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.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
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.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
Rob Spangler
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).
Jim
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
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.
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.
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
- Douglas
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.