Union Pacific's cut!!

[Anonymous]

Just my 3% here, but if UP does go through with their planed charge here, could this work something like government taxes? Once they are able to charge, they will be able to raise the amount that the want to charge? Could the amount reach and surpass 10% in a few years? Sounds incredulous, but then again, 30 years ago who would have thought that whole cities would be trying to ban cigarette smoking outside? I seem to remember it was a few weeks ago that England is trying to ban smoking from inside its country! It started with banning smokers from short flights in airplanes. My point here is once something starts, where will it end?

[eastcoast]

If U P is doing this now, WHO is to follow ?
More than likely, C S X will do this too. And
some others who want their greedy hands
into everything, Don't these corporations make
enough money ?? I was under the impression
that the rail roads were already getting a commission
for use of logos.
If U P wants to take this stand, I will not buy any more
of their cars. And since I model eastern roads anyway,
I have no reason to have U P on my layout.

[msprater]

It doesn't matter if the UP can, legally, or not. It is a bad precedent to have set and possibly followed by other railroads (or modeling subject entities). See my other forum message, germane to this, posted earlier.

[Anonymous]

I would not worry so much. I feel Union Pacific wants a piece of the model train world. While I don't fully agree with this, All I can say is: Welcome to the world of greed!

The Music Industry is a classic example of this. There's the RIAA, and Radio stations have to pay "Royalties" Just to play music. And coming around to $20 a CD, No wonder "File Sharing" is so popular. Illigal, mind you, but popular.

Remember to do some math: No matter if it's 3 of 5%, It's ONLY 5.00 OUT OF EVERY $100! (using 5%) That comes down to only $1.00 out of $20.00 (Again, 5%)

and these fees don't apply to trades, used stock, or second-hand sales.

[Anonymous]

Every one is at least partially correct. Just blame it on the UP management. Those are the 'greedy folks'.

Here is one way to handle the problem so that we, the consumer do not get "screwed again". Have the manufacturers supply sales data for each item they sell of each railroad name. They would then pay 2-5% of what "the profits were for each item sold". In other words, if they made $1.00, they would have to pay 2-5 cents for each one sold. Raising the prices to "increase profits, while blaming the copywrite deal, would not be beneficial. This might give them second thoughts on just 'jacking up the prices'.

It would be very difficult to enforce, so very unlikely to happen. After all UP needn't tell anyone but their stock holders what their profit margin is.

It does make you wonder, though. UP (management side) has always been a GREEDY unfriendly, self-centered group. But they must be 'hurting for cash' to spend the amount of money they will spend to 'pu***his deal through' for the amount cash returns they will get on it. It almost sounds like a company 'grasping for straws' to survive. But, then millionare athletes charge $10 for an autograph because "dealers" (I and I despise those 'sports dealers') made money on those autographs in the past (still do). So why can't UP make 'side money' on their name? Anyone heard of anything similar from the BNSF group, yet?

Interesting topic for discussion. Allows us all to 'vent some of our frustrations.

If you enjoy model railroading and/or railfanning, you have to have some opionion or feeling on this topic. There is no "real right answer' or "right opinion".

Here's a topic that would be interesting:

What can we all do, manufactures included, to increase the level of new and younger folks participating in the model railroading hobby. As per most of the age surveys, the average age is 40-50 years. The older folks (60 and over) are dwindling in percentage, but many of them are modeling in the 'hereafter'. The big concern is the 20-30 year age goup. It represents a very small percentage, definately not enought to replace the 40-50 year folks as they tranverse into the 60-70 (and "hereafter") group. Model railroading, today, utilizes computers and electronics and many sophisticated devices. They aren't "just toys" anymore. What will it take to interest the "younger group". These younger folks could be very benifical to the hobby, providing fresh ideas. The hobby could also present that 'free time' recreation necessary to help keep some of them out of trouble. It also can provide a means for the 'generations' to collaborate and work together on common goals. I know of two problems. Cost and "potential lawsuit' age we live in. No longer can people 'railfan' the way they did in the old days. Companies, like UP (especially), seem to make extra efforts to keep people away from their stuff (no pictures, policing the the Tehachappi Loop area, etc). Potential lawsuits due to liability issues have created much of those problems, but some are still just reflections of the 'unfriendly' attitudes of upper railroad management (like UP). Railroad employees (not upper management), though, are often quite friendly and courteous. Many of us became interested in modeling trains through are expereinces with railroads, either as rail fans or railroad employees.

A discussion on how we might remedy some of these things and (hopefully) improve the hobby would be interesting.

[ddechamp71]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

WOW, As announced yesterday on CBS news by Dan Rather, Union Pacific is thinking they should receive a commission on the use/sale of their name, color scheme and the names and color schemes of their merger partners on all model railroad/toy train pieces of equipment!

This means an additional cost would be added by the manufacture to
every item they sell which has Union Pacific and all U.P. merger partners. This includes to my limited knowledge; Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Cotton belt, C&NW, D&RGW, Western Pacific, etc., etc.

Are you O.K. with this?

Personally, I feel you should receive something, when you pay
for something. What will you get by paying a commission to U.P.? If anything, U.P. should be flattered by the fact people build models of their RR. These modelers are advertising for the Union Pacific and probably should be receiving a commission for their hard work! Also, if the use of their (U.P.’s) name by model railroaders has been a sore point, why has it taken 100 years of model railroading for them to make this an issue? Why didn’t the U.P. folks back in the classic toy train era feel they deserved a commission?

This idea is extremely ill conceived and (I feel) very bad publicity for the UNION
PACIFIC!

I DO agree: very bad advertisement. The risk is that nothing wearing UP paintscheme will run again on any layout......I have some UP models, but I don't want to pay more only for having right to use UP logo. If this becomes effective, I'll stick with AT&SF, BN, BNSF models.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ddechamp71

I DO agree: very bad advertisement. The risk is that nothing wearing UP paintscheme will run again on any layout......I have some UP models, but I don't want to pay more only for having right to use UP logo. If this becomes effective, I'll stick with AT&SF, BN, BNSF models.

...and it will have exactly NO impact on UP's business. which is why it doesn't matter to them if you "advertise" for them.

[vsmith]

UP does have a right to protect thier logo and ask a license fee, I dont have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is that are asking for ALOT of money, and that they also want money on top of thier own logo for fallen flag logos that havent been in existance for many, many years.

Thats just plain GREED, pure and simple. Whats next? no more Western & Atlantic Cival War models?

[Anonymous]

I was watching the movie "The Pledge" with Jack Nicholson yesterday and in it a train rolled by with a UP engine on the headend. Guess what? Some letters were missing so it wouldn't spell 'UNION PACIFIC'. Is this the movie industy's way of getting around payment?

[Anonymous]

You forget, some of the names and logos absorbed by Uncle Pete are considered abandoned the SN comes to mind. Once abandoned for a period of, the UP no longer has rights to the name and logo. It has become public domain.
Ch

[dehusman]

"You forget, some of the names and logos absorbed by Uncle Pete are considered abandoned the SN comes to mind. Once abandoned for a period of, the UP no longer has rights to the name and logo. It has become public domain. "

The existence of the physical railroad has nothing to do with it. The ballast and ties don't own the rights to the name, the corporation does. If the UP bought the company that bought the company that bought the company that bought the SN, then the UP "owns" the SN. They don't have to have a single foot of track in existance.

Its not in the public domain. Its owned by the UP.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

My reason for bringing this subject up, was to draw attention to these issues. This media and writing letters to the modeling press are methods we Model Railroaders can use to network in opposition to issues we feel important.

I owned a manufacturing business for 25 years. My opinion of how I would handle this
action by Uncle Pete would be to pass the cost of the required manufacturing licensing
fees on to the customer, or, quit painting product which would require their licensing
fees. If I chose licensing, I would likely pass the increase on to all customers across the board, as to do otherwise might be a book keeping hassle.

I have never been of the opinion that U.P. didn’t have the right to do what they are doing!
However, I am of the opinion they are ill advised in doing so! I also feel, ACL FAN is
correct in his assertion that U.P. doesn’t care what we think, or do. So, the question is,
do you want to support U.P.

One other thing, If you feel these issues are taking up to much of your precious time, why are you reading this? I strongly feel we need to be Courteous to each other on this media! We’re suppose to be people of like interests![soapbox]

[Anonymous]

From an attorney's point of view, I have to agree that (1) UP has every right to pursue this course of action, and (2) the value to UP of any real or imagined (and wholely unsolicited) "advertising" by way of model railroading is miniscule at best.

So long as the prices do not increase dramatically (which, from what I have gathered from previous posts, the increases are not going to be noticeable), I don't think anyone should complain.

[Jetrock]

My question is--when did Jack Valenti start doing PR for Union Pacific?

Okay, so technically they have the right to do what they want with their trademark. But there's a difference between legal right and the right thing to do. There's a difference between the letter of the law and justice. Copyright law in this country is very much at odds with reality--it attempts to put artificial fences around ideas in order to maximize profit for the owner, but often has a deleterious effect on the market when applied in a fashion intended to maximize control rather than spreading ideas.

Ideas seem to want to spread.

Example given: The biggest single year of sales for compact discs in this country was the year before Napster was shut down, when trading of MP3's was at its height. I consider this to be no coincidence--trading of MP3's on an ad-hoc basis served as what may have been the most effective possible marketing strategy for advertising MP3's. But because this marketing was beyond the control of record companies, they attempted to suppress it, using some very heavy-handed tactics--and the end result, over the course of several years, has been a rapid drop in the sale of compact discs, because of the suppression of this highly effective marketing technique and negative public image as a result of their aggressive pursuit of control of the medium.

All this is within the letter of the law in terms of copyright control--but it has only harmed the music business, not hepled it!

UP's pursuit of copyright control is no different. They are acting within their right to protect their copyright, by the letter of current copyright law--but their action is having a negative effect and will end up costing them money and negative publicity as a result of their attempt to control ideas.

Suppression and control of ideas is a losing proposition. Even if it's the law, that doesn't mean the law is right.

[Anonymous]

How about 1 share of their stock per item you purchase?
-Dale

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

My question is--when did Jack Valenti start doing PR for Union Pacific?

Okay, so technically they have the right to do what they want with their trademark. But there's a difference between legal right and the right thing to do. There's a difference between the letter of the law and justice. Copyright law in this country is very much at odds with reality--it attempts to put artificial fences around ideas in order to maximize profit for the owner, but often has a deleterious effect on the market when applied in a fashion intended to maximize control rather than spreading ideas.

Ideas seem to want to spread.

Example given: The biggest single year of sales for compact discs in this country was the year before Napster was shut down, when trading of MP3's was at its height. I consider this to be no coincidence--trading of MP3's on an ad-hoc basis served as what may have been the most effective possible marketing strategy for advertising MP3's. But because this marketing was beyond the control of record companies, they attempted to suppress it, using some very heavy-handed tactics--and the end result, over the course of several years, has been a rapid drop in the sale of compact discs, because of the .

All this is within the letter of the law in terms of copyright control--but it has only harmed the music business, not hepled it!

UP's pursuit of copyright control is no different. They are acting within their right to protect their copyright, by the letter of current copyright law--but their action is having a negative effect and will end up costing them money and negative publicity as a result of their attempt to control ideas.

Suppression and control of ideas is a losing proposition. Even if it's the law, that doesn't mean the law is right.

Yours is the attitude most people have until it is their copyright that is being infringed. Then their attitude changes...

CD sales have not declined due to "suppression of this highly effective marketing technique" and "negative public image." People are still buying music of artists they really love. They are not refusing to buy because of the "notorious record companies." When is the last time you really heard someone say something to the effect of, "well, I'd really love to buy that new CD that my favorite artist has put out, but I'll be darned if I'm gonna give in to those big greedy record companies!" Not. If anything, CD sales have most likely declined because it's a lot easier and cheaper to download it. Also, more and more people are going to purely electronic formats such as mp3 download (legitimate ones such as iTunes) and using mp3 players. Also, don't forget eBay and Half.com, which most likely are not included in any sales figures you might see. I almost never buy a brand-spankin' new $15-$18 CD anymore. I get all of my CD music from eBay or Half.com. Why pay full retail when you can get a like-new copy for half price?

I don't see your point with this whole "suppression of ideas" argument. This situation is really, really simple: UP has a copyrighted, trademarked logo, color scheme, etc. Manufacturers are using it without permission to make a profit. Very simple. It's a simple logo, not an "idea." You make it sound as if UP has discovered some clean, free energy source that they are hoarding away from the rest of the world. Please.

Don't get me wrong, I despise corporate greed and, in fact, it is corporate America that, in my opinion, is ruining this country with its blatant greed (e.g. enron, worldcom), "outsourcing" and "restructuring" to foreign countries (i.e. the "jobless" recovery), lobbying for restrictions on the legal system (i.e. tort reform), etc. Corporate America stinks. Badly. But in this case, UP is correct.

[BRAKIE]

Guys,There isn't to much we an do about this nor can the media..All the media can do is report the story..Get right down to it why should the general public be concern when it doesn't really concern them? After all its just toy trains to them and who really cares a cat's meow about toy trains when they don't buy them? So here is another topic on the UP that can't hurt the UP or change anything...
Now lets just hope the other railroads including short lines doesn't get in on the licensing fees.

[Anonymous]

In My Own Humble Opinion If the U.P. wants to charge the Manufactures for the use of their Logos, why didn't they do this years ago and since it is used in the common domain what right has the U.P. to now try control the use of the name and colors? Also how soon till the other Railroads jump on the band wagon and charge for any mainline road name and colors? The U.P. seems to be another Greedy Corp. trying to make Money at the cost of the little guy........again. And for those who say it is only a few dollars, how long till they jack up the price because they can! I remember when gas was only .65 cents a gallon and now the price is $1.75 a gallon. I seem to see a corellation there! I seem to remember A.C. Gilbert having some problems with some of the railroads and useing their logo's during his reign with American Flyer. If you support them then you can pay for the use of the name. I'm not!! even if that means finding another hobby!!!

[brothaslide]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pugeasy

. . . If you support them then you can pay for the use of the name. I'm not!! even if that means finding another hobby!!!

If the licensing made the hobby cost prohibited, I would start freelancing. Instead of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific, it would be the Southern Atlantic and the Union Atlantic.

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chadnark
Yours is the attitude most people have until it is their copyright that is being infringed. Then their attitude changes...

Not really--as a musician with published music, I certainly don't mind hearing about people swapping copies of my songs--as long as they aren't republishing them as their own work, which model companies (and online music swappers) are not doing.

QUOTE:
CD sales have not declined due to "suppression of this highly effective marketing technique" and "negative public image." People are still buying music of artists they really love. They are not refusing to buy because of the "notorious record companies." When is the last time you really heard someone say something to the effect of, "well, I'd really love to buy that new CD that my favorite artist has put out, but I'll be darned if I'm gonna give in to those big greedy record companies!"

Actually, I have seen people turning away from big music companies to smaller, independent labels which aren't part of the whole anti-MP3 movement, although this may be due to the fact that most of today's corporate music is garbage and there is an upswing in the quality of small-level underground music--who are able to get their music heard despite their lack of access to big-store distribution and top-40 airplay via online distribution of MP3's, Internet radio stations, and all those other forms of information dissemination that the big companies are trying to squash.

QUOTE:
If anything, CD sales have most likely declined because it's a lot easier and cheaper to download it. Also, more and more people are going to purely electronic formats such as mp3 download (legitimate ones such as iTunes) and using mp3 players. Also, don't forget eBay and Half.com, which most likely are not included in any sales figures you might see. I almost never buy a brand-spankin' new $15-$18 CD anymore. I get all of my CD music from eBay or Half.com. Why pay full retail when you can get a like-new copy for half price?

I don't buy the first part of this--I've bought quite a few albums because I heard an MP3 I liked. One thing nobody talks about is that the sound quality of an MP3 is typically not as good as a CD. Record companies screamed bloody murder when cassette tapes came out too, and declared that the record industry would go out of business if cassette taping was not eliminated, or at least that cassettes were taxed and the money given to the record companies. Somehow they survived. They'll survive MP3's too, if, of course, they stop selling lame garbage.

As to buying used music, as ludicrous as it may sound, record companies want to ban that too. It's ridiculous--I wonder if UP wants to charge people for selling used SP boxcars at train shows?

QUOTE:
I don't see your point with this whole "suppression of ideas" argument. This situation is really, really simple: UP has a copyrighted, trademarked logo, color scheme, etc. Manufacturers are using it without permission to make a profit. Very simple. It's a simple logo, not an "idea." You make it sound as if UP has discovered some clean, free energy source that they are hoarding away from the rest of the world. Please.

Don't get me wrong, I despise corporate greed and, in fact, it is corporate America that, in my opinion, is ruining this country with its blatant greed (e.g. enron, worldcom), "outsourcing" and "restructuring" to foreign countries (i.e. the "jobless" recovery), lobbying for restrictions on the legal system (i.e. tort reform), etc. Corporate America stinks. Badly. But in this case, UP is correct.

Correct in the eyes of the law--but is it right? Allowing modelers to sell UP (and WP and SP etcetera) branded models costs UP nothing, benefits consumers, and shares goodwill. The copyright fee costs UP a great deal of money more than it takes in, hurts consumers, and generates ill will. Regardless of its correctness, it affects all parties in a negative fashion, while the previous state of affairs (which somehow seemed to work fine without disastrous consequences for the first 75 or so years of model railroading's history) hurt no one.