future of model railroading vs. greed

[Anonymous]

Up will be knowen as the "Enron of America raildoads"
Jay

[Anonymous]

Up will be knowen as the "Enron of America raildoads"
Jay

[csxns]

Get all your Union Pacific stuff now.Buy all you can get a hold of.

[csxns]

Get all your Union Pacific stuff now.Buy all you can get a hold of.

[Anonymous]

Y'all need to relax.

The hobby is not "ending."

UP is not the railroad of the devil. The company does not "thrive" on being bad or "messing things up" for other railroads. Remember, the goal of every company is to put its competition out of business.

Copyright and trademark law is very clear.

If UP (or any other railroad) wishes to enforce its legal rights, they will make money by charging a licensing fee to manufacturers. This would be much more in line with a business philosophy than simply keeping companies from using their trademark. And, as pointed out above, there are companies already enforcing their rights by charging a licensing fee for use of their name and logo.

Relax. This hobby is fine. It's not going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Y'all need to relax.

The hobby is not "ending."

UP is not the railroad of the devil. The company does not "thrive" on being bad or "messing things up" for other railroads. Remember, the goal of every company is to put its competition out of business.

Copyright and trademark law is very clear.

If UP (or any other railroad) wishes to enforce its legal rights, they will make money by charging a licensing fee to manufacturers. This would be much more in line with a business philosophy than simply keeping companies from using their trademark. And, as pointed out above, there are companies already enforcing their rights by charging a licensing fee for use of their name and logo.

Relax. This hobby is fine. It's not going anywhere.

[Javern]

whatever...if this happens I'll make up my own roadnames and engines..regardless the hobby for me anyway will continue

[Javern]

whatever...if this happens I'll make up my own roadnames and engines..regardless the hobby for me anyway will continue

[Anonymous]

I have followed this thread and feel that I must put in my two cents. There will always be people running model trains. period.

I would not worry too much about copyright laws etc. I am modeling some industries that happen to reflect real life businesses and I dont expect the "Trademark Police" to raid my house. As long as you buy your products in a hobby shop or make your own there should be no problem.

I think at one time companies enjoyed the exposure by the hobby via use of brands etc. I suspect the Union Pacific and other companies simply are defending their rights. So relax and enjoy the hobby, it has been about for a long time and will continue to be around.

Lee

[Anonymous]

I have followed this thread and feel that I must put in my two cents. There will always be people running model trains. period.

I would not worry too much about copyright laws etc. I am modeling some industries that happen to reflect real life businesses and I dont expect the "Trademark Police" to raid my house. As long as you buy your products in a hobby shop or make your own there should be no problem.

I think at one time companies enjoyed the exposure by the hobby via use of brands etc. I suspect the Union Pacific and other companies simply are defending their rights. So relax and enjoy the hobby, it has been about for a long time and will continue to be around.

Lee

[Jacktal]

I don't believe that a company like Union Pacific,Conrail,Amtrak and all the other railroad companies could have any interest in stopping model trains manufacturers from using their logos.On the other hand they want to have their say so on who uses it and for what purpose,which is normal since their logos are their property

By licensing the use of their names,these companies would require that a potential user would ask permission to do so,thus having a control on what happens with their logos.Could they favor a model manufacturer this way by selling the rights to the best offer?I believe it's possible but don't think they really care about that although it would be the way business goes in general.

It could indeed create havoc in the model railroading industry by raising the costs somewhat but even worse,it would substantially reduce model selection as many road names would simply disappear.Hopefully,this will not happen as I believe that these companies simply want to protect their names and won't turn this in an other way to increase their profits,they don't need that.And they don't need the bad publicity either.

[Jacktal]

I don't believe that a company like Union Pacific,Conrail,Amtrak and all the other railroad companies could have any interest in stopping model trains manufacturers from using their logos.On the other hand they want to have their say so on who uses it and for what purpose,which is normal since their logos are their property

By licensing the use of their names,these companies would require that a potential user would ask permission to do so,thus having a control on what happens with their logos.Could they favor a model manufacturer this way by selling the rights to the best offer?I believe it's possible but don't think they really care about that although it would be the way business goes in general.

It could indeed create havoc in the model railroading industry by raising the costs somewhat but even worse,it would substantially reduce model selection as many road names would simply disappear.Hopefully,this will not happen as I believe that these companies simply want to protect their names and won't turn this in an other way to increase their profits,they don't need that.And they don't need the bad publicity either.

[Anonymous]

Lets get Athern to paint up a locomotive really great with the UP logo on it. Then if UP wants to use the paint scheme, Athern charges them a licensing fee for using it. Really, we could even help by submitting paint schemes to Athern to use for free. It'll give UP a taste of their own medicine, or shall we say bitters.[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Lets get Athern to paint up a locomotive really great with the UP logo on it. Then if UP wants to use the paint scheme, Athern charges them a licensing fee for using it. Really, we could even help by submitting paint schemes to Athern to use for free. It'll give UP a taste of their own medicine, or shall we say bitters.[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Although copyright laws have been around for a long time the Millenium Copyright Act does put a different complexion on things. The RIAA and the entertainment industry are responsible for this and it seems the intent was to enable cheap prosecution of evil wicked downloading pirates, Now anyone can cheaply pursue protection of their intellectual property and of course the corporate lawyers are jumping on to this one big time. Using the spammers creed if they sue enough people they will recover sufficient awards to make it worthwhile even after the lawyers fees and the lawyers are telling them this is free money. As the people getting sued are outside of the company's customer base they are considered inconsequential.

The Act has been around for about 5 years now and it's popularity is starting to catch on. The backlash is in the problems with many of the names that everyone thought were public domain that can now be succesfully prosecuted. The French wine industry is making class action noises about the use of their Provincial names being employed outside of the provincial boundaries. Bordeaux style wine will not be cause for exemption any more than UP style locomotive. The Italians and Germans have also made similar noises. There is a little town in England that invented a quite popular and easily produced cheese that caught on quite well. That town could own most of the western world, it's name...Cheddar.

One interesting thing about the Act is that it doesn't exclude common carriers. You may never be able to sue the Post Office because you didn't like your mail but Internet Service Providers have been succesfully prosecuted if found to be aware of and allow unlawful use of their service. There is a little village in Alberta Canada that might be upset if they discovered that UP had ever issued a waybill with the word "Anthracite" capitalised and therefore infringing?

Personally I think the UP colour scheme leaves a lot to be desired so I don't have any UP logos.

[Anonymous]

Although copyright laws have been around for a long time the Millenium Copyright Act does put a different complexion on things. The RIAA and the entertainment industry are responsible for this and it seems the intent was to enable cheap prosecution of evil wicked downloading pirates, Now anyone can cheaply pursue protection of their intellectual property and of course the corporate lawyers are jumping on to this one big time. Using the spammers creed if they sue enough people they will recover sufficient awards to make it worthwhile even after the lawyers fees and the lawyers are telling them this is free money. As the people getting sued are outside of the company's customer base they are considered inconsequential.

The Act has been around for about 5 years now and it's popularity is starting to catch on. The backlash is in the problems with many of the names that everyone thought were public domain that can now be succesfully prosecuted. The French wine industry is making class action noises about the use of their Provincial names being employed outside of the provincial boundaries. Bordeaux style wine will not be cause for exemption any more than UP style locomotive. The Italians and Germans have also made similar noises. There is a little town in England that invented a quite popular and easily produced cheese that caught on quite well. That town could own most of the western world, it's name...Cheddar.

One interesting thing about the Act is that it doesn't exclude common carriers. You may never be able to sue the Post Office because you didn't like your mail but Internet Service Providers have been succesfully prosecuted if found to be aware of and allow unlawful use of their service. There is a little village in Alberta Canada that might be upset if they discovered that UP had ever issued a waybill with the word "Anthracite" capitalised and therefore infringing?

Personally I think the UP colour scheme leaves a lot to be desired so I don't have any UP logos.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by flee307

One last note on trademarks and copyrights. You know these require you file them with the Federal Gov and pay them a fee for their service. Just because you know how to write the html code for copyright and post it on you webpages don't make it so. Most things on the web that claim to be copyrighted aren't and a case can be made that they are in reality in public domain. They are still protected as intellectual property, but that's harder to prove. I see lots of websites that say copyrighted that have others intellectual property on them as buttons and/or pictures. Makes me LOL. On another subject, I read where microsoft was sueing a company for all the profits made from the illegal use of their operating system. They had a site licences for 50 and had like 100 computers using it. This invalidated the use licences, so all profits made by the company for like 15 years will most likely be awarded to Microsoft by Federal Court. Then people accuse UP of greed?

Unfortunately, while you are laughing out loud you also are showing something of a lack of knowledge of copyright law. No insult is intended - this is a complex subject that I learned something about only by having copyrighted material of my own infringed upon.

You file with the feds for a registered copyright. That gives you the right to collect money from an infringer even if there is no monetary damage as a result of the infringement. An unregistered copyright is automatically obtained by simply stating that the material is copyrighted. You can still enfoce the copyright in court, but you can only collect money for any actual damages you can prove. Depending on the situation, the copyright statement doesn't always even have to be explicit - it may be inferred from the work itself.

A separate point to ponder -

Do the manufacturer's licenses to use UP's trademarks extend to the person who puts up a website about their layout, and on it displays photos of their UP-licensed equipment? Or do THEY need permission from UP as well? A few years ago Viacom / Paramount went after all the Star Trek fan web sites for infringement. Will we see this next?

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by flee307

One last note on trademarks and copyrights. You know these require you file them with the Federal Gov and pay them a fee for their service. Just because you know how to write the html code for copyright and post it on you webpages don't make it so. Most things on the web that claim to be copyrighted aren't and a case can be made that they are in reality in public domain. They are still protected as intellectual property, but that's harder to prove. I see lots of websites that say copyrighted that have others intellectual property on them as buttons and/or pictures. Makes me LOL. On another subject, I read where microsoft was sueing a company for all the profits made from the illegal use of their operating system. They had a site licences for 50 and had like 100 computers using it. This invalidated the use licences, so all profits made by the company for like 15 years will most likely be awarded to Microsoft by Federal Court. Then people accuse UP of greed?

Unfortunately, while you are laughing out loud you also are showing something of a lack of knowledge of copyright law. No insult is intended - this is a complex subject that I learned something about only by having copyrighted material of my own infringed upon.

You file with the feds for a registered copyright. That gives you the right to collect money from an infringer even if there is no monetary damage as a result of the infringement. An unregistered copyright is automatically obtained by simply stating that the material is copyrighted. You can still enfoce the copyright in court, but you can only collect money for any actual damages you can prove. Depending on the situation, the copyright statement doesn't always even have to be explicit - it may be inferred from the work itself.

A separate point to ponder -

Do the manufacturer's licenses to use UP's trademarks extend to the person who puts up a website about their layout, and on it displays photos of their UP-licensed equipment? Or do THEY need permission from UP as well? A few years ago Viacom / Paramount went after all the Star Trek fan web sites for infringement. Will we see this next?

[Anonymous]

No insult taken Brunton, but where are you getting this info on unregistered copyright? I gooled it and found nothing to really support your statement " An unregistered copyright is automatically obtained by simply stating that the material is copyrighted." Could you please post a link to an official site supporting this claim along with how you could unregistered copyright a web page that has other peoples property on it? Thanks...FRED

[Anonymous]

No insult taken Brunton, but where are you getting this info on unregistered copyright? I gooled it and found nothing to really support your statement " An unregistered copyright is automatically obtained by simply stating that the material is copyrighted." Could you please post a link to an official site supporting this claim along with how you could unregistered copyright a web page that has other peoples property on it? Thanks...FRED

[Pruitt]

Hi Fred,

Try this link:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

(It's part of the Library of Congress website).

The section titled "How to Secure Copyright" is the basis of our discussion here, I think.

Exactly how all this applies to a website I'm not sure - I read somewhere that it does apply, but exactly how may still be undecided in the courts.

As far as copyrighting something that contains other's property - you've probably seen something that says something like "...copyright 2001 except those items otherwise copyrighted by their respective owners." That doesn't get you off the hook as far as obtaining permission to use their material, but it does plug the legal argument that your copyright is invalid because parts of your content are already copyrighted by others. At least, that how one copyright lawyer explained it to me. His answer might have been an oversimplification to a layman (me).

That's all I know about it - certainly not too much. That Library of Congress link contains lots of info, though.

[Pruitt]

Hi Fred,

Try this link:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

(It's part of the Library of Congress website).

The section titled "How to Secure Copyright" is the basis of our discussion here, I think.

Exactly how all this applies to a website I'm not sure - I read somewhere that it does apply, but exactly how may still be undecided in the courts.

As far as copyrighting something that contains other's property - you've probably seen something that says something like "...copyright 2001 except those items otherwise copyrighted by their respective owners." That doesn't get you off the hook as far as obtaining permission to use their material, but it does plug the legal argument that your copyright is invalid because parts of your content are already copyrighted by others. At least, that how one copyright lawyer explained it to me. His answer might have been an oversimplification to a layman (me).

That's all I know about it - certainly not too much. That Library of Congress link contains lots of info, though.