Well this is interesting. I have no idea who Big Dawg originals is, so I guess no need to worry. But ya gotta laugh at ther name. I'm talking about the "orignals" part! LOL
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Shame, even though they make nothing I need, I wanted to like them, because of the Pug (yeah, Big Dawg alright...well, they THINK they are. LOL. ANyone else with a Pug will know what I mean). They actually have a lot of shells and cabs for some specific variations that aren't otherwise available. It's just a retired patternmaker and his wife, it's not some major company. Very strange that they would copy the Rapido F40PH-2D to make their F40PH-3D.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Peruse the product offerings, and it's obvious every one of the shells is a copy of some other manufacturer's work. Shells from Athearn, Atlas, Kato and Rapido can be readily identified as the sources of pretty much all of them. They have a Facebook page full of photos of how the masters for their molds are kitbashed using parts of other commercial products, sometimes identifying the original by name. It's pretty blatant.
I haven't purchased any of these (and I won't), but have encountered discussions from customers who report the shells are difficult to adapt to existing drives due to the thickness of the resin castings. If you have the skill to turn one of these resin shells into a locomotive, you should be able to kitbash a better model using the actual original parts.
Rob Spangler
I have a pair of Jason's F-40PHs ordered through FDT. Last I heard they were still in the container and being readied for distribution, so I wonder how Big Doggie-do got his hands on a shell to make his patterns from and get them marketed so fast?
Did someone on the "inside" at a Chinese factory sneak one out? I hear bootleg Hollywood films get on to DVDs before the movie even hits the theaters!
When I'm paying retail for a model and that price includes all the R&D, tooling, licensing and related travel costs, that theft hurts us all through higher final prices.
Actually, looking at the Doggie's photos, those shells are somewhat crude and are going to need a lot of work to make them presentable.
Still, such a shame. Ed
I wondered how long it would take before somebody got good and mad at the dawg!
Big Dawg models are crude.
Now the queston comes up, how much must be changed to be a new product?
rrebell Now the queston comes up, how much must be changed to be a new product?
It depends. Sometimes nothing.
What!??
Yes, you can get brass castings made by using plastic parts as masters. Several folks around willing to do that. Many venders even approve of this
How is that legal vs when what's discussed here is way into the gray area?
The difference is that the part in question is sacrificed as part of the casting process. Sometimes still referred to as "lost wax casting" any "burnable" part can serve the same purpose, so good ol' styrene is often used. That's why when detail parts are available, you often have the choice of plastic or brass.
Manufacturers of parts like it, because they still sell the parts used and actually see this as additional revenue and encourage the practice.
Why do modeler's do it? Brass parts are usually more durable and add weight.
If Big Dawg arranged to buy the shells from Jason and burn one for each casting made, he might be selling brass loco shells, legit. I suspect that bridge has been burned already, even assuming Jason was so inclined (and he might well not be since he's selling complete RTR locos and not just detail parts.)
Copying multiples of someone else's shell is not legit.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Suing them isn't an option.
Writing them a letter, letting them know subjectively what they're taking from rapido, THEN ask them to stop is an option.
If they tell you nicely to "go scratch", then it seems you have another competitor and thus you should compete and offer their products better than they do.
The next thing I'd do is put a few "allegedly's" in your original post.
I hope things work out for both.
T e d
Edit: I just signed up for rapido news.
rrebellBig Dawg models are crude.
By far the best reason not to buy them.
Dave
davidmurray rrebell Big Dawg models are crude. By far the best reason not to buy them. Dave
rrebell Big Dawg models are crude.
I guess we differ on that respect. In my worldview, the biggest reason not to purchase from them is their apparent difficulty with understanding and applying ethical principles. I could get to like cheaper versions of someone else's hard work were it not for the theft.
Dave (Selector), I like your thinking.
Tom
I have 4 locomotives on my layout now that started with BD shells or cabs. The detail on them is lacking, to the point of there not being any... They fit the Atlas chassis that I put them on just fine, but they took significant effort to make look good. They, in no way, compare to the 2 Rapido locomotives that I own.
IMO, saying that these are copies is like trying to say that a child's hand drawn picture is a copy of a professional photograph: Sure, the basic shape and image may be there, but the difference is pretty obvious.
mlehmanThe difference is that the part in question is sacrificed as part of the casting process. Sometimes still referred to as "lost wax casting" any "burnable" part can serve the same purpose, so good ol' styrene is often used. That's why when detail parts are available, you often have the choice of plastic or brass. Manufacturers of parts like it, because they still sell the parts used and actually see this as additional revenue and encourage the practice.
Yeah,
Jason did all that hard work andspent all those hours to make the locomotive and Big Dawg comes along and copys a locomotive that hasn't even been released yet.
Ya got to admit that is a pretty neat trick.
chutton01Hmm, having watched too many "How It's Made" episodes recently; if the brass parts are cleaned up & polished such that they are near exact copies of the styrene originals, then those brass parts can in turn be used to make reusable molds, which in their turn can be used to churn out the wax patterns for the lost wax process, not to mention that, even sticking with casting of parts, there are plenty of different ways to mold those parts non-destructively (or even one-shot destruction - you lose one set of styrene parts, but you can make 100s of duplicates from that one set).
That's true, but some folks act ethically and some don't. The per part cost of doing this is sufficient that people don't do this just to sell brass parts, so at the retail level there isn't any financial incentive. Obviously, if you started bootlegging parts this way, you're in the same position as the Dawg.
If you keep it honest, you're not. Those offering such services want to stay legal because that's how they earn their living. Sometimes, they may even be the same people who offer the plastic and brass parts to begin with.
Heck, those look even cruder than tyco and life like. Looks like a toy, oogly.
-Peter. Mantua collector, 3D printing enthusiast, Korail modeler.
I have a feeling that what was done is legal and Rapido is upset because he made up a unit that they have on the ship and that may cut into sales. The stuff I have seen from Rapido is top noch, can"ed say that about Top Dawg though.
Based on discussion with fellows involved in several mfg venture over the years, this isn't a new problem -- and it's never been legal to use the work of others without their explicit permission. It used to be more of an issue when standards of modeling were lower. Now there seems to be little of this. The descriptions of the crude nature of the molds means few are interested. Model RRing is also an industry largely without deep pockets like some, so this sort of thing gets tolerated more than it should. When people realize the low quality they get...I suspect few come back for more. Any comparison to Rapido would show the quality is seriously lacking.`
gmpullman I have a pair of Jason's F-40PHs ordered through FDT. Last I heard they were still in the container and being readied for distribution, so I wonder how Big Doggie-do got his hands on a shell to make his patterns from and get them marketed so fast? Did someone on the "inside" at a Chinese factory sneak one out? I hear bootleg Hollywood films get on to DVDs before the movie even hits the theaters!
-Tim
Big Dawg has a rebuttal and its worth reading:
https://www.facebook.com/Big-Dawg-Originals-824079360978438/?fref=photo
Jim
I'm not much convinced about a model not exceeding 85% of the original form being a legit practice. If I showed up at work and did 16% of what's expected of me, I doubt I'd get a full paycheck...
And how does one go about measuring what 16% new work is?
And if the new work that might be identified as part of the 16% is cribbed from yet another party's efforts, does that count?
I guess one could copy a CD or DVD, change a song or two or tack on a different ending from another movie that amounts to the required 16% difference and sell it as your own?
Somehow, if you need a lawyer to run interference for your business practices, something is fishy enough that it's not right or ethical, even if somehow borderline legal. Payday loan sharks fall into the same category.
For those not reading Big Dawgs response...it says that US patent laws allow a company to copy 84% of anothers work and change the remaining 16%. Apparently, BD sanded off some details and added a few more that the Rapido product didn't have. A few thoughts that both support and don't support BDs position.
1. How can you measure what 16% of the original is? By number of details, or by significance? if the latter, how do you measure that? It would seem that BD would have some defending to do if challenged.
2. I'm not sure that making a model of a prototype is necessarily worthy of a patent in the first place. I think of a patent as something like an invention. Making a 1:87 copy of the real thing in an of itself doesn't seem like a patent-able thing to begin with.
(BTW, how many song melodies are really original anymore...not many..they are all just slightly changed from somehting else. And "patent" laws apparently allow that in order to facilitate business and variety of product)
3. Nobody would bother to copy 84% of an Athearn Blue Box model. Perhaps patent laws to do not align well with the business strategy of making a model that precisely mirrors one specific locomotive. Relying upon making and selling a model such as that runs the risk of somebody producing a cheap knockoff, for which enough buyers are satisfied with getting 84% of an exact copy of the prototype. Irv Athearn sold huge volumes to people who were satisfied with less.
- Douglas
Sad to hear about this story.
Model Railroading is a fun hobby. Who can have fun with stolen theft.
I would suggest model train manufacturers pool their resources to sue people who do stuff like this.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Songs and movies are a whole different legal thing than a product of this type. I have seen others compare this to Paige and his illegal copying that led to jail for him, he just pure copyied whole kits and other parts from the originals, not the same at all. It has been many moons since I did legal stuff but the Dawg has it seems. Sorry guys but buisness is tough and is filled with legal stuff that make taxes seem simple! You need to know the laws that apply to your buisness and by Rapido saying things like they did, in the way they did, they open themselves up to litigation.
rrebellSorry guys but buisness is tough and is filled with legal stuff that make taxes seem simple! You need to know the laws that apply to your buisness and by Rapido saying things like they did, in the way they did, they open themselves up to litigation.
I'd say that copying 84% of someone else's efforts is far more of an invitation to litigation.
I suppose if I catch a student cribbing only 84% of an essay purchased off the internet that's not cheating? No, actually it is and at far less than 84%
I'm also not sure that patent law applies here or that it's legally different than Canadian law. There is that NAFTA thing, too, although I'm no lawyer...
That might be the big legal surprise for the Dawg. He also seems uncertain, since for some reason he's relying on the fact that someone else made the copy and gave him permission to copy his copy.
Maybe a name change to Big Dawg 84% Unoriginals would solve the misperceptions the Dawg feels are flowing?
Heartland Division CB&Q Sad to hear about this story. Model Railroading is a fun hobby. Who can have fun with stolen theft. I would suggest model train manufacturers pool their resources to sue people who do stuff like this.
I guess it comes down to whether or not the changes BD made make their product legally permissable. If they are, BD has a point when it claims that Rapido is being slanderous by using the term "theft".
You, me, and everbody is entitled to their opinion. I think both sides make some points.
I suspect that what BD did is legal. I'm reading Rapido's original message as really telling those consumers who buy the knockoff to not bother them with phone calls asking for help. I don't blame them.
I read Big Dawg's rebuttal and now I am confused. I am not sure Rapdio has a "patent" on its F40 model. I do believe they would have intellectual property rights more akin to copyright. And I am unaware of this "84%/15%" test that Big Dawg mentions. The tests in copyright are more like substantial similarity but it is not tested by percentages but by overall notions. Copying one chapter of a huge book is still a copyright violation.
Some publishers deliberately introduce typographical errors into their stuff, just as some map makers deliberately introduce modest and harmless errors or fabrications in their maps, as a trap for copy artists. It would be the ultimate irony if some of our best manufacturers had to start introducing errors in their models just so they could prove copying.
Without knowing just what that mysterious "modeler in Canada" provided to him it is hard to know just what is going on here. But if that modeler in Canada made a copy of Rapido's work, again presumably protected in some manner by something akin to copyright rather than patent, then it is no defense for Big Dawg that he himself did not do the copying. If that modeler in Canada laboriously scratchbuilt a perfect F40 model and just gave it to Big Dawg then he is a very generous person indeed, eh?
Years ago the guy who owns MicroMark had an article in MR showing how he made a casting and copied an old Lionel girder bridge. He was not offering copies to others, it was for himself. But he certainly showed how the technology is there to make such exact and perfect duplicates.
Dave Nelson
Actually, if you read Dawg's rebuttul you will see that he didd not do the design work it was done by a Canadian modeler.
I find it rather interesting that Rapido is the only company in the world capable of doing a Canadian F-40 so there fore anyone else doing one is ripping them off.
dknelsonYears ago the guy who owns MicroMark had an article in MR showing how he made a casting and copied an old Lionel girder bridge. He was not offering copies to others, it was for himself. But he certainly showed how the technology is there to make such exact and perfect duplicates.
Making copies for one's personal use is generally considered "fair use." For instance, it's OK to copy a CD and use the original as an archive copy because the CDs are rattling around in your dusty 4x4. It's the turning around and profiting from something like that is where the trouble starts.
Thus, the Unknown Canadian is OK if he makes a copy for his personal use. Forwarding that to the Dawg for him to copy leads into questionable territory, especially if he knew that the Dawg intended to produce and market copies.
CattI find it rather interesting that Rapido is the only company in the world capable of doing a Canadian F-40 so there fore anyone else doing one is ripping them off.
Yes, Rapido is probably the only one that will do a Canadian loco like that. I'm sure others could, but Rapido would be a tough act to follow. Getting that kind of quality isn't cheap -- unless you copy it, of course.
But if the Dawg actually built his own master or paid someone else to do it, that would NOT be a "rip-off." Look at how many F units are running around...
dinwittybig dawg should (a) ask permission to do this, then its not a problem, but well....it sounds like they responded to a modeling need and just went for it.
The way to meet this modeling need is to hack together and mold your own copies. No one has any problem with that.
I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV, but I think I understand how this works.
The only copyright holder in this case could be EMD. Rapido should have licensed the copyright from EMD when he produced his model. If Rapido wanted protection from someone copying his model, he should have negotiated an exclusive license from EMD that included a provision where EMD would take legal action against any other producer. I believe this kind of arrangement is how people are able to produce stuff like Disney characters without fear of knock-off's.
This is all assuming that EMD bothered to copyright the design in the first place.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Looks like some one in Canada is jealous of Jason's success as a model company. That's the way I see it. Just don't buy anything The Dawg makes. Hit him in his wallet. That's all it takes.
Bernd
New York, Vermont & Northern Rwy. - Route of the Black Diamonds
protolancer(at)kingstonemodelworks(dot)com
Unless Jason wants to spend the next 5 or 6 years in court and paying lawyer fees he should just drop it now. Yes he was ripped off, yes he got screwed but in today's manufacturing in China and other places getting copied is nothing new. It happens to almost everybody from the biggest to the smallest and you have to just deal with it.
It happened to the company I worked for at least a dozen times but yet we survived. You rarely get justice in the courts and the amount of money you have to spend to try to stop it is normally beyond any profit from the item you are fighting for. Bigger companies who have lawyers on staff have a better chance of winning. Sometimes it's best to move on.
My thoughts.. I'll let the attoneys hash out the legal stuff.
Looking at those shells for $35.00 isn't a bad buy some may think.
However.
Think again.
Buy a locomotive for the drive,all of the required detail parts,paint,decals and the model will cost as more then the original model at street that already comes highly detailed and RTR..
No deal there..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Just wondering where this letter came from, and to whom it was addressed. There's nothing on Rapido's website or Facebook page, and since Jason occasionally contributes to this forum, I figure he would've said something by now.
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
carl425The only copyright holder in this case could be EMD. Rapido should have licensed the copyright from EMD when he produced his model.
That's not really how it works. The intellectual property isn't the prototype locomotive, it's the expensive development work and tooling needed to make a model of that locomotive in HO scale.
BRAKIELooking at those shells for $35.00 isn't a bad buy some may think. However. Think again. Buy a locomotive for the drive,all of the required detail parts,paint,decals and the model will cost as more then the original model at street that already comes highly detailed and RTR.. No deal there..
Larry,
You're most certainly correct about the short term cost being rather higher to actaually have something that runs.
But that's inidvidual pain for the consumer.
In the long term, this sort of thing is just plain bad for our hobby, even if marginally legal (something I'm not convinced of.) Why should someone invest hundreds of thousnads of dollars in developing a model if someone else comes along and starts offering deep discount copies because they've not invested a dime in the original? Why should Rapido do what it does if that investment basically undewrites a low-ball competitor? That's not the way to ensure that there will be new models in the future. It'll sure hurt the Dawg's business model when there's nothing new to copy, but I suppose he'll be comfortably retired by then.
wp8thsubThat's not really how it works. The intellectual property isn't the prototype locomotive, it's the expensive development work and tooling needed to make a model of that locomotive in HO scale.
Absolutely agree.
Now if Jason was building 1:1 EMD copies to pull his passenger car, then that might be a problem. But a model is a model, which is why our hobby thrives, BTW.
I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with copyright issues every day at my job. Here's a bit of information about copyright:1. Copyright means "the right to copy".2. Copyright laws vary by country.3. You do not need to register a copyright. It's not necessary, but is probably a good idea. All you need to do is prove that the work is yours, and you made it first.4. Copyright spans the author's life plus 50 -100 years depending on the jurisdiction. Once the term of a copyright has expired, the formerly copyrighted work enters the public domain and may be freely used or exploited by anyone.5. Most jurisdictions have copyright limitations, allowing "fair use" exceptions and giving others certain rights. Fair use can be determined based on four criteria regarding the usage. 1. the purpose and character of one's use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 6. You cannot copy other people's work based on the rationale that "I'm not making a profit from it."7. Just because you bought something, that does not give you the right to make more copies for your personal use or for the personal use of others. Some owners will give you some slack on this. For example, copying backup CDs is probably fine. Making a mold of a resin structure and casting more copies creates some ethical issues.8. You cannot copyright an idea, a name or short phrase.9. Lawyers know when a situation infringes on copyright. They also know the risk of litigation. Sometimes copyright infringement happens because the guilty party knows that the risk of being sued is minimal.10. If you have infringed on someone's copyright and you get called out by the owner, the best thing to do is apologize and stop doing it right away. Hopefully that's what Big Dawg Originals is going to find out very soon.
* Some of this was copied from Wikipedia.
Barry
wp8thsub carl425 The only copyright holder in this case could be EMD. Rapido should have licensed the copyright from EMD when he produced his model. That's not really how it works. The intellectual property isn't the prototype locomotive, it's the expensive development work and tooling needed to make a model of that locomotive in HO scale.
carl425 The only copyright holder in this case could be EMD. Rapido should have licensed the copyright from EMD when he produced his model.
Are we to assume that if I buy a Big Dawg shell, correct the errors or modify the details, then mold and sell the shells under my own brand (I like "Little Dawg" with a cute dachshund on the label) that BD will have no objection?
I was given a BD GP30B shell. The long hood is the old Bachmann shell. The skyline casing is nicely done, but the short end has easily-remedied flaws, the steam generator details are a joke, and there are doors missing from the blanked out cab area. Curiously, all of the flubbed details are available for copying.
Graham LineI was given a BD GP30B shell. The long hood is the old Bachmann shell. The skyline casing is nicely done, but the short end has easily-remedied flaws, the steam generator details are a joke, and there are doors missing from the blaned out cab area. Curiously, all of the flubbed details are available for copying.
Yeah, if you're OK with a model being only 84% correct, because the rest needed to be something else no matter how poorly executed, then the Dawg has a deal for you.
When P2k cloned Athearns drive train for its Gps nobody cared. Everyone was to busy buying them up to cry about it.
mlehman BRAKIE Looking at those shells for $35.00 isn't a bad buy some may think. However. Think again. Buy a locomotive for the drive,all of the required detail parts,paint,decals and the model will cost as more then the original model at street that already comes highly detailed and RTR.. No deal there.. Larry, You're most certainly correct about the short term cost being rather higher to actaually have something that runs. But that's inidvidual pain for the consumer. In the long term, this sort of thing is just plain bad for our hobby, even if marginally legal (something I'm not convinced of.) Why should someone invest hundreds of thousnads of dollars in developing a model if someone else comes along and starts offering deep discount copies because they've not invested a dime in the original? Why should Rapido do what it does if that investment basically undewrites a low-ball competitor? That's not the way to ensure that there will be new models in the future. It'll sure hurt the Dawg's business model when there's nothing new to copy, but I suppose he'll be comfortably retired by then.
BRAKIE Looking at those shells for $35.00 isn't a bad buy some may think. However. Think again. Buy a locomotive for the drive,all of the required detail parts,paint,decals and the model will cost as more then the original model at street that already comes highly detailed and RTR.. No deal there..
Mike,I agree.. There seems to be a lot of that going on.
Did you know the Bachmann 50' outside brace sliding door boxcar is very similar to Athearn's AFC 50' 'Railbox' boxcar? Its hard to tell them apart.
Soo Line fan When P2k cloned Athearns drive train for its Gps nobody cared. Everyone was to busy buying them up to cry about it.
Not really the same either. BD didn't just copy a design concept, he literally made a mould of another manufacturer's body shell and cranked out copies.
It's not that he made an F40PH-2 when Rapido already makes one, or that he makes a GP9 when Walthers/Proto already makes one - he's actually using those manufacturers' shells as his master.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
If two manufacturers set out to make highly accurate models of the same car or engine, you would expect there to be a large number of similarities. The question is whether they do their own research and tooling, or if they appropriate someone else's work to bring the product to market.
If BD was creating kits of resin parts using his own hand-made masters, no one would be raising an issue.
Funny how no one bothers to read the part of Dawg's posting on Facebook where he plainly states the shell was designed by a Canadian modeler who strangely enough lives in Canada.
Gee, I wonder where he got the information needed to clone that shell? I'll bet it was not from a unreleased (at that time) model of a upgraded Via rail F-40PH.
What is really annoying to Rapido is people calling for assistance for a product that isn't theirs, and was copied from one of their products. Rapido was quite blunt about not sharing the paint formula, selling detail parts, or the power chassis to people who didn't buy the product from Rapido in the first place.
Why should they?
BD's Facebook reply ....
"I would like to respond to a post that Rapido, a Canadian company, posted today on a site that accuses Big Dawg Originals of stealing intellectual property from them. Rapido apparently does not know US law on patents, trademarks ,and copyrights. I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. In fact, the master for this shell was not made by me -- a modeler in Canada made it and allowed me to mold and sell it. Basically, patent law states that as long as you change at least 15% of a design this constitutes a change in design. Rapido has not furnished me with patent information for this model after I requested it so I must assume they do not have any type of patent, copyright or trademark for it. My attorney tells me their post is slanderous and a gross defamation of my character. I am simply trying to fill a void in the hobby that I grew up with and do something in my retirement years that I enjoy. Shame on Rapido for their petty post."
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
CattFunny how no one bothers to read the part of Dawg's posting on Facebook where he plainly states the shell was designed by a Canadian modeler who strangely enough lives in Canada.
If he's citing the protection of US patent law, I'm not sure revealing a potential cross-border conspiracy involving a Canadian is a very well thought through strategy.
Unless being Canadian gives you immunity from commerical law or something???
[just kidding, all my Canadian friends ]
Graham Line Are we to assume that if I buy a Big Dawg shell, correct the errors or modify the details, then mold and sell the shells under my own brand (I like "Little Dawg" with a cute dachshund on the label) that BD will have no objection?
I would say yes, because the modifications YOU made that contibuted to your final product are YOUR intelletual property. And, apparently, if your final product is at least 16% different from BDs, it is considered to be a different product and not a copy of BDs
mlehman In the long term, this sort of thing is just plain bad for our hobby, even if marginally legal (something I'm not convinced of.) Why should someone invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing a model if someone else comes along and starts offering deep discount copies because they've not invested a dime in the original? Why should Rapido do what it does if that investment basically undewrites a low-ball competitor? That's not the way to ensure that there will be new models in the future. It'll sure hurt the Dawg's business model when there's nothing new to copy, but I suppose he'll be comfortably retired by then.
In the long term, this sort of thing is just plain bad for our hobby, even if marginally legal (something I'm not convinced of.) Why should someone invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing a model if someone else comes along and starts offering deep discount copies because they've not invested a dime in the original? Why should Rapido do what it does if that investment basically undewrites a low-ball competitor? That's not the way to ensure that there will be new models in the future. It'll sure hurt the Dawg's business model when there's nothing new to copy, but I suppose he'll be comfortably retired by then.
I mentioned this in another post. This is the risk a company like Rapido, and many others, takes when it chooses to earn its living making highly detailed protospecific models, instead of more generic and universial "blue box" type of model that nobody would really want to copy. Apparently, as long as the copier changes 16% of the original's work, it is not considered to be a copy under copywright laws.
The problem for Rapido is that they made a model that people will want to copy. Unlike Irv Athearn who feasted on models that nobody really bothered to copy. I'm not sure that the business model that some of our manufacturers choose to take is necessarily consistent with copyright laws, which is something they probably need to know before they make an investment into tooling a highly detailed model.
I suspect that BD is legally infringing upon Rapido's property if they took a Rapido shell and used it as a casting for their model (or the guy in Canada). But since Rapido never acknowledged it was copyrighted upon BDs request, I assume nothing criminal could be proven.
Shame on Rapido for their petty post.
I find it amusing, no rather ironic, that BD is claming a sort of moral high ground when they are trying to profit some someone elses hard work and intellectual property. Petty? I'm not buying it, any way you look at it.
It doesn't look like most people are buying it either. So far from what I'm reading in multiple forums, public opinion seems to be falling on the right side of ethics. Rapido is a class act and thats a fact.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I haven't read every word in this thread, so I may have missed this, but US and Canadian trademark and patent laws differ, and just because something is patented or trademarked in the U.S., it's not necessarily trademarked or patented in Canada or any other country. Also, as someone mentioned, it's almost impossible to keep illegal copies of any consumer item out of the marketplace because so many business produce knockoffs. This isn't just Chinese factories undercutting businesses with similar but unequal products -- it's also true of car body shops that use knockoff fenders when repairing accident damage, and pocketing the difference as extra profit.
rrebell wp8thsub carl425 The only copyright holder in this case could be EMD. Rapido should have licensed the copyright from EMD when he produced his model. That's not really how it works. The intellectual property isn't the prototype locomotive, it's the expensive development work and tooling needed to make a model of that locomotive in HO scale. You know you could just scan the loco, 3d print and do molds or feed the info into a cnc machine for the masters.
You know you could just scan the loco, 3d print and do molds or feed the info into a cnc machine for the masters.
If it is really that trivial then I don't think this discussion would exist.
Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view .... you spend many thousands of dollars to create a beautiful model, not to mention countless hours of your time with the hopes you can return a profit for all your effort.
Then, somebody takes your product that you've spent so much time and money on, makes a few trivial changes, then starts making copies to sell for huge profits. And by "huge profits", I mean as a percentage basis based on how much time and money THEY spent on creating the shell.
By BDs calculations, Rapidos huge investment of time and money created 85% of his product. You can bet BDs investment (time and money) is NOT 15% of what Rapido invested.
That being said, I could fully accept his business model if he was making the parts required for the variations (cabs, noses, sub-assemblies) for the end user to create - but to blatantly "steal" somebody elses hard work as the basis for your product is morally and ethically wrong.
rrebellYou know you could just scan the loco, 3d print and do molds or feed the info into a cnc machine for the masters.
That also would be at least ethically wrong and I suspect legally wrong. Someone else mentioned that Rapido hasn't "produced a copyright" or some to that effect enforecable across the US/Canadian border. Folks, we've been living side by side in peace for a couple of hundred years now -- and doing business, too. I suspect Rapido, which does business in multiple countries, likely has a pretty darn good internationally experienced attorney on board.
Some guy doing copies of Rapido products in his basement as a "retirement project" doesn't strike me as having a high-powered patent attorney on retainer. I would be really cautious about anyone saying "keep your content at least 15% and you can copy away." Because it's more complicated than that, to say the least, after a little googling around looking at something like "patent copyright trademark infringment copying". Here are a couple of interesting finds...
Look for the link to a pdf of " The Toy Sector and Intellectual Property Rights " here:
http://www.tietoy.org/publications/
Then there is "Copying in Patent Law"; the first ten pages or so provide a good background to this issue.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Lemley_Copying-in-Patent-Law1.pdf
I think Jason is hardly the first affected in this matter, he's just bold enough not to be quiet about it.Got no idea about what his legal options might be beyond this specific post. But I'd suggest that thw Dawg has picked a troublesome business model. By copying the work of many, he's also creating the sort of critical mass that will eventually lead to a backlash. I suspect if an attroney provided the 15% advice, he simply needs the business badly -- and his client may find he needs an attorney. This is definitely the sort of thing I'd get a second opinion on, because I think it simply begs for intervention.
Because the guys with the 3D scanners and printers aren't too far behind. When neat ideas no longer pay, then the industry that provides for us now will move on to where they can still make an honest buck.
Doesn't it make you wonder how Jason can be the only person on Mother Earth that can design a model of this locomotive?
I find that fact truely incredable and really quite hard to believe.The shell that Dawg has is not the older Rapido version but the new upgraded VIA version which is not even on North American soil yet.
CattDoesn't it make you wonder how Jason can be the only person on Mother Earth that can design a model of this locomotive?
I suppose Athearn could say the same about any of their F units GP38-2s,SD40-2s or the SW1500.. Yet several manufacturers offer these models.
Atlas could say the same about any other track manufacturer.
How many models have we seen announce by two different manufacturers almost back to back?
Just saying.
I get the feeling that a lot of posters in this thread dont have any other hobbies outside of model railroading. I have many hobbies and they ALL suffer from this very same thing but, far far worse. In R/C, there is an entire industry based on copying cars, trucks, planes and helicopters. Anytime a major manufacturer comes out with a new car or heli, you can bet money on there being a copy available within a month. In R/C it is so bad, that most knockoffs can use 75% of the original manufacturers spare parts. Its the same in paintball, the same in scale figures, and its even the same with accessories in my own profession, Firearms. Current patent laws allow for these things to happen so, if you don't like it, dont buy the knockoffs.
Now, I an not one of those saying BD is a knockoff artist. I admit that I own both his product and what he is accused of copying and the difference is pretty obvious. But, honestly, isn't trying to shame someone who is already willing to sell copies is kind of pointless isn't it?
HobbezBut, honestly, isn't trying to shame someone who is already willing to sell copies is kind of pointless isn't it?
Whatever the legal angle, it's not so much about shaming the Dawg as making consumers aware that their purchase undermines the Golden Goose that brings us exciting new stuff. Some folks may not care, but if you're young enough to worry about what happens in the next ten years in our hobby, then buying stuff like the Dawg's is only going to undermine most of the financial incentive of our hobby's manufacturers to offer new products. They'll invest elsewhere. Fewer mfgs, fewer pages of ad copy in places like MR, fewer new things to keep people interested in the hobby. This is not good, no matter how you slice it.
Since the Dawg is doing this as a retirement project, that doesn't matter much to him. In ten years, he'll likely be gone and the consequences won't matter in the interim, just that people keep sending him money that is at ~84% based on the efforts of others. The fewer consumers who do so, whatever might be lacking in his sense of shame, the better for our hobby.
I've been following this for a while now.... Here is my first foray into the issue:
This could all be settled very easily and effectively if Dawg would name his "anonymous" "Canadian modeler" that made the master.
Why do I want to know who the infamous Canadian is???
Rapido is run by a Canadian modeler....
And, if this is indeed a copy, who did he copy his other parts from?
And, Dawg, can we please prove, by references, the 84/16 "rule" that we have used in defense?
Curious minds would like to know.
(If they are really not copycat efforts, I would then bet many of us would be interested in his products. I for one would give a second look at a couple of his offerings if they were legit. Seriously doubt that right now though....)
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
mlehman rrebell You know you could just scan the loco, 3d print and do molds or feed the info into a cnc machine for the masters. That also would be at least ethically wrong and I suspect legally wrong. Someone else mentioned that Rapido hasn't "produced a copyright" or some to that effect enforecable across the US/Canadian border. Folks, we've been living side by side in peace for a couple of hundred years now -- and doing business, too. I suspect Rapido, which does business in multiple countries, likely has a pretty darn good internationally experienced attorney on board. Some guy doing copies of Rapido products in his basement as a "retirement project" doesn't strike me as having a high-powered patent attorney on retainer. I would be really cautious about anyone saying "keep your content at least 15% and you can copy away." Because it's more complicated than that, to say the least, after a little googling around looking at something like "patent copyright trademark infringment copying". Here are a couple of interesting finds... Look for the link to a pdf of " The Toy Sector and Intellectual Property Rights " here: http://www.tietoy.org/publications/ Then there is "Copying in Patent Law"; the first ten pages or so provide a good background to this issue. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Lemley_Copying-in-Patent-Law1.pdf I think Jason is hardly the first affected in this matter, he's just bold enough not to be quiet about it.Got no idea about what his legal options might be beyond this specific post. But I'd suggest that thw Dawg has picked a troublesome business model. By copying the work of many, he's also creating the sort of critical mass that will eventually lead to a backlash. I suspect if an attroney provided the 15% advice, he simply needs the business badly -- and his client may find he needs an attorney. This is definitely the sort of thing I'd get a second opinion on, because I think it simply begs for intervention. Because the guys with the 3D scanners and printers aren't too far behind. When neat ideas no longer pay, then the industry that provides for us now will move on to where they can still make an honest buck.
rrebell You know you could just scan the loco, 3d print and do molds or feed the info into a cnc machine for the masters.
Apparently, a lot of his castings even have the original Atlas and Kato part numbers still cast into them !
rrebell You misunderstood, I said scan the loco, not the copy! With todays tecnoligy you can scan the whole real engine, not the model, tweek things in a computer a bit, and make a model. A whole lot of what we call the best now, will be considered junk in 10 years (I kinda live in the silicon valley area, they like to show stuff at times). One of the emision printers showed up at a local gaming convention, not long after it was announced to the world.
You misunderstood, I said scan the loco, not the copy! With todays tecnoligy you can scan the whole real engine, not the model, tweek things in a computer a bit, and make a model. A whole lot of what we call the best now, will be considered junk in 10 years (I kinda live in the silicon valley area, they like to show stuff at times). One of the emision printers showed up at a local gaming convention, not long after it was announced to the world.
That is how Rapido made it's engine, go to their facebook page and they will show you how they did it with the RDC car. But that costs $Money, Big Dawg Copies or his Canadian supplier took the original Rapido Model, made a few changes to a different prototype by subtracting or adding detail and is now selling Rapido's Copywrited design with a few changes, but the original underlying design is Rapido's which is protected by Copywrite Law no matter how many changes Big Dawg Copies makes to the original master.
Rick J
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!
rrebellYou misunderstood, I said scan the loco, not the copy! With todays tecnoligy you can scan the whole real engine, not the model, tweek things in a computer a bit, and make a model.
As Rick pointed out, it's a big project to scan the 1:1, starting with getting access to the subject, then reducing it to the files needed to make a model. That doesn't seem to be the way Big Dawg is operating, though. But I absolutely have no problem with scanning the original. That's what Rapido did by investing in that project. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Big Dawg observed this fundamental model making convention.
I assume that somewhere Rapido has the paperwork that says they are licenced by both VIA Rail and GMD to replicate this model.If he does not have licence from both then the pot is calling the kettle black.
I would still like to know if he has purchased one of Dawgs shells and inspected it to prove his claim it is indeed copy of the not yet released locomotive.
If you go back to the original statement that someone else, not Rapido, provided, you will find that it says they will not provide support to modelers who want to finish Big Dawg shells.
If you read the Rapido website, you will find that their locomotive scanning projects have been done with the cooperation of the locomotives' owners, and that one of their F40 projects was done with Via Rail financial backing.
Other posters have said, without contradiction, that the shell Big Dawg is marketing is a modification of the previous Rapido F40 shell, not a remold of Rapido's impending project.
The basis is a direct copy of the Rapido shell with some details added to match the F40 as upgraded by VIA There would be no issue with him selling the relevant detail parts for any modeler who wish to modify a genuine Rapido model. But instead they chose to use the Rapido product as the master for their casting, and Rapido justifiably is upset.
And it should be pointed out that Rapido is not a big company with lawyers on staff. They have accomplished big things but in reality they are a very small operation.
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/12362684_10154156259616754_9041961866217277406_o.jpg
Rapido should contact Atlas, Athearn and Walthers (Proto) regarding their concerns. I'm sure the "big boys" would no doubt have some legal clout to back this ....
CattI assume that somewhere Rapido has the paperwork that says they are licenced by both VIA Rail and GMD to replicate this model.If he does not have licence from both then the pot is calling the kettle black.
That's not the issue, because the product involved isn't the prototype. It takes a lot of money and effort to develop plans and tooling to create a model locomotive. If somebody bases a model on a direct copy of another manufacturer's shell, it amounts to using that manufacturer's investment, and permission/licensing should be obtained for that.
It seems to me that there is a lot of rushing to judgment by people who's only knowledge of this issue is two conflicting written statements.
One of which we have not been provided a link to (as yet).
Which is exactly why I am standing by my comment.
Find out who made the master Dawg uses, then this whole thing is either proven, or disproven.
It either is a copy, or it is not a copy.
Only know for sure with a difinitive answer from Dawg.
It maybe a fully legitimate made model, not a ripoff of another's efforts. (And, I hope this is the case.)
It may also be a full fledged copy of another's efforts, not quite so legitimate. (Hopefully not.)
It may also be, that someone has "jumped the gun" and Rapido only made note that they cannot provide assistance for someone else's model. (Possible without a full link.)
Conclusion: Without further information from someone, we will not ever know for sure. (Could be a link to Rapido's full statement, could be release by Dawg of master, could be some other info.)
Hey, I want to thank all of you for a most entertaining thread as this will proubly be deleated come monday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wp8thsubThat's not the issue, because the product involved isn't the prototype.
Sure it is seeing how the prototype is a EMD design and therefore its their design and copyrights. You would need license to produce a model of their locomotives just like you would a GM or Ford model..
Jason has stated he would rather put the money into tooling than lawyers. Better return on investment.
How do you clone (copy) a model locomotive shell that is not even on North American soil ? The loco may be here now,but it definately was not when the Big Dawg shell was first cast.
Not defending anyhone here,just wondering in type.
After copying other folks already-released work, the Dawg apparently decided he would step up his game and beat Rapido to the market by whoever his "Canadian" friend is buying one of the already released Canadian versions of the F40 and then crudely hacking it into a shell for the modified version of the US version F40 that Rapido is just now getting to deliver [Jason provided a correction on the model at issue here; the US version is a little farther out that the Dawg is mimicking and Rapido is still in the process of finalizing the design, although the shell that he copied is the same one we've been talkinging about] -- probably because doing it right takes longer.
This is not exactly a new story...Rapido sent a C&D order sometime before mid-August and then sent the cited memo on not coming to Rapido for the parts to complete the ripped off shell that the Dawg is selling sometime after that. I suspect it's not up currently on the Rapido website because they don't want to give the Dawg's crude copies competing with models they are currently delivering any free publcity.
The dispute is real enough. Cannon & Co cancelled an order of parts to the Dawg's outfit, figuring why help the guy steal their Intellectual Property?
ESPEE5318 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tsokolan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Big Dawg's SD45 high hood is > > laughable. original fat bodied Athearn shell > with > > a Cannon high hood grafted to it...... > > > > -Trevor > > The Cannon High hood kit is way too high end for > big dawg , thats a recast of Atlas SD35 high hood. Well, I was processing some orders today, and found one from Big Dawg's wife for some Cannon parts I canceled the order and refunded their money. Might not stop him from copying my parts, but why make it too easy. Dave Hussey Cannon and Company
Obviously a lot going on. I suspect rather than a few companies taking individual action, it may come down to an industry group like MRIA taking collective legal action. Of course, the whole thing could implode if enough people realize that the Dawg is exploiting the investments of others to make a fast buck for himself. Retirement plan down the drain, either way...
maxman It seems to me that there is a lot of rushing to judgment by people who's only knowledge of this issue is two conflicting written statements.
More than that really and going on Jason's reputation alone, I am satisfied as to who is on the right side of ethics and morals. I've also read that Dave Hussey is doing all he can to stymie BDO from getting his parts for his cloning and intellectual property theft efforts.
All the decent folks in the hobby should follow Dave's lead.
I wish we had "like" buttons on this forum.
BTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves....
A perfect model is a perfect model.
You would have to trace the liscensing for the model back to EMD
DoughlessBTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves.... A perfect model is a perfect model.
The problem with that idea is that the Dawg is not making a perfect model of the prototype. He's making molds that retain distinctly identifiable markings that can be traced back to the original parts he is cribbing from.
Then there is the claim he has a legal right to do exactly that provided he changes at least 15% from the original.
You do all relize that everything we buy is a ripoff of sorts of someone elses design. Yes, the currant product may look nothing like what the original did many generations ago but for example the computer many of you use was ripoff after ripoff and don't get me started on cell phones, they still have hundreds of cases for these in the courts and we are talking major companys sueing major companys.
Well, two wrongs don't make a right....
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
BRAKIE wp8thsub That's not the issue, because the product involved isn't the prototype. Sure it is seeing how the prototype is a EMD design and therefore its their design and copyrights. You would need license to produce a model of their locomotives just like you would a GM or Ford model..
wp8thsub That's not the issue, because the product involved isn't the prototype.
Still nope. Any copyright for the prototype is a 100% separate issue from the intellectual property involved in the model. A model manufacturer has to spend time and money developing tooling, and the plans that allow for the prototype to be translated to the tooling.
To take your example of a model automobile, if GM wants to enforce licensing of its product, the model manufacturer would first obtain permission/licensing from GM to create its product. Not all such companies enforce licensing for models of their products, but they would definitely have a problem if somebody started selling direct copies of the full scale original - they are very much separate things legally.
Once the tooling and other work for the model is complete, there is another instance of intellectual property involved in the model, as the model manufacturer would have to invest in the labor, materials, machinery, and so on for making the model. If another party copies the model without permission, he's in effect engaged in theft of the investment necessary to produce the model, an investment that has no relation whatsoever to the prototype.
BRAKIEI suppose Athearn could say the same about any of their F units GP38-2s,SD40-2s or the SW1500.. Yet several manufacturers offer these models. Atlas could say the same about any other track manufacturer.
Again a completely separate issue. Athearn and Bachmann may both offer a model of a GP38-2. However, neither is based on the same tooling. Each was developed separately, and each manufacturer invested its own resources into tooling and other things necessary to produce the models. Bachmann isn't selling resin castings of Athearn shells without permission from Athearn.
Other track manufacturers aren't offering direct copies of Atlas track without permission to crib Atlas tooling.
Scale Trains just started selling an Evans 5100 boxcar, the same prototype as cars offered by Atlas and Details West (now Athearn). All three cars use completely different tooling which was independently developed. Neither Athearn nor Atlas would have any legal recourse against Scale Trains, as the latter manufacturer hasn't attempted to profit from anything but their own investment.
rrebellYou do all relize that everything we buy is a ripoff of sorts of someone elses design.
No, it's not. Original art and invention still thrives. Yes, there are a lot of questionable business practices out there, which is why the courts stay busy. There are pretty clear legal bounds for what is permissible and what's not. That doesn't keep people from thinking they can make a fast buck on the basis of someone else's investment.
And who are those people who invest time and money to bring products to market? The same people who buy ads in MR, which BTW helps sustain this forum, too.
There are no Big Dawg ads in MR. Why? Probably several reasons. One, Big Dawg, too cheap to make his own masters, isn't buying ads. I can't speak for Kalmbach, but it's probably not wise business to take ads from someone who cribs from the work of those who regualrly buy ads for new products in MR, either.
That's short term, as I pointed out earlier. If there is any susbtance found to the Dawg's legal claims, then in the long term this hobby will take a hit like it's never seen before. Big Dawg seems to have no plans to invest in our hobby, simply make a quick buck off of it. If his business model is permitted to prevail, new products will become scarce (along with the people they attract) and the market will be filled with knock-offs of varying levels of quality, but none the equal of the originals we remember. Ad revenue at MR will collapse, because after all you can look at old issues to see the quality version of that cheap knockoff that would then be all that's available.
I doubt that will come to pass. The problems with the Dawg's copy-at-will business model are already attracting negative publicity that will undermine his sales. When things boil over and end up in court, well I'm not a lawyer, but...
While it's still not clear to me that this is a patent, copyright, or trademark issue, it is clear that whatever it is the Dawg's models are determined to violate, there are things that rather obviously will be troublesome to his position in court. Read the first 10 pages or so of the UC Berkeley paper I cited a little earlier if you don't believe me. Either the Dawg doesn't read or he's choosing to ignore the precarious legal position he's claims exists to protect his copying of the IP of others.
The ad copy in the Dawg's auction ad it rather interesting...
Suggested chassis if applies:
fits a Kato, life-Like or that other brand chassis
Catt How do you clone (copy) a model locomotive shell that is not even on North American soil ? The loco may be here now,but it definately was not when the Big Dawg shell was first cast. Not defending anyhone here,just wondering in type.
Hi Johnathan,
Rapido's Amtrak F40PH model is just shipping to customers now. However, our VIA Rail Canada F40PH-2D was released a year ago. The model that Big Dawg is selling is a resin casting of our F40PH-2D shell with minor modifications made to the rear of the unit.
There is no grey (gray) area here. He's selling a casting of our model. This is against the law.
Making a casting of our model for your own purposes is kosher, as far as I am concerned. You want to modify our shell and then cast several for yourself? Have a great time.
But selling a casting of our shell is definitely not kosher.
We've been hesitant to mention Big Dawg anywhere, as any publicity is good publicity. No doubt my post on the CanModelTrains forum has sent some unscrupulous customers to Big Dawg.
However, after several people called us asking for parts to help them finish their Big Dawg shell, I decided enough was enough.
We are working on a ready-to-run model of the rebuilt VIA F40PH-2D. So honest model railroaders will have their patience rewarded.
Best regards,
Jason
P.S. Here's where the design is at now. Still needs some work.
Jason Shron - President - Rapido Trains Inc. - RapidoTrains.comMy HO scale Kingston Sub layout: Facebook.com/KingstonSub
I haven't commented so far, but I'm not sure the law is as clear cut as we would like. In the woodworking world for example (my other hobby) many/most shop tools available are Chinese imports of knockoffs (reverse engineered) of what were Delta products. Basically changed some parts, but mostly the same as the original design. So much so that today even the Delta tool company of today (not the same as the one from just a few years ago, but a restarted one) sells these reverse engineered knockoffs.
My point is, if an industry that large was not able to effectivly mount a legal challenge to knockoffs, it may be much harder in a small hobby.
jim
mlehman Doughless BTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves.... A perfect model is a perfect model. The problem with that idea is that the Dawg is not making a perfect model of the prototype. He's making molds that retain distinctly identifiable markings that can be traced back to the original parts he is cribbing from. Then there is the claim he has a legal right to do exactly that provided he changes at least 15% from the original.
Doughless BTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves.... A perfect model is a perfect model.
Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work.
Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials.
Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model.
The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
There are so many people in this hobby doing interesting work and creating interesting things that it's a shame we are wasting time talking about something like this -- it's been much less common in model railroading than in many other areas.
DoughlessJust moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
Wow, that will require some major changes in law and custom thatare so breathtaking that your proposal reflects more your confusion and ignorance about existing law than it does the reality of what intellectual property is.
A model of something else IS independently intellectual property from the original. It did not previously exist until someone made a 1:87 model of the original, for instance.
But you're also confusing various bits of patent, trademark, and copyright law in asserting that EMD or any other manufacturer must license models in order for them to be produced. That flies in the face of roughly a century of law and convention regading our hobby. The closest anyone ever came to what you're suggesting was the rather ill-fated attempts by CSX and UP to impose licensing fees on model makers, tied to the copyright of the paint scheme decorating the loco, not the loco (or rolling stock) itself. BNSF later adopted a similar program, but chose to do so in a way that was more about ensuring accurate depictions and charging a far more nominal fee. UP dialed back their program to a similar position. Not sure about the status of the CSX program, but I'm sure you can Google like anyone else.
In other words, you would need to overturn decades of precedence and existing law and replace it with something substantially different. That may be your thought, but it seems to have been undertaken without reference to the current legal status of model production.
Of course, even assuming you accomplished all that, getting compliance from the Dawg, who seems more interested in double-talk on this matter of current law with Rapido and others than in simply following the law like other manufacturers. Or will he simply assume the works he copies then already have the compliance part taken care of by others, so he can just do as he pleases?
Graham LineIt's pretty easy to trace the source of a recast model -- every model made has some identifying characteristics and some recasters have actually left identifying lettering and part numbers in their copies. If you look at areas of fine detail, like fans and screens, at door hardware and car ends, or at areas that have to be compromised for a plastic model, like the size of holes cored to accept handrails, or the thickness of car steps, it is a simple job to identify the heritage.
Yep, it sure is. Find the Dawg's auction for this dog on the auction site, then go to Rapido's webpage indicating the distinctly Canadian features of their model and compare.
http://www.rapidotrains.com/f40class1.html
Lots more pics here of the source model of the Dawg's casting:
http://www.rapidotrains.com/rapidonews53.html
Then compare. Sure, you'll see a lot of detail gone from the nose that's on the Rapido model, but it's clear that the casting was originally cribbed from the Canadian F40 of Rapido's. There's no centered light above the cab windows. The twin HEP sockets on each side under the anticlimber match, as do the hand grab and uncoupling lever holes. The mount for the snow plow is there and identical. The door on the left side midway down that side is in the Canadian position, not forward of there like the Amtrak one.
Yes, a new lamp was inserted inder the nose lamps or perhaps just tooled deeper or something. Then there are the various addons. Underlying it all is that one of Rapido's shells was hijacked to serve as the basis, in fact the majority of the basis of the Dawg's crude copy. Add it all up and the percentages matter a lot less than the hubris of the Dawg claiming this is the work of some anonymous Canadian. Maybe that's supposed to be the reason this "Canadian" built a master for an American F40 that is loaded with Canadian F40 features...because he just didn't know any better? I rather doubt that. It's because he warmed over Rapido's work enough so the Dawg believes he can declare it free range so that he could start ringing things up on his cash register.
I get the notion that some of the posters are saying the loco in question uses Jason's shell because it is the Canadian version of the F-40.I am not disputing the fact that it very well could be Jason's.But claiming it is his shell because it is a Canadian prototype is ridiculous.
I think Jason should aquire one of these shells,give it a real good inspection then if he has proof positive that it is his ask the Washington courts for a cease and desist order againest Dawg.
If you where actually making your own master of a US loco, why would there just happen to be all sorts of miscellaneous Canadian ONLY features on it? Either someone is a total idiot who randomly throws stuff at things you make just because --- or it's because you started with Rapido's shell? So much for any claims that it's an accurate model of what the Dawg says it is...and which theory do you think is really more ridiculous?
No need to acquire anything. Just compare the Dawg's hi rez pics and Rapido's as I linked to (no, I'm not going to give the Dawg any free ad space, his stuff can be found easily enough.)
I'm no F40 expert, but I've looked at enough models in the raw (gee, didn't mean that to sound so exciting...) to be able to pick out where things are identical and it's not because the second party bothered to go measure anything.
However, I would be pretty sure that Jason has acquired at least one of the suspect shells by now in order to take forensic measurements. It'll be easy enough to make a statistically certain analysis of various measurements to compare to Rapido's own...I have absolutely no doubt that's already been done. It's the first thing I'd do in this situation. And I suspect that's exactly why Jason stated in no uncertain terms earlier that he's been victimized by the Dawg. He's got proof beyond what's already posted on the internet, but it's easy enough to see what's going on if you bother looking.
Look at some of his under construction photos on his Facebook page - he makes no effort to hide the fact he is using Athearn, Atlas and Proto shells that are altered (slightly). Hell, most of the castings still have the manufacturer's part numbers cast into the underside !
And the saga continues. Maybe someone can suggest a name change for the company, maybe from Big Dawg to Naughty Dog. I guess more of the world is going to heck in a hand basket.
Catt I get the notion that some of the posters are saying the loco in question uses Jason's shell because it is the Canadian version of the F-40.I am not disputing the fact that it very well could be Jason's.But claiming it is his shell because it is a Canadian prototype is ridiculous. I think Jason should aquire one of these shells,give it a real good inspection then if he has proof positive that it is his ask the Washington courts for a cease and desist order againest Dawg.
Big Dawg himself does not deny it is Jason's shell. It is a fact that he used Jason's shell. The master for Big Dawg's casting is based on Jason's shell. Big Dawg does not deny it is Jason's shell. That fact has never been in question.
Jason is not interested in the persuing legal action. He states that in his post. You will read that if you read the original post of this thread.
Again, no one, including Big Dawg denies that this is Jason's work that he has copied.
What Jason is saying is that if you buy a Big Dawg shell, do not contact Rapido for any parts, paint or decals you need to finish the locomotive.
------
Greg WilliamsCanterbury, NBCanadahttps://www.gregstrainyard.com/
mlehman Doughless Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model. Wow, that will require some major changes in law and custom thatare so breathtaking that your proposal reflects more your confusion and ignorance about existing law than it does the reality of what intellectual property is. A model of something else IS independently intellectual property from the original. It did not previously exist until someone made a 1:87 model of the original, for instance. But you're also confusing various bits of patent, trademark, and copyright law in asserting that EMD or any other manufacturer must license models in order for them to be produced. That flies in the face of roughly a century of law and convention regading our hobby. The closest anyone ever came to what you're suggesting was the rather ill-fated attempts by CSX and UP to impose licensing fees on model makers, tied to the copyright of the paint scheme decorating the loco, not the loco (or rolling stock) itself. BNSF later adopted a similar program, but chose to do so in a way that was more about ensuring accurate depictions and charging a far more nominal fee. UP dialed back their program to a similar position. Not sure about the status of the CSX program, but I'm sure you can Google like anyone else. In other words, you would need to overturn decades of precedence and existing law and replace it with something substantially different. That may be your thought, but it seems to have been undertaken without reference to the current legal status of model production. Of course, even assuming you accomplished all that, getting compliance from the Dawg, who seems more interested in double-talk on this matter of current law with Rapido and others than in simply following the law like other manufacturers. Or will he simply assume the works he copies then already have the compliance part taken care of by others, so he can just do as he pleases?
Doughless Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
I'm simply saying that in the future, there won't be any tooling for a model (which isn't an original, like an artists painting) , there will just be a scanner, a computer, and a printer. The equipment will scan the original work of EMD and reduce it to what ever scale is set on the dial, so to speak. The modeler will provide no intellectual value. The shell they produce won't be made by the intellectual property of the tooling maker, it will be made by buying a common scanner and other equipment.
It seems to me that anybody that has that equipment can just head to their local rail yard and scan the full size prototype, take it home, feed it into their computer, set the dial at 1:87, 1:45, or 1:160...push a button, and a few minutes to hours later have an exact copy of the real skin.....provided the railroad/EMD lets them scan their locomotive to begin with, and didn't sell the "scanning rights" to a model manufacturer.
It just seems that the process that Rapido and BD are arguing over, intellectual property relative to tooling (of a miniaturization of EMDs original work) is going to be short lived, IMO. But I guess its worth them arguing over it in the meantime.
What I'm also saying is, how would any buyer ever know if they are getting an authentic Rapido or a copy of a Rapido, once Rapido starts producing EXACT COPIES of the prototype. Both the original and the knockoff will look exactly the same. The closer the market gets to demanding exact protospecific copies of locomotives, the easier it will be to produce knockoffs. Nobody would knockoff a Blue Box GP38
cprfan Big Dawg himself does not deny it is Jason's shell. It is a fact that he used Jason's shell. The master for Big Dawg's casting is based on Jason's shell. Big Dawg does not deny it is Jason's shell. That fact has never been in question.
Guess I missed it when looking at his site.
Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell?
Paul
IRONROOSTER cprfan Guess I missed it when looking at his site. Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell? Paul
cprfan
I said BDO does not deny, I didn't say he said he used Rapido's shell.
In BDO's rebuttal on his Facebook page he does not deny the use of Rapido's shell. I will attach below. Why would Big Dawg request patent information from Rapido if they didn't use Rapido's shell?
*FROM BIG DAWG'S Facebook SITE*
I would like to respond to a post that Rapido, a Canadian company, posted today on a site that accuses Big Dawg Originals of stealing intellectual property from them. Rapido apparently does not know US law on patents, trademarks ,and copyrights. I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. In fact, the master for this shell was not made by me -- a modeler in Canada made it and allowed me to mold and sell it. Basically, patent law states that as long as you change at least 15% of a design this constitutes a change in design. Rapido has not furnished me with patent information for this model after I requested it so I must assume they do not have any type of patent, copyright or trademark for it. My attorney tells me their post is slanderous and a gross defamation of my character. I am simply trying to fill a void in the hobby that I grew up with and do something in my retirement years that I enjoy. Shame on Rapido for their petty post.
Just wondering here..after reading through the entire thread:
Is it legal to buy a currently produced locomotive shell...scan it....print it....change 16% of the details (like adding an SP light package or a Frisco nose gyralight that the current shell does not)...make a new master of that...then crank out resin or styrene models?
It would seem to me that it would be legal, since the manufacturerer of the original shell is not making an accurate model of an SP or Frisco loco.
It may not be ethical, but I'm wondering if this kind of thing is allowed under copyright laws. The "copier" is fulfilling a market that the original did not, which benefits commerce.
The difference being that if you just copied the original shell, made an exact master, then resold the exact copied model...then that would be a illegal because you didn't have the right to produce something that is a copy of the original....and...you're not really filling a different segment of the market.
using my avatar as an example, can I take a Proto GP20, take off the turbo stack, the dynamic brake hatch, add an air filter box, two exhaust stacks, and move the horn...scan it...then make a master of it and sell it?
Am I not providing additional intellectual value by making those changes?
Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money.
I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells?
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
One other note for you lay lawyers. Some of you talked about law changes and stuff but that is built into the existing law. Law in this country is considered fluid and changes all the time. Every time a dispute is desided it has the potental of changing the law, that is why case law is so important. Now think on this, if Rapido had not mentioned anything about Dawg, I would not have even known of him as I am sure many others could say. Last, scanning rights would move over to the buyer of EMD product unless such rights were limited in the contract with said buyer.
Also I find it hilarious that the word "Originals" is actually part of their brand name.
fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells?
Regarding your GP30B Shells:
"My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum
cprfan IRONROOSTER cprfan Guess I missed it when looking at his site. Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell? Paul I said BDO does not deny, I didn't say he said he used Rapido's shell. In BDO's rebuttal on his Facebook page he does not deny the use of Rapido's shell. I will attach below. Why would Big Dawg request patent information from Rapido if they didn't use Rapido's shell? *FROM BIG DAWG'S Facebook SITE* I would like to respond to a post that Rapido, a Canadian company, posted today on a site that accuses Big Dawg Originals of stealing intellectual property from them. Rapido apparently does not know US law on patents, trademarks ,and copyrights. I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. In fact, the master for this shell was not made by me -- a modeler in Canada made it and allowed me to mold and sell it. Basically, patent law states that as long as you change at least 15% of a design this constitutes a change in design. Rapido has not furnished me with patent information for this model after I requested it so I must assume they do not have any type of patent, copyright or trademark for it. My attorney tells me their post is slanderous and a gross defamation of my character. I am simply trying to fill a void in the hobby that I grew up with and do something in my retirement years that I enjoy. Shame on Rapido for their petty post.
Oh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell.
Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating.
IRONROOSTER Oh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell. Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating. Paul
IRONROOSTEROh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell. Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating. Paul
Speculating? Ok, here I'll quote Rapido once again and let you draw the obvious conclusion:
Gentlemen, These guys - Big Dawg - have stolen our intellectual property by modifying our F40PH-2D shell and recasting it and selling it. We've made inquiries and the legal cost of going after Big Dawg is probably ten times their annual sales, so we're going to ignore them for now.However, if you buy these illegal goods, STOP CALLING US FOR HELP.We will not give you paint formulas. We will not sell you chassis. We will not send you detail parts. We will not help you complete your Big Dawg model that was ripped off from the Rapido model. You know, the Rapido model that took us years of hard work to develop and cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.If you decide to buy the Big Dawg shell rather than wait for the Rapido rebuilt F40PH-2D currently in development, then you are ON YOUR OWN. We will NOT HELP YOU.Please feel free to pass this message on.-Jason
These guys - Big Dawg - have stolen our intellectual property by modifying our F40PH-2D shell and recasting it and selling it. We've made inquiries and the legal cost of going after Big Dawg is probably ten times their annual sales, so we're going to ignore them for now.However, if you buy these illegal goods, STOP CALLING US FOR HELP.We will not give you paint formulas. We will not sell you chassis. We will not send you detail parts. We will not help you complete your Big Dawg model that was ripped off from the Rapido model. You know, the Rapido model that took us years of hard work to develop and cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.If you decide to buy the Big Dawg shell rather than wait for the Rapido rebuilt F40PH-2D currently in development, then you are ON YOUR OWN. We will NOT HELP YOU.Please feel free to pass this message on.-Jason
Hmmmm... by basic deduction, I'm thinking this one is a no brainer.
dti406 fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells? Regarding your GP30B Shells: "My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum Rick J
Rick, all I can say is Touche! Of course it's Fiery Turbo's money! Personally I don't think I'd patronize BDO with everything I've learned. For those who believe in Karma, well ... I'll just leave it at that.
cprfan If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so.
If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so.
BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell.
I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell.
I'm not saying they did or did not steal the design, but what you are saying just isn't the case. Big Dawg did deny it.
fieryturbo cprfan If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so. BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. I'm not saying they did or did not steal the design, but what you are saying just isn't the case. Big Dawg did deny it.
Big Dawg did not steal Rapido's design for a F40PH-3D shell. He stole the basis for a -3D shell, Rapido's F40PH-2D, which was modified to produce the -3D and then he cast that and sells it.
Without getting into whether or not something is a stolen product, I'm just wondering how much call there is for these products. From reading the forum, I believe that there are a couple who might want to build a loco from the shell up, but there are none in the circle of model railroaders I know from around here.
cprfan BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. Big Dawg did not steal Rapido's design for a F40PH-3D shell. He stole the basis for a -3D shell, Rapido's F40PH-2D, which was modified to produce the -3D and then he cast that and sells it.
The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question)
BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and modified it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development).
So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit.
Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
riogrande5761 dti406 fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells? Regarding your GP30B Shells: "My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum Rick J Rick, all I can say is Touche! Of course it's Fiery Turbo's money! Personally I don't think I'd patronize BDO with everything I've learned. For those who believe in Karma, well ... I'll just leave it at that.
I'm not a rivet counter, so I don't really care. I'm just glad there's some form of GP30B available. I have 3 of the bachmann GP30s, and at $30-40 each (yes plus sound decoders but that was my own choice) they are nice enough for me.
I'm sorry that Jason's work got ripped off, that's a new mold and it's not cool to go and do that. However, I do see the point of Big Dawg that he's filling a need that would go otherwise unfulfilled because of whatever reason (in my case, only UP or fantasy modelers would care about a GP30B)
I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here. Selling old and (as some might say) junky shell recast conversions for a fringe market is one thing, but new stuff that hasn't seen the light of day yet is is a totally different animal.
I know the laws are probably more straightforward on this sort of thing butI do agree that the latter definitely goes against the spirit of the hobby.
This has been going on with after market parts for a long time. They use one of our castings to create a mold make a tiny change and sell it for a quarter of our price.
Unless it has the Gm Ford etc logo on the box or part our legal team says nothing can be done.
Wonder how many of our forum members have aftermarket parts on their cars?
Doughless The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question) BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development).
I see no inconsistencies. It would be all good if Big Dawg had used his own design as the basis of the -3D but he used Rapido's.
By your logic I could take a book, rewrite the last chapter and print it and call it an "original". Since the ending is completely different, it's a new work of mine.
Nope, it doesn't work like that.
cprfan Doughless The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question) BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. I see no inconsistencies. It would be all good if Big Dawg had used his own design as the basis of the -3D but he used Rapido's. By your logic I could take a book, rewrite the last chapter and print it and call it an "original". Since the ending is completely different, it's a new work of mine. Nope, it doesn't work like that.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
DoughlessBD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I'm fairly certain that if the Dawg had access to the -3D shell, he'd just copy that one, too.
And it's simply not a -3D that he's offering. It's a hacked and weird -2D, complete with whatever Canadian features the mysterious "Canadian" didn't see the need to hack off. Those aren't on the American -3D. The side door isn't even close and was just what they decided to leave be, as changing that was apparently beyond the "moldmaker's" skill level.
He's only calling it a -3D to confuse customers into buying the weird shell he's selling as being the same as the forthcoming Rapido model. It's bogus to insist it's a -3D.
DoughlessI'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
The -3D is not yet out, so the Dawg hasn't had the chance to fake it into whatever he has in mind for that. He's simply calling that dog's breakfast he's selling a -3D to deceive customers who don't know any better.
mlehman Doughless BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. And it's simply not a -3D that he's offering. It's a hacked and weird -2D, complete with whatever Canadian features the mysterious "Canadian" didn't see the need to hack off. Those aren't on the American -3D. The side door isn't even close and was just what they decided to leave be, as changing that was apparently beyond the "moldmaker's" skill level. He's only calling it a -3D to confuse customers into buying the weird shell he's selling as being the same as the forthcoming Rapido model. It's bogus to insist it's a -3D.
Doughless BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and made some changes to it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development). So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, not putting someone high on a pedestal or low in the toilet by how accurate their model is.
It sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
I just noticed that the current auction that the Dawg had up for these knock-offs (showing 6 available yesterday when I saw it) now shows that it is "Ended"
Well, that's surely something accurate for a change from the Dawg.
Doughless I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, not putting someone high on a pedestal or low in the toilet by how accurate their model is. It sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
In addition he or his model master builder ripped off a Shapeways part for that rear appendage on the unit, that the person who did the design for is no longer receiving his money for doing the design on Shapeways.
DoughlessIt sounds like you're saying that BD is not reproducing either a Rapido 2D or soon to be released 3D, but a cruder version of both made out of a different material.
See my message at 5:54 yesterday (Sunday) on page 4 of this thread. It has links to good pics of Rapido's models for comparison to the now ended ebay auction. I'm not going to give the Dawg any links, so you're on your own in finding it, but you find it you can still see the pics to compare to those in Rapido's well-labeled callout of various specific features of the -2D if you follow the "see original listing" link near the top.
mlehman Doughless I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D. The -3D is not yet out, so the Dawg hasn't had the chance to fake it into whatever he has in mind for that. He's simply calling that dog's breakfast he's selling a -3D to deceive customers who don't know any better.
Doughless I'm not justifying anything. I'm just asking if BD used Rapidos 2D to make their 3D...or did they use Rapidos 3D to make their 3D.
Mike. Someone else upstream mentioned that BD makes the only gp30B available, and I assume that by some standards depending upon their tolerance for inaccuracies, could claim that it isn't really a GP30B....or a very good one. So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
There are many comments in this thread and I'm not sure if the facts have really been made clear before a lot of opinions have been expressed.
DoughlessSo now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
Nope, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the evidence for this.
DoughlessThe source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
We would not be having this discussion if the Dawg was simply a rather imaginative fellow who offered parts to suit his whimsy -- provided he created his own intellectual property instead of "borrowing" someone else's.
One more thing. Discussing the details as evidence of the shell's origin and the fact that it would be nonsensical to claim that it's actually a -3D when it's obviously not, that brings up an element that is not about modeling skills, but one that's even more troubling. Infringement of IP is one thing. I know a little about that, like I said I am no expert but can sort out the relevant references.
But I know relatively less about consumer deception or, as some would call it, fraud. Got my opinion on that, mostly that the Dawg is as good at fooling himself as the public about what's needed in terms of accurate descriptions of a product. Maybe hs really is that sloppy because he just doesn't know any better? But once you start involving the consumer, then the government gets more interested than they are in a commerical complaint over IP, which is almost always a civil matter and of no interest to the police. If I were the Dawg, I'd double check when one of my bright ideas overlaps with someone's actual product delivery dates. Might be best to hold off, even if you insist all this copying is AOK and totally above board ( ), so that no one could accuse you of trying to take adavanatge of the consumer through misrepresentation. That would be the safest path given the Dawg is certainly wandering in a mine field of bad assumptions right now.
mlehman Doughless So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards. Nope, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the evidence for this. Doughless The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product. We would not be having this discussion if the Dawg was simply a rather imaginative fellow who offered parts to suit his whimsy -- provided he created his own intellectual property instead of "borrowing" someone else's.
Doughless So now we're introducing the concept of a company making a misrepresentation based upon modeling standards.
Doughless The source of the thread is copying intellectual property and either selling it substantially as is or altering it enough into a different product.
Based upon what I'm reading, a lot of the people who would buy the Rapido product would not buy the BD product because of crudeness. It sounds like Rapido and BD are serving two different markets, which creates more commerce than if Rapido had the only 3-ishD.
I'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate, the US Courts encourage a certain amount of copying to take place (at a level many are uncomfortable with) because they want a variety of products coming to market.
Otherwise, people who would settle for a crudish representation of a 3D would have to come to Rapido and pay $350 for a bunch of accuracy they didn't want...(a situation I'm sure Rapido would like) or not buy any 3D at all, which would be a shame because overall commerce would not be maximized if the "lower" customer would stay away from the market.
Doughless I'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate, the US Courts encourage a certain amount of copying to take place (at a level many are uncomfortable with) because they want a variety of products coming to market.
Yeah, there's very little that can actually be done about this. Assuming he did in fact copy the Rapido mold, he has altered it to the point where its value is questionable, and he's not even selling it as the same model. Add to this the model it represents is already a custom job by VIA rail, and you have a whole bunch of parties that could want a chunk of this dude's money.
Realistically, I have to agree that the work this guy does is probably not something a Rapido buyer would be interested in. I think the value in the Rapido model is that it's a high-quality, ready-to-run model with a lot of detail.
DoughlessSo, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
If he used the 2D shell to make his master for the 3D, he's still just as guilty. Both shells are the IP of Rapido.
Steve S
mlehman I just noticed that the current auction that the Dawg had up for these knock-offs (showing 6 available yesterday when I saw it) now shows that it is "Ended" "This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing." Well, that's surely something accurate for a change from the Dawg.
No longer listed on his web site either.
DoughlessI'm assuming that if that 15% rule is generally accurate
It's not.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Steven S Doughless So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model. If he used the 2D shell to make his master for the 3D, he's still just as guilty. Both shells are the IP of Rapido. Steve S
Doughless So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit. Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
I really don't know the law and I'm just thinking out loud, but how did LL "clone" the Athearn truck?
If they didn't make a direct casting from each part, did they take precise measurements of each part? What's the difference?
And that stuff has to be more exact than a shell because the parts actually move. The LL truck is an exact copy of Athearn's IP, no matter how LL copied it.
The six axle truck is a kato clone. Does it have something to do with the fact that LL was one of the first to produce parts in China?
Nobody seemed to have a problem buying LL locos in the 90's.
Hi guys,
Here's some info about Canadian locomotive designations as I can see the nomenclature is tripping some people up.
VIA Rail Canada received the real F40PH-2D locomotives between 1986 and 1989. This looks similar to an Amtrak F40PH but has numerous significant differences. Rapido brought out a model of the VIA F40PH-2D in January 2015.
Rapido's Amtrak F40PH has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It's a completely different project that only shares a handful of parts with the VIA F40PH-2D. Our model of the Amtrak F40PH is shipping to stores now.
Starting in 2010 the real VIA F40PH-2D locomotives were rebuilt. A lot of Canadian railfans have started calling the rebuilt units the F40PH-3. As that's a made-up railfan term, we at Rapido refer to this class of locomotive as a rebuilt F40PH-2D, which is a bit more accurate.
Big Dawg or his agents acquired a Rapido F40PH-2D model. They grafted a few details onto it and sanded down a few others to make an approximation of a rebuilt F40PH-2D. They then used this model as a master. They made resin copies of this model. And they have been selling the resin copies. The basis of their model is our shell. Not a scan of our shell. Not a measured-and-recreated version of our shell. But our actual, physical shell that we manufactured in our factory and delivered earlier this year.
These are not "debatable" statements. These are facts.
If you think there is nothing wrong with taking our model, changing it a bit, and then reselling castings of it, then the discussion is moot. There is nothing anyone on this list can say that will make you understand our point of view. We'll just have to agree to differ.
-Jason
After reading all five pages of this issue I keep thinking of one of the most famous incidents of intellectual property theft of all time. The "borrowing" of Dr Robert Kerns intermittant windshield circuit by the Ford Motor Co in the sixties. It took Dr Kerns years and basically almost his whole personal life to prove he was in fact the inventor therefore titled to immense royalties.
This case is exactly the same except BD did not even have permission to borrow the shell and the stakes are a little smaller. Still the unethical behavior of BD is disgusting.
Keep up the good work Jason. I have decided after this I will buy the new Amtrak F40 PH although I already have a Kato I added sound to.
SB
blabrideKeep up the good work Jason. I have decided after this I will buy the new Amtrak F40 PH although I already have a Kato I added sound to. SB
If it is of any help, the version of F40PH Rapido is doing in Amtrak is the phase I version. IIRC KATO did the phase III body - which was good for the higher number series Amtrak diesels. If I an afford one, I'll get one or Rapido's myself, although I've spent my Dec budget already on a couple of Athearns new SD40R's.
That's what I realized after studying the Rapido's. I'm thinking I can do a late seventies early eighties Lone Star with some walther's Amfleets in a Phase II scheme. Somewhere I have a picture of a set up like this running down the middle of Mopac in Austin. It might have been the Inter American need to look. I am thinking the InterAmerican.
http://www.railpixs.com/amt2/AMT253_TempleTx_Jan78.jpg
This has been an exceptionally interesting thread although I think every possible viewpoint has been expressed.
My hunch is that we are now in an era with unprecedented ability to copy (and distribute those copies) physical objects -- much like the last few decades have seen a new and incredible ability to copy sounds (music), photos, entire books and movies. It is going to get more common and the copies are going to get better and better.
Some of the comments posted above mention that the Big Dawg versions look rough and inferior, perhaps in part because of BD's perceived need to maintain this 85%/15% ratio of copy vs. original. Or perhaps because of limitations of the technology available to him. Well it is easy to resist buying rough or inferior stuff. Surely there are those with access to the technology to make perfect copies.
The interesting MORAL dilemma comes when the copies are perfect and are really cheap and have wide distribution. Will we reward the original creators by loyally supporting them, or will we follow our pocketbooks and go with cheap?
Dave,
Until the costs of Shapeways come down with increased usage and or a better material, scanning and 3d printing a copy of the existing shell will probably cost more than buying the entire unit from the manufacturer.
We are seeing a lot of problems though, even with these shells from where ever they are made, we still need a frame, motor and trucks. Now with the current only make what is ordered plus a few extra units for parts the parts are now drying up what with the death of the blue box locomotives and the attendent cheap supply of parts that Athearn used to maintain.
Issues aside, I do not think Big Dawg is using any advanced techniques to produce his shells. Plain old build up a physical master, cast a mold, and then case the product with resin - much the same as many of the other small volume specialty kit makers like Westerfield, Sunshine, and F&C.
The ability to use a 3D scanner and directly send to a 3D printer most definitely is going to open up issues that weren't even thought of in science fiction when many of these laws were written.
Like I said, a real shame what's going on, because I really wanted to like the guy, even if none fo the products are things I would buy (too new for me). Because - Pug. However, regardless of taste in pets, stealing is stealing. And if the dog really is 50 pounds like he says on his web site, that's borderline animal abuse (probably over-loving with treats, actually) since Pugs should not be more than 25 pounds or so. They have enough issues without being overweight on top of it.
When Mike Wolf sued Lionel for stealing intelectual property, four people were convicted — some serving jail time — and Lionel had to pay somewhere in the area of $40 million in fines and restitution!
Here is an excerpt from an Inc. Magazine article:
Samhongsa's former designer was convicted of trade-secret theft, as was the head of Korea Brass, who was found by a South Korean appellate court to have paid for the stolen designs and used them in the manufacture of trains it sold to Lionel. (A total of four people were convicted. The harshest sentence was a jail term of several months.) The link to Lionel was a U.S.-based Korea Brass sales agent named Yoo Chan Yang, who happened to be in South Korea the day of a February 2000 raid of Korea Brass' office and whose computer Korean agents seized. Yang's hard drive contained e-mail correspondence with a high-level Lionel employee that pointed to Lionel as a knowing recipient of the stolen designs and some of MTH's production schedules as well.
While Lionel and Wellspring have mostly declined to comment on the trial, juror Edward Rutkowski, a 51-year-old tooling layout inspector and the only member of the jury with relevant technical manufacturing expertise, explained one of the determining factors. "What was pretty damning," he says, "we brought into the jury room two trains [an MTH and a Lionel]. I flipped them over and the way the screw holes and everything lined up there was no doubt in my estimation that it was a copied design. You could have literally screwed the parts for one train to the other."
Read the full article here:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050201/mth.html
VERY similar circumstances,
Ed
Just have a quick question for everybody. How is what BD is doing (not condoning the behavior) any different then someone buying a pack of DPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
Not defending BD,but I would like to know how Jason knows possitivly that BD's F-40 uses his shell.
{snip}
csmincemoyerDPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
I understand that Chooch was having that exact problem and they were unwittingly facilitating the act. The culprit would buy one Chooch retaining wall then use the Chooch vacuum plastic package to pour additional copies. Chooch has since placed a slip of paper in the package to inhibit this practice.
Point is, you are still stealing proprietary property by making duplicates of another parties' creative output.
csmincemoyer Just have a quick question for everybody. How is what BD is doing (not condoning the behavior) any different then someone buying a pack of DPM building modules, windows, a vehicle kit, stonework mold and then casting your own parts using Micro-Mark products?
Nothing wrong with casting the parts for yourself, just you can't sell them to anyone else, that is violating the original owners copywrite.
he's filling a need that would go otherwise unfulfilled because of whatever reason I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here.
I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here.
Ok, I'll wax philosophical just for a second to make a point - drug dealers fill a need too. Illegal is illegal (not to mention unethical and immoral). I grew up in a by-gone era when there used to be more widely held concepts as ethics and right and wrong, and people didn't want to support something like this. Now the motto is "the ends justify the means" no matter if it's illegal or unethical.
I know the laws are probably more straightforward on this sort of thing but I do agree that the latter definitely goes against the spirit of the hobby.
From what I'm reading, it is a matter of merit which could be pursued in the courts, but unfortunately enforcing the law, and going after these kinds of operations is sadly not always feasible in dollars an cents. When that fails, there are still things in the internet age where people can use social media and similar avenues. Sometimes that can be effective, at least while the spot light is glaring.
I don't see any reason to "nip this thread in the bud," but do keep it on topic, please.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Catt Not defending BD,but I would like to know how Jason knows possitivly that BD's F-40 uses his shell.
Draw a picture.
Have someone else photocopy it.
I bet you can tell it's a copy of your picture.
When you make a model train, it's like a drawing or a sculpture. You put your own "imprint" on it. You can tell instantly when someone has copied it. There are numerous details that are unique to your model, such as the height of the battens, the diameter of the rivets, the way the shell is mounted to the chassis, the radius of each corner.
I can assure you 100% that the Big Dawg model is a recast of our shell.
fieryturbo ... I'm sorry that Jason's work got ripped off, that's a new mold and it's not cool to go and do that. However, I do see the point of Big Dawg that he's filling a need that would go otherwise unfulfilled because of whatever reason (in my case, only UP or fantasy modelers would care about a GP30B) I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here. ... I know the laws are probably more straightforward on this sort of thing butI do agree that the latter definitely goes against the spirit of the hobby.
...
I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here. ...
A drug pusher is also fulfilling a need. At least, thats what his clients tell him, and that's what he believes in order to continue to take their money, hoping they'll return again and again. The problem is...there's no need. It's all want and greed. Big difference.
I don't understand why you can admit your conscience isn't clear, but also that you'd say publicly you'll avail yourself of dubious goods. As an ethicist, this baffles me. Your desire for a simple model shell will allow you to abandon your principles? Really? You say you are now convinced that Jason has a new shell that Dawg is copying, and that it's not cool...but you sound very keen to purchase one as soon as you can. You can't have it both ways unless you'd like to be not cool as well. What other conclusion is there?
Well, it must be the case that Big Dawg has many clients who think as you do, otherwise he'd be going broke.
I wonder if Jason is on his Christmas list.
We should also remember that when Jason went public, he had two messages. One was to complain, justifiably, about the theft of his intellectual property.
But perhaps more usefully to the model community, it was to advise us that buying from Big Dawg was probably a waste of money. You did get a shell, but that was all. The necessary parts to complete the project correctly were simply not available, and weren't going to be available. Putting a shell from one prototype on the frame of a significantly different version defeats the desire for an exact model. And Jason had already heard from several folks who had been bitten by that pitfall.
The modeler who created the original master did it by kit-bashing the genuine Rapido product, adding other commercially available detail parts and likely some of his own. That is a legitimate and longstanding practice in the hobby when done for your own personal pleasure. It can even be sold commercially as long as the seller has previously purchased a base shell and detail parts for EACH model (perhaps with a volume discount). Then all that is added is labor.
Which is exactly why, although an SD60E would be cool, especially in NS911, I will be looking elsewhere.
If Dawg has (not quite faithfully, and not at all ethically) copied once, he will/would/has again.
Even if manufacturers made available parts, I do not wish to contribute to any questionable business practices when I have good reason to believe they exist. I take my money elsewhere. Or, I save it as that item is not really that necessary after all.