question about UP licensing

[Virginian]

Thye same thing is happening in the model plane business, and most of those unique designs were payed for with taxpayer dollars. I think UP having the American flag on their equipment is very appropriate. The *** lawyers are ruining the whole country in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

What you'll see is companies like EMD charging for their designs. This +WILL+ KILL the model railroafd industry.

[Anonymous]

Wow... I didn't mean to start a flame war here. I had just been thinking about how the trademark business is going to affect the things I read.

IMO, if more railroads start charging fees, we are going to see more undecoracted locos, and people will either buy a decal set, have custom decals made, or people will make "similarly" colored and lettered locos and rolling stock.

You've probably seen video games of baseball or football that haven't been licensed by MLB or the NFL - they have fictional team names, but often have very recognizeable colors. :)

For the amount of money UP has, it seems that the licensing fee that MR companies would be able to pay would be small potatos.

We'll see how it goes.

Rob

[Anonymous]

Hey, BRAKIE, by your handle it sounds like you are a railroad (probably UP) employee who has a few shares of (probably UP) stock. Well. the few cents that you stand to gain from shaking down the model railroad industry will be overshadowed by just another blast of bad press that will result from this EXTORTION. Especially despicable is the way they went after Athearn who is the VERY last major producer of model trains in America, Then these guys have the audacity to put the American flag on their locomotives. Oh, and by the way if you really are a brakeman, you know how bad labor relations are in the railroad industry and UP is the absolute WORST. Now I'm getting nostalgic for the ICC.

[BRAKIE]

LOL! The hobby will not be killed by licensing fees but but the modelers and manufacturers.The modelers because they want 110% fully detailed from the box and the manufacturers by given into these modelers that will force the price of our cars and locomotives beyond what the normal working man with a family can afford even at deep discount.Look how much the price of the hobby has raised over the last 5 years before the UP licensing fee.Why? modelers want perfection from the box which caused the price to raised due to the added detail work and not to mention the RTR market which means you PAY the manufacturers to assemble that engine or car for you.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jsoderq

Before you start another war, almost any other hobby has had licensing for many years - Nascar, all pro sports, auto models, truck models, almost everything you can think of so UP is not going to kill model railroading. Diecast is stronger than it has ever been and it is almost 100% licensed.

YOU SITLL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE. Model railroading IS UNIQUE. Our trains are barely affordable for many people now . I think your Pro licensing stance is ideologically based. NASCAR is in the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS. Images ARE their MAIN PRODUCT Railroads are in the TRANSPORTATION business and the WIDESPREAD perception is that Railroads are DANGEROUS BAD NEIGHBORS that are DISAPPEARRING anyway. This perception is being strongly reinforced by the railroads themselves with their Operation Lifesaver and other programs wh8ich are designed to highlight how dangerous railroads are to the surrounding community. While safety messages are important, the fact of the matter is that the railroads have aboput the WORST P.R. there is. And I will PUBICLY DEBATE your boss John Bromley on that point. Go ahead, kill the hobby and take out the only group of people who believe in railroading
Railroading IS NOT NASCAR OR THE Beatles AND IT NEEDS ALL THE FRIENDS IT CAN GET.

[jsoderq]

Before you start another war, almost any other hobby has had licensing for many years - Nascar, all pro sports, auto models, truck models, almost everything you can think of so UP is not going to kill model railroading. Diecast is stronger than it has ever been and it is almost 100% licensed.

[Anonymous]

GVDOBLER, I think that you need to reevaluate your position. Railroads and equipment manufacturers have for decades allowed model train manufacturers to make likenesses of their logos and products Creative businesses like music and movie companies PRODUCE the music and images as their basic product and are entitled to protection of that product. If Union Pacific gets it's way it will KILL model railroading and with it, the one group of prople who think railroading has any future. Imagine if EMD had their paws out along with the railroad whose name is painted on an engine. This would add $ 10 to $15 to the price of every model locomotive and would TOTALLY DESTROY the toy train business. JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF THE MOST P.R. IGNORANT BUSINESS ON EARTH MACHINE GUNNING I'TS FOOT

>

QUOTE: Originally posted by gvdobler

If you sell a product with say Disney characters or Elvis' face, then you must pay the people that own the rights.

When you hear music playing in a bar or wherever, the owner is paying a subscription to BMI (Broadcast music Inc) and the pay the royalty money to the artists. You will note that Elvis is dead (fallen flag) but you still have to pay his estate. (he makes more now than when he was alive, by the way.)

I guess I don't see what UP did that was so bad.

Jon - Las Vegas

[howmus]

Newspapers and Magazines fall under "fair use" rules for copyright and therefore do not have to obtain a license to use Logos under most circumstances. There are many exemptions to copyrighted use that fall into "fair use". For instance as a teacher I could make a recording of a student playing a copyrighted song for use in Face to Face Teaching. If I then decided to sell a few hundred copies of that recording to the public, then I have to get a license for it. The same is true if I use a photo done by someone other than myself on a CD jacket. I at least have to get (and do get) written permission from the photographer to use the photo. I have a photo done by our local newspaper of the MLK service last January that will be used for MLK Committee advertising. The Paper has given written permission to use it with the understanding that we cannot use it in any "for sale" item (a calendar for instance).

Hope this helps to explain the process. [:)]

[gvdobler]

If you sell a product with say Disney characters or Elvis' face, then you must pay the people that own the rights.

When you hear music playing in a bar or wherever, the owner is paying a subscription to BMI (Broadcast music Inc) and the pay the royalty money to the artists. You will note that Elvis is dead (fallen flag) but you still have to pay his estate. (he makes more now than when he was alive, by the way.)

I guess I don't see what UP did that was so bad.

Jon - Las Vegas

[Big_Boy_4005]

It would be a pretty vicious circle if they did.

[dehusman]

No, the magazine does not pay a royalty. The UP liscenses its logo's use to the manufacturers of the items with the logo.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

We've all heard about the UP wanting to protect its trademarks by charging a licensing fee for manufacturers to decorate models in its colors...

Here's another questoin:

In MR this month (and many months) there are pictures of models decorated in UP colors. Since they are trademarked, does MR have to pay a fee to display them?

I was thinking yes, then I was thinking - newspapers display pictures of major league baseball players, without permission, I'm assuming. And computer game manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee and get permission to use MLB team logos, etc.

So... how does the legality of this work? In both cases someone is making money selling something with UP colors?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm pretty sure that there are Kalmbach books with UP colors, and IIRC, you can contact Kalmbach and get back issues or copies of older articles, featuring same....

Anybody know?

Rob