Jump to content

DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19


RJennings
 Share

Message added by AY Mod

Please keep posts on topic. Rubbish will be removed.

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, KDG said:

But didn't both Hornby and Lima make something that looks like a class 92 about 30 years ago.........?

 

This is all madness

It would be interesting to know what the owners of the actual class 92's view is on who could own the IP rights to a model of their loco and all the sub suppliers components which are fitted etc - manufacturer of the pantograph for example. 

 

Cheers

 

Simon

 

 

Edited by 87023Velocity
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the disillusion with DJM, from lack of progression of past projects if nothing else. I also get the affronted response to his announcement.

 

It is also the opinion of several well-informed posters on this forum, that DJM has let at least two major players down, when commissioned, over the past several years. It is probable that Dave went solo with too little working capital, a common error with start-ups, and got shafted when he did not deliver. He is/was a great designer and (when part of Dapol) someone who could deliver, albeit with the heft of the larger corporate entity behind him. 

 

It is sad that so many have such vitriol against one of the few people who tried to challenge the status quo. If it was not for him, and perhaps one or two others (who also failed to make a buck out of it), we probably would not have the diverse selection of manufacturers we have probably ever had. Each new entrant causes the others to pull their socks up.

 

Far from stifling competition, Dave Jones has driven it, but has been unable to deliver much (yet) on his own, and owes his survival largely to commissions. Many of us have lost a bit of money, or sometimes just faith, in trying to make this work. He is now trying to recoup his losses through a legal procedure, which may or may not be ill advised. We shall see. He may go bust, or not. I am still amazed as to how Accuracraft and even Hattons and Kernow, are managing to do what he tried to do, and make money. There are some indications that, perhaps at least two of those, have not found it as easy as they accused DJM, to do so. Another commissioner, Olivia's, has perhaps found an answer, which is to charge a small fortune for stuff that has limited appeal, but appeal at almost any price for those who are prepared to pay for it.

 

But what it does illustrate is some outrageous hypocrisy on this forum, from all those who spout endlessly on about how they are being ripped off by the big boys, about how easy it would be to produce X,Y and of course Z, for naff all effort and huge returns, and why oh why are there so many Class 66's......

 

Best of luck with that. Dave has been there, seen it, done it (but not far or fast enough for this market) and has now tried another approach. He may not be a very competent business person, but we will be the poorer for it.

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dcroz said:

 

As both OO and N gauge Class 92s were registered as IPs by Dave on 9th September 2018, lawsuits would seem to be a real possibility if DJModels serves a “cease and desist” letter on the 2 other manufacturers concerned ...

Which is what makes me think this whole charade is aimed directly at two other manufacturers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was interesting. Found at: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

 

Figure 3.ii

 

What constitutes an infringement?

An unregistered design is only infringed by copying. Independently created designs are not infringements. You have the right to take civil court action against infringement of a design right.

 

 

Any other maker could claim that by producing their own CAD and showing their own research materials that they worked independently and that in no way was the work of DJ Models used. As detailed above he can only protect artwork/design drawings that he has produced, from unauthorised use.

 

He can't prevent anybody else from creating their own artwork and designs.

 

 

Edited by Anglian
  • Agree 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Quote

To expand on that a bit, the concept of design in a physical, 3D object has no sense of "scale".

Actually it does.

CAD is a vectorised drawing, based on scale by measuring points and scalar from an origin point.

That scale can be pixels or by measurement (Metric, imperial etc).

Microsoft Visio for example is vector, scaled by pixel, rather than usual measurement (mm/inches) but is none the less a scaled drawing, but it can be ratio’d to any size dimension, in just the same way a 1:1 size CAD can be shrunk or increased.

3D cad, such as sketch up etc is also scaled (with 3 coordinates, Length, Width and Depth, X,Y,Z) is is still scaled, the accuracy of course is up to the end user.

 

once saved as a picture, it loses scale as that’s a raster (jpg, gif etc) and has no scale.

(FYI I was a developer of  a propriety CAD application).

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KDG said:

But didn't both Hornby and Lima make something that looks like a class 92 about 30 years ago.........?

 

This is all madness

 

...and CJM produced an N-Gauge Version of a loco that looked remarkably like a 92 quite a few years ago as well...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The IP that Mr Jones appears to be relying so heavily on only belongs to the added value he has brought to the creation of the drawings.

That is to say the actions that made it a drawing of a model, as opposed to the full size real life version - Any IP there belongs to the original designer.

 

Any other model, where the drawings are taken from the original does not steal his IP - and I think DJ thinks that it does (Or rather, he hopes that other people think that!)

Edited by LBRJ
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

That being the case, then I cannot print what I am thinking - Heljan did the first class 17, Dave tried to do one in N, Heljan must surely have rights to other scales.

 

Surely the IP for that design sits with the Clayton Equipment Company, who are very much still with us and building locomotives. (edit: from reading MarkSG's post above, it will have time expired)

 

 And the class 17 is quite a nice bit of industrial design (the mechanical bits maybe less so...) and so probably represented a significant outlay in time and money by them. 

Edited by pete_mcfarlane
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

Putting my IP hat on for a moment...

 

There is, potentially, some value to registering CAD/CAM designs, but probably not as much as Dave thinks. It certainly won't prevent duplication. But it would prevent anyone else using his CAD for their own models.

 

To expand on that a bit, the concept of design in a physical, 3D object has no sense of "scale". It's purely the distinctiveness of the shape. Just like a photo is , legally, the same photo whether it's the size of a postage stamp or printed on a billboard, a design is the same design whether it's in 4mm scale, 2mm scale or twelve inches to the foot. That fact is relied on by creators of full-size designs to prevent people ripping them off. You cannot, for example, sell a model of the Angel of the North without the permission of Anthony Gormley, since he owns the design. The fact that your model is smaller than the real thing doesn't change that.

 

As far as railway models are concerned, the design right in a loco or wagon belongs to the original designer of the real thing. But that only applies as long as the design right exists. It doesn't apply once that right has expired. So, for example, Hornby, Bachmann, et al need the permission of the manufacturer to release a model of the IET, as that's a recent design, but not to release a model of a Jinty, as the IP in that will have expired long ago.

 

In the case of a model, though, the design of a model will be slightly different to the original. And those differences are subject to new design right. So Hornby can't just take a Bachmann model of a Jinty, scan it and create a replica, they have to start from scratch with their own design work.

 

That's where Dave's registrations will help. If he has had problems with clients commissioning him to produce a model, then taking the CAD/CAM files he's done for that and then going direct to the factory with those designs in order to cut out the middle man - then they can't do that any more. (Well, technically, they couldn't do it before, but it's a lot easier to prove infringement if the design is registered). If Dave does some work on his computer (or pays someone else to do the work) in order to create a set of CAD/CAM files necessary to create the tooling for a new model, then only DJM can use those files to create the tools.

 

So there is some value to what Dave has done. I presume the reason the major manufacturers haven't bothered with registering designs is because they, typically, don't do commissions in the same way (or don't rely on them to the same extent), so they're in far less danger of being ripped off by clients than DJM is (and, possibly, they're in a position to be much more picky about their clients). But, for a small manufacturer, I can see the benefit in registering designs so that a client who commissions them is then locked in to that manufacturer all the way through to production - unless they're willing to go all the way back to the drawing board (literally)  in order to switch supplier.

 

This won't prevent duplication, of the Hornby/Rails Terrier variety, or even the Olivia's Trains/Bachmann Blue Pullman variety, as in those cases both manufacturers started from the beginning with their own CAD/CAM files. It won't stop big manufacturers (or, for that matter, small ones) stepping onto a rival's turf or releasing a spoiler (again, a la the Hornby Class 66). Those are completely different issues, and there's no way to prevent that with design registration.

 

So Dave is, I think, misunderstanding the effects of registration when he suggests that it may prevent duplication. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea per se. It just remains to be seen whether it's as useful in practice as he hopes.

Is DJ going to get any more clients wishing to use him for their CAD work? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is extraordinary

 

This press release is probably the most extraordinary and worst communication in the hobby since 1976 when the Model Railway Study Group sent Cyril Freezer a solicitor's letter saying he couldn't publish Heckmondwyke or use the word Protofour in print because they owned the IP to P4 and only those who complied with their terms would be licenced to use them, and only  in accordance with their stipulations... [I redraft in contemporary language, but that seems to have been the stance the MRSG took towards Railway Modeller and the North London Group in 1976]

 

It's worse than has already been suggested, because if it is interpreted as Dave Jones appears to be suggesting in his pdf, then if Clive scratchbuilds a model of a Class 17 in any scale he would also be infringing Dave Jones' IP and could be sued by him...… Produce a kit of a 1361 or an O2 in any scale and you could also be vulnerable to attack

 

This is "Bags Me" on the grand scale , and if the suggestion that DJ Models now "owns" the J94 as a subject despite Hornby's prior models is a correct interpretation of the arguments being made in this pdf, I have some difficulty understanding it as anything other than some kind of "patent trolling". I really hope that is not what's meant, and if it is, that it doesn't have a leg to stand on in Britain. I know the US has some very peculiar and defective laws but fortunately not much British outline is sold there...

 

Looking at the list of things registered I can't help wondering if it is a co-incidence it's appeared on the day of a news-worthy opening.

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

So Dave is, I think, misunderstanding the effects of registration when he suggests that it may prevent duplication. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea per se. It just remains to be seen whether it's as useful in practice as he hopes.

 

That's my take too. Plus; if it came to litigation,, who could afford the better lawyer, DJM or Kader Industries Inc.? (just for example)

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

Surely the IP for that design sits with the Clayton Equipment Company, who are very much still with us and building locomotives. (edit: from reading MarkSG's post above, it will have time expired)

 

 And the class 17 is quite a nice bit of industrial design (the mechanical bits maybe less so...) and so probably represented a significant outlay in time and money by them. 

 

Can you re-register someone else's IP after their own registration of it has expired??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplication of minor prototypes is one thing (The Adams Radial is still the most ridiculous in my eyes), but it's another thing to go "I have an IP on that so you can't make it", when that persons product is inaccurate to the prototype and duplication would actually fix their mistakes!  I know myself that I would much rather have the Hornby B1 then the Bachmann one for instance.

 

Competition is competition, and if Dave actually held off announcing items until they were further along in the design and production stage then the belief that he takes forever to make anything might just suddenly disappear, one can't exactly blame others for shooting themselves in the own foot.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mike Storey Think you hit the nail on head.

 

With Kernow and Hattons there was fodder for years to come that would have worked very well alongside Crowdfunding and trust from them would probably converted into support for those schemes (which I think happened with the 71). 

 

He needs a partner, someone to be the face of the business side of the business but it may be too far gone now for Dave to allow that or perhaps for someone to want to invest with him in the climate he is now making for himself.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to take seriously this barely readable waffle, posing as an 'announcement', but it seems all DJ Models has done protect his own CADs. Well fair enough, perhaps he should have done that to start with - it's only a few quid to do so.

 

I note both Hornby and Bachmann have gone down this route in the distant past, but don't have any current registrations - which is probably as good an indicator as any of how useful the registered design protection actually is in the field of toy trains.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many others I'm having trouble finding the words without the risk of being thrown off this forum....merely for the vocabulary I would use alone.

Needless to say, let's hope all the other valued and respected manufacturers prevail and this threat is totally obliterated as it deserves to be.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vistisen said:

 

Means that no matter how terrible my model is, no one is allowed to make a better one. I suggest a total boycott of DJM. If it was Microsoft banning other companies from making a web browser they would get sued within seconds. He might only be a small player, but he should still act like an adult. He wants to ban competition  and enforce a monopoly based on a fantasy that he actually will get these models to the shops..

 

 

I believe the idea is that another manufacturer could make a better model but they would have to pay royalties to whoever had IP'd t h e design first. 

I cannot see the big players are going to IP every design to shut out the competition as they would have to invest a significant amount of time and money to produce CAD of sufficient quality.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Amand said:

 

The only winners will be the lawyers. Ever heard of a poor or unemployed lawyer? It would either take down a recent entrant into the market or hurt a long established manufacturer. 

 

Just a thought - Oxford Rail have made an Adams Radial and Dean Goods. Both also made by Hornby (though not recently for the Dean). Maybe Hornby's Chief Executive could sue Oxford - or Oxford's owner sue Hornby?

could be what led to the 'merger'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AY Mod locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...