Another Lawsuit -- We need a commemorative Litigation Train

[dbaker48]

With yet another Lawsuit, (AmbroseBauer Trains vs TCA), who is going to come out with a Litigation Train?  Is the term Litigation train copyrightable?

 

Copied from another forum:

On September 17, 2007, Ambrose filed a summons and complaint (the document that starts a lawsuit)in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Penslyvainia. The 46 page complaint accuses the TCA and its Eastern Divison of copyright infringment by promoting model train author David Doyle as an authority and expert on model trains and profiting from it with regard to the sales of the book, "Standard Catalog of Lionel Train Sets 1945-1969", by allowing him to do book signings etc. Specifically, the papers claim the value of the promotion given to Doyle by the TCA and its Eastern Division "was substantially greater than $20,000."

Bob Keller -  

If you desire, please feel free to delete this thread! seriously !  (Iam reporting abuse on my own thread).

[Bob Keller]

Hey, I don't have a dog in the fight and I'm not sure that this has come up here before.

Keep it clean, don't hit below the belt, etc etc etc.

[Buckeye Riveter]

Who or what is an Ambrose?

[dbaker48]

Buckeye -

Just to make it convient, I copied the below paragraphs from OGR, more detail available there. Bottom line, issue regarding David Doyles books.  There is question regarding the material he published.   Other threads were being addressed earlier this spring on that lawsuit.  I believe this is a lawsuit, to prevent Doyle at York, but what do I know?  I'm trying to find some gargrave track in the LA area without much luck.

 

"September 28, 2007-As some of you know based on a press release issued by AmbroseBauer Trains (model train auctioneers) last week, model train author Paul Ambrose has sued the national Train Collector's Association (TCA) and also its Eastern Division, the entity that hosts the yearly York meets in April and October. Although there was a lot of discussion about the lawsuit, little was said about the basis and details of it.

On September 17, 2007, Ambrose filed a summons and complaint (the document that starts a lawsuit)in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Penslyvainia. The 46 page complaint accuses the TCA and its Eastern Divison of copyright infringment by promoting model train author David Doyle as an authority and expert on model trains and profiting from it with regard to the sales of the book, "Standard Catalog of Lionel Train Sets 1945-1969", by allowing him to do book signings etc. Specifically, the papers claim the value of the promotion given to Doyle by the TCA and its Eastern Division "was substantially greater than $20,000."

Moreover, it alleges that the TCA and its Eastern Division materially contributed to the infringement in the same book by allowing the use of the TCA name on it. That book was released earlier this year. The complaint seeks $450,000 in monetary damages, as well an a preliminary injunction to prevent the TCA and its Eastern Division from continuing to sell and promote the book.

The lawsuit papers state "Doyle is a fraud as an author." Conversely Doyle's attorney Drew Bauer (the Bauer in AmbroseBauerTrains), proclaims that Ambrose has been the "preminent author of books" concerning Lionel since 1990 and "has one of the finest Lionel post-war collections in the world..." Ultimately, the lawsuit claims that Ambrose's reputation as an author and expert on Lionel trains will be ruined and the business of ABT will suffer as a consequence if the infringement is allowed to continue."

[lionelsoni]

Here is my take on David Doyle's book, from three years ago:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/323210/ShowPost.aspx

 

[Bob Keller]

I'm thinking a train branded as LEGAL LINES with cars that eject subpoenas, tank cars carrying ink for court reporter machines, and a sound system that plays "Here comes the Judge" from the old Rowan and Martin show.

This has some potential.

BTW hasn't this lawsuit been on for a year already, or does it just seem like a year?

[brianel027]

I'm so glad that I am utterly content and joyously happy with my traditionally run (well, almost since I use DC current to run my trains), traditionally sized simple 027 trains.

Outside of this mentioned lawsuit which pertains to copyrighted published materials, most of the other lawsuits have concerned high end train design/tooling and train operating technologies. High end concerns me nil as I can't afford it nor could even justify it in my mind if I could afford it. And though I know many are happy with the operating digital systems and sounds, there seem to be just as many who are frustrated with it not working, not being able to get parts and having to wait months for repairs that are not correctly done. Such difficulties don't concern me in the least: I've never had to send anything out and can always find parts. And most stuff works with no trouble. I have low end Lionel and K-Line locos with 17 years of running on them and they still work. I have MPC locos made more than 35 years ago and they still work just fine. And I have postwar locos that are older than me, and they still work... hard to argue with all that!

Maybe instead of a commemorative Litigation Train, we simply need more non-scale, basic non-command trains that are affordable and actually work as advertised.

Fortunately for the hobby, some companies are listening. Hopefully Bachmann will resist the cries of the few and continue with the winning product formula Williams Trains already had but with better marketing. I'm encouraged by the new releases from Atlas under the Industrial Rail banner: I like the newly tooled reefer just announced. And I'm anxiously awaiting some news on the announced RMT S-4 "BANG."

The K-Line catalogs under the Lionel banner are actually more appealing than the last couple years of actual K-Line MDK catalogs. And for all their focus on technology and high end, Lionel produces and sells ten's of thousands of traditionally sized, non-command trains and train sets. And they make more profit because they don't have the related new tooling development costs. Meanwhile a run of 2,000 is considered a very large production run for a high end scale locomotive. Hmmmmm... 10,000 versus 2,000.

If you ask me, the jury has returned with a solid verdict and they've announced that affordable low end, 027 non-command trains are the winner. Everything else can go on Judge Judy - and I doubt even she could bring any logic into all these ridiculous lawsuits.

[rtraincollector]

the lawsuit against David Doyle has but I believe the new one is against TCA because they let or had david do a book signing at one of there shows.

Personally I bought from ambrisso or what ever it is once on ebay and now can't stop getting updates from him.

Also I think that train set would sell like hot cakes if you had a boxcar with

Lionel VS K-line

MTH VS Lionel

Ambrisso VS David Doyle

Ambrisso VS TCA

With dates and results and guess you would have to have MTH VS Lionel 2 or is it 3 times now on it with the dates

[brianel027]

I'd be willing to bet that the non-command, non-prototype scale "Polar Express" set has already attained more sales than any and all of the above combined commemorative legal battle box cars could ever sell. And if, by chance "Polar Express" hasn't already attained the winning sales status, add in the 3-rail "Thomas" sets and the traditional "NYC/PRR Flyer" sets and that would be a number that couldn't be touched by any set of lawsuit cars.

And any set of lawsuit cars also focus on an aspect of this hobby that has been very negative and divisive to say the least. A traditionally sized modern looking loco from Lionel that looks good with smaller cars and runs on 027 curves would do far more good for the hobby.

[nblum]

My best guess, admittedly as a non-legal expert, is that the lawsuit against TCA will be dismissed summarily as groundless, and is purely intimidation or a legally permitted attempt at coercion.  The lawsuit against Doyle is not about money, because Ambrose is not remotely likely to prove any loss of income since his books are out of print, and have been for over a decade I believe.  Once again, some lawsuits are more about doing harm to the defendant than about achieving financial compensation.  MTH has caused Lionel much more financial harm than they could ever prove they suffered due to a few diecast locomotives in question.  These lawsuits aren't mostly about justice or money, they're just another form of bare knuckle capitalism about things such as power, position and ego.

[railfan23]

I just got Doyles American Flyer book and is a great book ( I know so little about Flyer trains, so I had to get it). I guess to make sure it can't be compared to Ambroses other books, the prewar and wide gauge section is in the back of the book with post war in the front.

[ADCX Rob]

Here is my take on David Doyle's book, from three years ago:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/323210/ShowPost.aspx

 

Different book/subject, & an earlier edition to the 2006 "Standard Catalog" ... the suit subject is a book on sets...

Rob 

[Brutus]

Legal Lines!  Very good - maybe have a bobbing Weasel Head car?

I don't really know the ins and outs of this stuff the way a lot of you guys do, but I read a TCA magazine or newsletter recently that included an article about auction house (unnamed I think) that sold some items that the author thought were misrepresented....  Maybe this is part of that???

[lionelsoni]

The original Doyle book seems to be included in the complaint, in paragraph 32:

http://www.ambrosebauer.com/krause.complaint1.pdf

After reading the entire complaint, it seems to me that Ambrose has a pretty good case.

 

[SunsetLtd]

And this set needs a William Shakesphere caboose.....looks like he had little respect for lawyers!

[Bob Keller]

With a little Bobbing Bard on the rear platform. I'm liking this.

But we shall all rejoice on VLA Day (Victory Over Legal Actions Day).

[dbaker48]

Don't forget the MINT cars!  And maybe a hobo car, modified with characters carrying briefcases.

[fifedog]

Well, looks like it's time to break out my white Ford Bronco hi-rail truck again...

Johnny Cochran...Oh, guess we can't include him now.

...and let's not forget to have a string of  Ambulances on flat cars...hey, that might look cool anyway.  Spank, you out there?

[alexweiihman]

-...and let's not forget to have a string of  Ambulances on flat cars...-

 

Yeah With this whole situation we'll need a whole lot of those.

[pennsy_fan]

And dont forget the "merchandise car" That ejects little briefcases at the touch of a button onto the milk platform.

[Brutus]

We need a Chase Gondola with a lawyer and an ambulance!    Then maybe a shark aquarium car and the sharks have little briefcases....

[kpolak]

I was thinking of a bobbing head type caboose with an operating gavel, and Lionel VS. MTH on the sides.  Since it's been in appeal forever, perhaps a couple of lawyers dragging their feet behind.

OR

What about a lawyer chase handcar????  Similar to the gang car when it hits the Lionel train it reverses and chases after the MTH?

Remember...you heard it here first!

Kurt

[chuck]

Stock car filled with lawyers with briefcases (optional sound effects have them utter "I object" as the car rocks along).  If you intermix this with pig oinking sounds it might be enve more effective.

"Fertilizer" car, actually a gondola full of writs and motions with a smoke unit that emits manure scented smoke?

Jailbox car (Walther'es had one of these in HO many years ago).  "Next Time any Crime" instead of the "Next Load and Road" logo. 

 

[nblum]

All humor aside, there are some serious issues for those who wish to consider them.  While use of the courts to redress harm or illegal behavior is a corner stone of our civilization, the use of the courts to achieve personal ambitions or harm others is a major downside of this system.   The system is slow and inefficient at identifying unjustified and illegitimate attempts to subvert the free flow of the economy.  Both Ambrose's and MTH's lawsuits represent clever and fully crafted distortions of what happened, in an attempt to harm competitors or gain personal advantage or vengeance. 

 

In a small industry such as this, this diverts scarce dollars from  product development, customer service, and advertising revenues for the hobby media.  And it victimizes the target of the lawsuit as well.  There's a reason that neither MTH nor Lionel have done much advertising in recent years, compared with the period before the lawsuit.  There is something you can do to send the message to Ambrose and MTH.  Stop buying their products and stop using their services. That's what I've done and others have suggested in this thread.  If enough people send this message, it will be heard. I'd rather spend my money on companies and individuals who are not trying to destroy the diversity of the hobby and who are not seeking personal aggrandizement and  unfair advantage at the expense of others.

[lionelsoni]

You say that Ambrose's lawsuit is a "clever...distortion...of what happened".  Yet he seems to have numerous examples of exact or near-exact duplication of his text in Doyle's books.  How can such patent plagiarism be considered a distortion?

[nblum]

Actually, those words apply more to MTH's lawsuit against Lionel than Ambrose's against Krause and Doyle.  MTH's version of their trade secrets, Lionel's benefits from Korea Brass having access to them, and MTH's injuries are clever distortions of the facts, and thoroughly unbelievable to anyone with technical knowledge and a knowledge of the toy train marketplace during 1998 through present.

With regards to Ambrose's lawsuit, it appears to me to be a fantasy world description of the benefits to others and his injuries.  The factual description of actual products made in the past is not subject to copyright.  It is courtesy and mandated behavior in academic life, which this certainly isn't,  to credit your sources.  Thus if Doyle took notes from an Ambrose book for use in his own, he certainly should have credited him for whatever facts he derived from Ambrose's books.  But such use of factual information isn't legally actionable. There is nothing unique about Ambrose's findings and writings, which are based upon observation of the real world. There is absolutely nothing creative in the description of a set's contents, and in fact, Ambrose's descriptions admittedly depend on the observations and information provided him by many others.  There is no intellectual property here to speak of, in terms of unique creative activity, in my view. 

 

Now if Ambrose could show that a substantial portion of Doyle's descriptions were word for word copied from his books (say 25-75%), he might have a case for plagiarism. Plagiarism has no real legal meaning, it's a scholarly term.  Since Ambrose's books aren't in print, and haven't been for years, he suffered zero economic injury, and there is no basis for a lawsuit for damages.  The courts aren't there to determine if scholarly rules of behavior have been violated.  At most, Ambrose may be owed an apology and Krause might be obligated to pay him the amount they paid to Doyle if the work wasn't done at all by Doyle.  But we know Doyle has been all over the country taking photos of actual models, the real shoe leather wear,  heavy lifting for such a book.  Thus I find Ambrose's charges both incredible and reprehensible. A few paragraphs of identical description of toy trains isn't plagiarism, at worst it's a failure to cite previous sources. My guess, purely based upon  40 years in academic life, is Ambrose's lawsuit has more to do with jealousy and ego than any economic or legally actionable injury.  I wouldn't patronize one of his auctions or buy one of his future books if they were the last such auctions or books on the planet :).  Ambrose, like Mike Wolf, is wasting our judicial system's efforts on their personal and insupportable, to me repugnant goals. He's contributing to the wasting of social resources and all of our money on their personal crusade for control and self-enrichment. Sure it's a little deal compared with most things, and it's entirely legal and defensible, except when the facts are examined, whereupon, to me at least, it's unethical, however legal, and to be condemned.

[chuck]

The original copyright rules were 28 years with an option for renewal.  The laws were changed  (about 10 years ago) to allow for copyright lengths of up to 120 years.  Some of these changes include retro-active time-lines (aka new rules that apply to older works).  There have been concerns raised regarding these changes as new works tend to be based on what was done before (aka prior art).  120 years seems a bit excessive.

I find it hard to justify claimed losses on publication of a similar work when the original is out of print.   If the original was as valuable as the original author believes, why isn't it still in print?  The claim that he deliberately included mis/dis information is his original work leads me to question the validity or value of the original, especially if the original is supposed to be an authoritative source to be used to place on allegedly "rare" objects.

I'm sure Mr. Ambrose has some legal legs to stand on but I think the problems lie more with the laws themselves.

[lionelsoni]

I agree that plagiarism and copyright violation are not the same thing, and I should not have used that term.  However, in this case, I believe that both plagiarism and copyright violation have occurred.  Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without attribution; and it seems to me that Doyle has done this.  Copyright gives Ambrose the exclusive right to the particular expression of the information in his books, except for certain specific kinds of "fair use" which do not seem to apply here; and I believe Doyle has violated that copyright.

I would agree that Ambrose's claims are overreaching, in that he is making the most sweeping claims and asking for the greatest compensation possible; but the court will presumably cut that back to whatever it deems just.  I think that he is entitled at least to the injunction against further publication and destruction of existing copies.

[nblum]

I was willing to give Ambrose the benefit, if only partial, of the doubt about his claims against Krause/Doyle until he filed a complaint against the TCA.  This is utterly unethical, ruthless behavior.  He is an enemy of anyone in the hobby for that action, which is utterly unconscionable and without either merit or excuse.  I wish him the absolute worst in his pursuit of these claims.  May he and his partner go bankrupt for their inexcusable behavior towards an organization that, after all, represents only their fellow hobbiests.  This is legal thuggery and nothing else.

[EIS2]

Just because Mr Doyle's book has some identical wording as Mr. Ambrose's book does not necessarily mean that Mr. Doyle copied Mr. Ambrose's book.  Both author's relied on information from third parties for at least part of their material.  I haven't read Mr. Ambrose's book but Mr. Doyle cited a huge list of contributors.  If the third party gave the same written information to both authors, both authors could have the identical wording in their books and neither author would be guilty of plagerism or copywrite infringement.

Earl