Not much info online regarding BNSF's licensing policy. This is about all I could find:
Licensing
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Speaking of lawyers, I think that one sign of the change at UP was when the company ditched the law firm which was pressing the case against tiny Steamscenes, the calendar publisher. This pretty much coincided with the carrier showing more interest in making peace. It also coincided with Jim Young replacing Dick Davidson as CEO. Mr. Young even made at least one appearance at the annual convention of the UP Historical Society. He seems to have done a good job of mending fences.
I also recall that at least someone in authority at BNSF commented on the mess UP created for itself, and expressed relief that his own company didn't do the same. So much for that, I guess.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with protecting one's trademarks, but it's also wise to nurture the huge unpaid army of friends the rail industry has. I can't think of another business with such an big bunch of defenders and apologists as we are.
NittanyLion I may have missed a mention of it, but they are almost obligated to defend their marks. Even if they aren't using them right now, and someone else starts profiting from them (which a model company is), the original company could lose out on those rights. If the time comes that they DO want to use them again, and they didn't defend them, they're out of luck.
I may have missed a mention of it, but they are almost obligated to defend their marks. Even if they aren't using them right now, and someone else starts profiting from them (which a model company is), the original company could lose out on those rights. If the time comes that they DO want to use them again, and they didn't defend them, they're out of luck.
I'm sorry, but if they abandoned those trademarks long ago, they should be out of luck. It's one thing to defend a trademark that has been in recent or more or less continuous use, but for a product (or a railroad line) that disappeared thirty, forty, fifty or more years ago?
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it the right, or even the prudent thing to do.
Dan
Wouldn't the same rule apply to Microscale decals? Undecorated or not, it should come out in the wash. If not...then sell me a prepainted model that I have to decal with the provided decals. Loophole opened! haha.
Heartland Division CB&QImagine, if you will, a world with no lawyers. .....................
Imagine, if you will, a world with no lawyers. .....................
Ah, that would be nice, except if you got busted for a crime (which i never intend to do, btw).
As to the original post, I just hope the ATSF stuff isn't included. otherwise, I'm not to worried, unless it means the price of undec. models goes up as well.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
I may have missed a mention of it, but they are almost obligated to defend their marks. Even if they aren't using them right now, and someone else starts profiting from them (which a model company is), the original company could lose out on those rights. If the time comes that they DO want to use them again, and they didn't defend them, they're out of luck. See, that's why they have to charge a fee too and not just be like "ok you have permission but we're not going to make you pay us." Because if another company DOES use those marks and BNSF goes to defend them a good lawyer will try to make it look like BNSF abandoned those marks through free usage by another party.
As a side note, how many here are lawyers, or know what lawyers really do...besides what's portrayed on TV? Also what it actually takes to become a lawyer?
I have a hunch that many model railroaders out there are lawyers. One theory as to why; who else could afford some of these prices
BRAKIEIMHO they are well within their legal rights to protect their copyrighted logo.
It's a good-will thing Brakie.
You know, when I was kid, maybe 4 or 5, I had these two C3 corvettes that were just right for me to wrap my hand around. And man I could chuck those things a good at a good pace.
When I grew up, I wanted the lifesize version. And I got it.
It was considered good for business to have your companies train running on every kids layout. It's cheap advertising.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
This discussion seems to re-appear every once in a while and my first experience of it was with the model car business. Auto makers wanted various amounts of money from manufactures of models and kits to be able to use their brand name. The money they wanted was often based on some pretty unusual formulae designed to extract maximum money while others it was a more simple approach and easier to manage. Some producers of hand built models were just mom & pop oufits who couldn't be bothered continuing in this changed enviroment while mass producers of some diecast ranges just added this additional levy as the cost of doing bussiness. In the end, the consumer always has to pay.
Living in today's high temple of consumerism - this is the meaning of life - this is what we are here for
I doubt if too many reasonable people object to anybody claiming what is their right to claim and there are very good reasons such as brand name protection that are a legitimate concern to those who do business on there reputation.
At the end of the supply chain where most of us inhabit all these extra costs just seem to go on and on and on with everybody wanted just a little bit more out of our pockets. We become cynical and jaded by all this apparent corporate greed. Sometimes we feel a bit let down by a company we like to identify with when we model their pruducts, and so it goes. They pull another tooth and we get another head ache - just like when we need to go visit a lawyer. They all seem to charge like a blind bull and so justice often seems to be denied to those of us who can't afford to pay huge bucks for it - just like insurance based health care.
In a related joke;
"I have just done my bit for medicine - I discouraged my kid from becoming a lawyer"
Bruce (In perpetual agony at the high cost of getting by)
.
Reading all of this makes me extremely glad that I model what I do:
OTOH, the copyright to the Kashimoto name has been very expensive! I've been supporting its owner for 48 years...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I'm with you on theis one.Companies have every right in the world to protect their intellectual property.Just recently a forum that I go on quite abit,was visited by a law office that represents Ford.They gave the owner 2 choices.Pay 5k or we will shut you down.Now the owner made it seem that he was targeted unfairly but it turned out he was making unlicensed decals with the Ford logo's.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/10/ford-lawyers-go-after-ranger-fan-site-for-trademark-violation/
I don't follow....how many model railroaders ship by UP because they liked the logo they saw on a RTR Atlas boxcar?
I would not be happy to see my likeness on the side of a cereal box or a milk carton, and certainly not in a publication to which I had not given my permission. I would not like to see any of my images or written works published, or used, without an attribution or some other sign of respect for the work it took to generate the value inherent in the desire by the user to use it. Doesn't it beg the question...why use what I claim for my own if it has no value to you? If it has value to you, why would you presume it is valueless to me?! What was my purpose in generating it...a convenience to all who would value it? And if they value it, what more tangible way to demonstrate it than by offering compensation for the effort it took to 'grow' it.
The UP and BNSF symbols mean something, especially to shareholders and those employed by it. If they affect to take home pay in exchange for work in the environs used by those firms, those who try to make money from the value inherent in the name/symbol/logo should offer something of value in return.
You would think someone would realize the value of the free advertising they get.
Do you think BNSF kept up the legal requirements for the trademarks on the NP, CB&Q, TP&W, GN, SP&S and others that disappeared 40 years ago. They are going back in time to try and make a buck.
I really don't care much as I do not model or want any models of the BN or BNSF. But I do want a few cars of the NP, GN, and CB&Q.
Do you know home many decals sets Microscale would have to sell with the small profit they receive to come up with the $1,000 for the licensing application.
At least the Model Railroad fans are smarter than the NASCAR folks in opposing outrageous licensing fees.
Rick
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
dti406 See the attached link, it is not a token $1,00 fee like CSX, NS and others. It is 5% of the gross with a $1,000.00 down payment with the application.
See the attached link, it is not a token $1,00 fee like CSX, NS and others. It is 5% of the gross with a $1,000.00 down payment with the application.
Cost of doing business. For years, model manufacturers have made profits by selling products with trademarks they do not own on them.
Now it is time to ante up.
selectorFew of us have much time for them, but we're sure glad to have them on our side when we're faced with legal problems.
Unfortunately, your chances of winning your case is in direct porportion with the size of your savings account.
I would never make the mistake of comparing a lawyer to a soldier, there is a clear difference is serving your country, but I understand what you are saying, but also understand that some of us believe there should be reform.
Back to the topic......
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edJan09.html
Of course the good thing might be I could finally get some Undecorated Kits instead of this RTR garbage.
Actually Conrail exists as a rail freight freight agent in parts of NJ. I wonder if they retained any logo copyrights?
Eric
jecorbett I have a question. Since CSX and NS split up the Conrail system, which of them would have trademark rights for Conrail and all the fallen flags that preceded it.
I have a question. Since CSX and NS split up the Conrail system, which of them would have trademark rights for Conrail and all the fallen flags that preceded it.
The Reagan estate...
Hmmm---
Is THAT why shipment of my HO brass Great Northern Z-6 has been so delayed?
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Since we are telling lawyer jokes:
If you see a road kill, how can you tell if it's a lawyer or a snake.
There will be skid marks if it's a snake.
Was it Rudyard Kipling who wrote:
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that.
and chuck him out, the brute!
But he's hero of his country
when the guns begin to shoot."
I believe he was portraying the attitude toward soldiers, but it would be appropriate as well to lawyers. Few of us have much time for them, but we're sure glad to have them on our side when we're faced with legal problems.
Heartland Division CB&Q Imagine, if you will, a world with no lawyers. .....................
Yup, then imagine walking into a store to buy a name brand product only to get it home and find out it is a cheap knock off product that could potentialy harm you or worse. Yet you bought it because the company name on it was the one you originaly was seeking out. For example, Bayer asprin. You thought you bought the real thing because the logo and label looks like the real thing but, some fly by night company copied it to sell their inferior product.
This is one reason trademark and copyright laws exist. Another is one that I went thru about 3 years ago. I wrote an article describing how to perform a task related to the hobby. A "gentleman" obtained a copy of the article and published it on the web stating he was the person to have authored it and was actually compensated for it by a national magazine.
Companies have to protect their trademarks for several reasons. One of the most fundamental reasons is, if they don't, they could loose rights to it. If a company does not do anything to protect its mark and someone starts to use it for their own personal gain it can be hard for them to regain control if it was determined that they allowed others to use it without permission. This part of the trademark and copyright law is very complex and a lot of conditions need to be met to carry it out.
The free advertising doesn't hold water either. Yes, the name is out there but what kind of good will is it to the company to have the logo in someones basement. If you look at the facts for what they are, the company using the logo without permission is still profeting from the use of the mark and that is the original intent in the first place. Athearn and others are not producing products to give the railroads free advertising, they are doing it to line their pockets. Lets face it, loco sales would not be very good if they all came with ficticious road names or painted whide with SD45 printed on the side. Let the owner of the mark determine what type of advertising they want. If the model manufacturers are allowed to use the mark for "free advertising" then a malicious person could do the same and claim it is just free advertising for thm. Where do you draw the line?
Now, I am not for them charging exorbitant fees to liscense their products either. The whole liscense deal could be made much simpler for the manufacturers with a small one time or anual fee. I think UP got the message when enough people made noise about what was happening which prompted them to change their program. (Mike Wolf from MTH just happened to be in the right place at the right time when this happened to be able to take the credit for it).
As I recall, MTH reached an agreement with UP, and the manufacturers only pay a token fee to them & have to submit models if requested to insure good quality with the UP trademark products. Athearn used to charge a premium for UP rolling stock/locos, but since that agreement there is no price differential on models based on road name. This also applied to SP and all the other UP fallen flag roads.
On the other point, What do you call 500 lawyers on a sinking ship?
One **** of a good start!!
BNSF has been licensing all along, as I understand it, but has always done it on the basis of a nominal ($1.00) fee, and has kept very friendly terms with the model manufacturers. It thus protects its trademarks (a perfectly valid concern) but doesn't come off badly in terms of public relations. Up to the present, the company has seemingly tried to nurture good relations with the railfan/modeling community, while understandably dealing with security concerns. I hope that the company hasn't decided to follow the failed UP approach.
UP's bungled program, which ended with the change of leadership at that company, was aggressive, ham-handed, and almost looked like paranoia. The company wanted a fat fee for any model built, the right to destroy molds of any designs which did not meet its high standards (!), and was even hassling at least one of the non-profit historical societies which follows one of its predecessor railroads. The company was even suing a mom-and-pop calendar publisher. The management, which was making pathetically little money for the shareholders during a traffic boom, looked ridiculous. With a new CEO, the company reverted to more important concerns, like running the railroad profitably.
Is BNSF asking for anything above and beyond what UP and the MR industry agreed to? I would think the smart thing to do would be just follow that lead, since it's been dealt with by the courts already...
By the way, does the UP agreement also cover dirt? I mean half the time you can't see the logos on their real equipment!!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
This issue, as I see it, is no different than if someone wanted to use one of my photos, or (ha ha), my freelanced herald on a real rail line--I'd have a right to say whether or not they could use it. The issue isn't so much whether or not attorneys are involved so much as it is just what is right and ethical.
Like Brakie says, others do it with no uproar from modelers. I think the big thing with the UP case was if you were looking at a list of locos for sale online, there was usually some type of message that stated "For UP, add $5" Drawing more attention to the situation.
Look at what the NFL charges for the use of it's "product".
Tell ya what, next time you get into a car accident and the other guy refuses to pay even though he was at fault, you go ahead and take him to court yourself, without a lawyer.
BNSF is doing what they are legally entitled to do--protect their trademark.
UP gets, I believe, a dollar an item for mechandise with their logo on it. That is far from a "gravy train."
And there is no--zero, none, nada"--advertising value for a railroad to have its logo in your basement. Advertising is only effective when it convinces a potential customer to use the company's service. That is the purpose of advertising. No one sees your layout and then pays BNSF to ship their goods.