negative PR. But there's another element. If an organization doesn't protect their trademark, there's a chance (usually slight) that they might lose control of it. That slight chance has BIG consequences, however. So, once UP dropped the profit-making element, they still were a little anxious about their trademark. Since model railroad manufacturers then didn't have to pony up significant money, they have agreed to the license. No real downside. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by stevewagner on May 5, 2016 11:56:58 GMT -8
In the past five or six academic years I've worked for, among other professors, an intellectual property lawyer who teaches a class called "Copyright and Trademark Litigation" at the law school where I work. From the standpoint of intellectual property owners, the shift of some once protected names such as Cellophane to being considered common nouns is a very negative development.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on May 5, 2016 12:10:10 GMT -8
It's better than "Exclusively Licensed." Otherwise, I'd rather see them promoting models based on actual field-checking. Licensing generally deals with corporate identities and trademarks. GATX has had no problems that I have heard about with previous Airslide models -- and this in a hobby where you readily hear about problems (including many that don't actually exist).
A couple of the nouveau manufacturers are starting to bug me.
|
|
|
|
Post by PennCentral on May 5, 2016 13:16:14 GMT -8
So it looks like most of you are understanding where I'm coming from on this. "Officially Licensed" doesn't necessarily make for a better model. I can't think of an example where Pullman Standard was ever harmed by any of the various 40' PS-1s scale models that have been produced starting with the Kurtz-Kraft through the Kadee and Intermountain versions today. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of those PS-1s were officially licensed.
I do understand from a trademark perspective, some manufacturers have been militant regarding trademark protection; Coke, John Deere, Ford, General Motors, UPS, and others. With these companies, it's not something new. They've been protecting their trademarks for decades. My greater concern is that one company will continue to push this to the point where things do become exclusive and they are able to shut out other companies. I'd rather see the various model makers compete on their ability to deliver an accurate model at a fair price point than to see artificial barriers like licensing become the deciding factor. A fairly recent example is the ExactRail and Walthers Evans 4780 covered hoppers. Both models have their strengths and weaknesses and the price points are close enough that it's up to the modeler to decide which is best for them. Or decide that they're both OK. Same goes for the 40' and 50' PS-1 boxcars. Kadee and Intermountain are both good models. Both have the strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, that's all I'm getting at. I hope all the players continue to compete on their abilities to produce good models and not resort to using the law to get ahead.
Jason C
No artificial barriers, Indiana
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on May 5, 2016 13:21:41 GMT -8
I can remember the old days when boxes said something to the effect "Scaled from 'Official' Railroad Blueprints." I always wondered for instance what Official Railrod provided blueprints for the Athearn F7.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on May 5, 2016 14:14:05 GMT -8
With something like a PS-1 or the Evans 4780, I don't see how the (real) builders can keep someone from modeling them. Trademark?? Nope. Copyright? They can copyright the plans, but you can scale off a real one. Patent? It's only a model--hardly "patent theft".
Now where it could get sticky is in the logo, railroad name, or even paint scheme. THAT is where UP (and other railroads) could and did get a little huffy.
So, as far as models of a particular, uh, model (SD70, fer example), we're in the clear, diversitywise.
Besides, WHY would Evans (or whoever) even bother to grant exclusive rights (if they could)? For money, right? And what model manufacturer has enough money to BUY those rights? Not to mention, said company had better believe that the "excess" profits they're going to make with the exclusive license is greater than the amount they paid for it. Right?
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by ambluco on May 5, 2016 14:55:59 GMT -8
I thought past lawsuits stopped all this "official" stuff? Model companies could use railroad heralds and such and not have to get permission anymore. I still see UP licensed with each month's new releases.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on May 5, 2016 15:21:02 GMT -8
I thought past lawsuits stopped all this "official" stuff? Model companies could use railroad heralds and such and not have to get permission anymore. I still see UP licensed with each month's new releases. I don't know about the UP but I am pretty sure that CSX still requires some sort of licensing agreement before a CSX [or predecessor railroad] model can be "officially licensed". In other cases [for example, GM], nothing can be officially licensed or produced in the likeness of their products] if it doesn't meet their requirements. As others said, I don't care whether an item is officially licensed or not as long as it is not costing me [as the consumer] extra money because the manufacturer has to pay a fee up front or send a certain amount of their revenue back to the railroad - especially if it is a "Fallen Flag". Being true to the prototype is far more important to me. James Bilbrey LaVergne, TN |
|
|
|
Post by Amboy Secondary on May 5, 2016 15:21:36 GMT -8
None of any of that. It is legal talk for copyright or trademark permission. No reason you should give a crap. Exactly. If it's NOT licensed, that might not make a difference to the buyer, but the *manufacturer* can find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit pretty quickly... And that affects me how? I suppose someone insists that license must be disclosed, but at my level, who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on May 5, 2016 19:29:08 GMT -8
It's simply a case of playing by the rules in terms of copyright and trademark stuff. Back in ye olden daze, most companies didn't give a hoot if Tyco or Bachmann was making locomotives with their logos on it. In the corporate world of today, whole different ballgame. Some companies don't care, others require basic licensing agreements, others like the Olympic IOC committee are anal-retentive about their 5 rings (requiring OMI to destroy unsold brass Olympic units after the licensing period was over. Also why we haven't seen proper CP Olympic GEVOs yet) and GM about their car likeness models (can't produce any GM cars smaller than xxxxx due to choking hazards). IIRC, there's a version of the Amtrak livery that Walthers has exclusive rights to. And, the Saskatchewan grain car organization blocked Intermountain and Walthers from releasing any of their current and upcoming cylindrical hoppers with the new SGCC livery because they have an exclusive agreement with PWRS/NARC for it.
Exclusive agreements and licensing are also handy for manufacturers at times. A company might go the extra mile and supply paint diagrams, stencils, and equipment blueprints for the model RR company to use in developing their licensed models.
It affects you indirectly in that if you want that Atlas or Athearn GP38-2 painted Seaboard or UP, Atlas and Athearn have to play by the rules or you don't get one. And if they don't, being the small companies that they are, they in all likelihood can't afford a long drawn-out court battle with the sharks, er, lawyers those large RR companies keep on retainer. They'd go under or close up shop, and no more of their toys for you.
TL;DR: You might not like it, but you're gonna have to live with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by selector on May 5, 2016 22:29:05 GMT -8
So it looks like most of you are understanding where I'm coming from on this. "Officially Licensed" doesn't necessarily make for a better model. I can't think of an example where Pullman Standard was ever harmed by any of the various 40' PS-1s scale models that have been produced starting with the Kurtz-Kraft through the Kadee and Intermountain versions today. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of those PS-1s were officially licensed. I do understand from a trademark perspective, some manufacturers have been militant regarding trademark protection; Coke, John Deere, Ford, General Motors, UPS, and others. With these companies, it's not something new. They've been protecting their trademarks for decades. My greater concern is that one company will continue to push this to the point where things do become exclusive and they are able to shut out other companies. I'd rather see the various model makers compete on their ability to deliver an accurate model at a fair price point than to see artificial barriers like licensing become the deciding factor. A fairly recent example is the ExactRail and Walthers Evans 4780 covered hoppers. Both models have their strengths and weaknesses and the price points are close enough that it's up to the modeler to decide which is best for them. Or decide that they're both OK. Same goes for the 40' and 50' PS-1 boxcars. Kadee and Intermountain are both good models. Both have the strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, that's all I'm getting at. I hope all the players continue to compete on their abilities to produce good models and not resort to using the law to get ahead. Jason C No artificial barriers, Indiana Think of it as one would the 'fair trade' problem. It's one of ethics. We want to do the right thing when it comes to buying coffee from Columbian workers....or do we? Similarly, do we want our hoppers to be legally sanctioned, with the actual company logo, by the company whose logo appears on our rolling stock? Would it/should it matter that the importer or seller of the rolling stock has honoured, and takes the trouble to seek permission to replicate, the copyright of a trademark? I don't know for a fact that the product is necessarily going to be better than unlicensed cars, but maybe the logo, itself, is going to be of better fidelity to the prototype's because those people had a look at it and their legal team agreed that it's a decent and reasonable facsimile reproduced with permission. |
|
Tom
Full Member
Posts: 229
|
Post by Tom on May 6, 2016 19:51:36 GMT -8
If you want a specific roadname, and it's not licensed, the manufacturer can and -probably will- get sued. That applies to just about every road name you can think of that has some extended branch of merger road still in existence.
In other cases, the model itself must be licensed in order to be produced. One of the most notable ones I can remember was/is the MP36/40. MPI placed an incredible number of inclusions and restrictions on the model (the cab doors have to open, the ribs on the engineers side aren't tall enough, paint is the wrong color, stripes aren't at the correct angle). If it wasn't approved and "licensed" it wasn't going to get produced. The full-scale manufacturer wouldn't allow it to be released unlicensed. If released, they sue for infringement of their intellectual property. Note there are no longer many transit agency cars available from Walthers?... SEPTA went nuts when they produced the Comet/Horizon cars.
Mica bitched about cheeseburger cost on Amtrak, and he'd raise just as large a stink if they gave away their intellectual property (logo reproduction, exclusive paint colors..yes, Lawyers like having jobs).
Usually it's a small percentage, but it is a percentage no less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on May 7, 2016 10:46:57 GMT -8
 Jason, its been rumored that people that fall asleep during Matlock Marathons never wake up again,so be carefull about what You watch. luckily we don't have a full time "Old Peoples" channel here,but several are trying. as to this other problem,just don't buy anything that's "Officially Licensed". does GE or U.P. own the rights to the Big Blow 1-30 Turbines ? U.P. ordered them,but GE designed and built them,so do both or neither have the lock on those new Models of them ? U.P. could have paid for all the GE Engineering Work and Blueprints after the units proved successful. may be just easier to keep on modeling and not worry about such things. Spikre 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 14:18:20 GMT -8
It also might help the designers get access to plans or "official blueprints" of the models-to-be...as I know first hand what a crap shoot it is to get information on a particular freight car from a source.
|
|
