Licensing Fee Compromise

[davekelly]

Hmmmm. Kinda like Chessie did with B&O, C&O and WM.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

It seems that folks here are pretty upset about companies wanting royalties on things. The companies want to license their stuff, in part, to make revenue. Is there a compromise that can be legislated that would solve the problem?

How about make licensing kinda like patents? Put a time limit of say 10 or 15 years on the thing. A trademark or product that has been out of active use for that time period would be open game. Those things within the time limit would have to be licensed or royalties paid. How would it work?

A B-17 would be considered public domain. An F-117 would not. Union Pacific would have to have a licence/royalty agreement, Pennsylvania Railroad would not nor would Southern Pacific in a few years. A Ford Explorer would be covered, Model T would not. Would something like this be acceptable?

Given that it would then cost a manufacturer more to produce say an SD90 than a SD9 manufacturers may then start concentrating on older equipment which may inturn cause the companies to realize that they are missing out on free advertising and reduce their licensing/royalty fees (A UP executive would not be able to give a large customer a model of UP's newest locomotive as a gift - lots of high level decisions are based on things as simple as this).

This could be win win for everyone. Am I nuts?

UP has already taken preemptive actions on this. I have seen a Rio Grande Center-flow hopper that has been repainted light gray and now has both of DRGW's logos. I have seen a photograph of a similar SSW hopper. I am sure there are or will be SP, WP, MP, etc cars out there. UP is not going going to give up the rights to those logos without a fight.

[davekelly]

San Diego Coaster,

That is a fantastic idea.

[Anonymous]

If I were GE or EMD, I'd grant modeling companies nonexclusive licenses for a particular model, in exchange I'd give them access to CAD drawings of the exterior of the locomotive. I think it would be a win for both sides, the manufacturers would get revenue they otherwise wouldn't and the model manufacturers could make incredibly detailed and accurate models limited only by current manufacturing techniques. I would not, however, demand royalties from companies who decline to participate.

[Anonymous]

Dave:

I gave you the wrong address for his webb site, it is a dot org and not dot com.

Are you watching this high school football game??


Have a good day
Bob

[davekelly]

Bob,

I haven't checked my email in like forever. Gonna give him a call this week. Thanks for the contact! Hmmmm lawyer and pastor getting together? Scary thought! lol

Dave

[Anonymous]

Dave;

Did you get in touch with Bob? I never heard from you.

Bob

[davekelly]

I didn't know the law was settled concerning the making of models of actual vehicles, structures etc. So that I can make an informed opinion of the licensing fee thing could you provide the USC citation concerning trademark protection of trade names, designs etc. and I'll check out the statute and caselaw surrounding it so I can make more intelligent posts/threads.

[jsoderq]

First the laws are already in place and clearly articulated. Trademark rights do not expire with time but by actions of the company owning them. PRR/NYC belong to an insurance company. NYC Historical group has permission to use the trademarks for no fee. Same is true of some other roads. Once again, please do some research before posting your opinions.

[dehusman]

Airplane manufacturers have licences their designs, so if you are a maker you have to pay a royalty to Boeing to make a B-17.

The comparison would be if Athearn wants to make a UP Greenville 100 ton boxcar then they would have to pay Greenville a royalty to copy their boxcar and pay UP a royalty to use ther logos.

So far railway equipment manufacturers have not tried to license their equipment. Yet.

Dave H.

[davekelly]

Dave,

Good point. It wouldn't solve the UP situation, but it would allow folks to use B&O, PRR, and in a few years SP free of royalties. Of course I can picture a situation where UP would then lower its fees. Imagine a UP executive wandering a hobbyshop looking for Pinewood Derby ideas for his son. He sees some trainstuff and wants to show off to his kid and says "see this engine - that's the railroad that I run." The kid says "Dad, why is it more expensive than the others?" The LHS owner, not hearing the first part of the conversation says "Because the folks that run UP are jerks." How much says the topic would be discussed at the next big wig meeting. I've seen executive decisions based on much less than that lol.

Dave, while I understand that the issue in our hobby is road name, in other hobbies it seems to be the vehicle itself.

[davekelly]

It seems that folks here are pretty upset about companies wanting royalties on things. The companies want to license their stuff, in part, to make revenue. Is there a compromise that can be legislated that would solve the problem?

How about make licensing kinda like patents? Put a time limit of say 10 or 15 years on the thing. A trademark or product that has been out of active use for that time period would be open game. Those things within the time limit would have to be licensed or royalties paid. How would it work?

A B-17 would be considered public domain. An F-117 would not. Union Pacific would have to have a licence/royalty agreement, Pennsylvania Railroad would not nor would Southern Pacific in a few years. A Ford Explorer would be covered, Model T would not. Would something like this be acceptable?

Given that it would then cost a manufacturer more to produce say an SD90 than a SD9 manufacturers may then start concentrating on older equipment which may inturn cause the companies to realize that they are missing out on free advertising and reduce their licensing/royalty fees (A UP executive would not be able to give a large customer a model of UP's newest locomotive as a gift - lots of high level decisions are based on things as simple as this).

This could be win win for everyone. Am I nuts?