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

While crowd funding has been around for several hundred years it was not until the late 1990's that it took off successfully.  I recall back in the mid-1980's that a local Australian manufacturer, Powerline, announced a "crowd funded" scheme to manufacture a NSWGR class 36 steam locomotive.  At the time the release of such a model would have set the local scene on fire,  however, the crowd funding approach was met with scepticism and the venture did not even reach the minimum number of interested parties.  I believe a $50.00 refundable deposit showed interest in the project.  People then and to this day are sceptical of manufacturers who do not have a proven track record.  Crowd funding relieves the manufacturer of financial burden should the project fail.

 

I do have sympathy for current crowd funded projects as when demands for further deposits fall due any who opt out will leave those remaining subject to the total project failing as the burden will fall on fewer participants.  If I was a participant in a crowd funded project that had resulted in an IP registered CAD then how is it that the developer has the full legal rights to the design?  Surely those who fund the project are "share holders" in the enterprise and should retain part ownership of the product. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first bit seems to show how foolish he is/was.

 

The next bit reads like a threat of "only I can authorise certain models to be produced".  Does he think this will halt the development of the Accurascale 92?

 

It also reads that it'll stop duplication of models.  Isn't this a backhanded method of collusion?
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer models not be duplicated (unless one is very, very old tooling), so I am all for collusion but he can't moan about it earlier in the release, then trumpet what will happen.

 

Just don't understand it.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

My second thought. Even assuming this is practical, and I'd need a bit more detail so reserve judgement, you would need to be willing to take any infringement to court and that isn't going to be cheap.

 

Agreed.  And I wish him the very best of luck if he ever needs to sue the Chinese....

 

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I regard that as very sad for them, but fear that if widespread, there will be some very ugly goings-on among such victims seeking to recover monies. Irrespective of the outcome of the astonishing rant we have read, DJ may find he is being pursued through the courts by such people - and who can blame them?

 

Rule One:  Even if you win a Court Case, if the loser  can't pay then you won't see any money.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Also, can someone just clarify the "crowdfunding" method DJM uses?

 

Am I correct in thinking people just pay sums of money and hope something will come of it?

I wouldn't say that's crowdfunding.

What do you mean? That’s what crowdfunding is... manufacturer says “I need funds to produce this, want one?”. People pay, essentially on faith, item is delivered in some indeterminate period. Everyone’s happy. 

 

There are all sorts of nuances around who bears the risk if the venture fails, can you get refunds, chargebacks, credit card S75 protection etc, but there’s nothing fundamentally different in how Dave is going about crowdfunding projects versus Revolution, Cavalex, KR Models or anyone else who’s doing such things at the moment.

 

Dave just seems to be pissing money away on ridiculous things like this, when even his most ardent supporters are urging him just to get on and deliver some models. I can’t get my head around why he thought this was a good thing to do, for the future of the hobby, for his reputation, anything. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Also, can someone just clarify the "crowdfunding" method DJM uses?

 

Am I correct in thinking people just pay sums of money and hope something will come of it?

I wouldn't say that's crowdfunding.

It's crowdunding in the definition only its not been done via bona-fide crowdfunding platform, myself and several others pointed this out at the time and we were basically called troublemakers, even when we pointed out his faulty advice like with consumer refunds.... If you haved paid dave money you are an unsecured creditor nothing else im afraid. 

Edited by pheaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....

 

He's now hoisted by his own petard.

 

I doubt anyone will now order from him, or work with him.  In my opinion trust has evaporated.

 

I'm not even interested anymore.  There are other manufacturers producing and delivering excellent product more worthy of my time, money an attention.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have not had time to go through all the posts since yesterday evening. But.....oh dear! What does he think that he can gain from a poorly worded, poorly punctuated document like this?

 

As someone noted, we have been here before with the Replica/Mainline/Dapol saga in the late 1980s. Working in China is not easy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, although I have had no previous experience with this company I'm miffed already. Despite promising his announcement on the 1st, it was the 2nd here before we saw it. Bad form.

 

I am concerned about the possibility of this event tarnishing the efforts of other companies with a similar business model. There is one in particular that I even registered interest with for a model he'd announced. Unable to meet the deadline I offered my apologies. "No problem", he said, "you may still be able to get in and if you really can't do it then there may be a few left at the end that you can buy". Great service and I hope that people aren't put off projects like his simply because another trader did a haka. I do have to admit to wondering whether I dodged a bullet through not having the readies in time. Time will tell.

 

On a lighter note though; I am reminded of an event decades ago that provided great written entertainment for months after. An extremely well written contributor to a magazine we all know wrote a less than flattering, but truthful, article about a less than satisfactory etched loco kit. The proprietor went nuclear and withdrew the range straight away, having been particularly aggrieved that another writer confirmed the findings of the first. I still pull the article out for a giggle every now and then. This time I'm prepared as it's happening in real time rather than three months later when the magazine hits the bookshelves.

Is it worth making some popcorn this time around or is the show nearly over?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, black and decker boy said:

I wonder how tight / signed the agreement is between Digitrains & DJM for the King and if any re-appraisal of business partners is now underway?

And whether a lawyer is already on standby if the agreement is cancelled ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Very serious question - to whom did Brush and Scotrail issue any licence to use in respect of the 92? 

 

And also - if both Scotrail and DB Schenker own 92s, if Scotrail issues a licence to reproduce a 92 to A , does that prevent DBS issuing one to B??

Neither Scotrail nor DB Schenker had any part in the design of the Class 92.

 

I would expect any IP rights they enjoy to be confined to livery and any unique modifications made to the locos under their ownership.

 

John

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I may as well cancel my DJM pre-orders then. it looks like this ship has been well and truly torpedoed below the waterline, by itself and is going down fast..

 

The good ship DJM has not so much been torpedoed as scuttled by its Captain.

 

The way I read the announcement is that not simply DJM's CADs have been registered as his IP, but the rights to make any model, at all, of the prototype, unless the rival model was different by the 'allowed amount specified by HMG, for it not to encroach on a registered IP' of the DJM version. That would certainly lead to some interesting discussions should the matter ever reach court (which I do not believe for a moment it will). For example (and I know these models have already been produced);

 

DJM announce a Class 26 diesel; A rival then announces a Class 27. Are they sufficiently different ? Well, BR gave them separate Class numbers, and therefore TOPS number series, but before then they were lumped together as BRCW Type 2 and were numbered in one continuous series, having been built by one manufacturer, in one place and with essentially the same equipment. And they were identical in appearance, except for the headcode boxes on the 27s; Would that satisfy HMG ? And, of course, 26001-7 in later life differed from the rest of the 26 fleet after fitment of air brakes. 

 

At least I have learned one thing; Be very wary of crowd funding ! (Sympathy to those who have lost money, that is a very poor show. If payment was made by credit card can that be reclaimed from the card issuer - I hope so).

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can protect a registered logo and sort of a colour if it’s proven to be unique in context with a logo so callling it poca cola in a red background will get you a cease and desist rather fast ;) but the design right is with the designer, not even necessarily the manufacturer. 

He does mention protecting his designs rather a lot and that he can do, registering features of someone else’s is going to fall apart rather fast in court. The main problem is how much money gets wasted taking it that far in the hope that threats of action scare people off. 

If it was truly possible to claim models of others designs in this way wouldn’t someone have already claimed IP to iconic items globally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Neither Scotrail nor DB Schenker had any part in the design of the Class 92.

 

I would expect any IP rights they enjoy to be confined to livery and any unique modifications made to the locos under their ownership.

 

John

 

And Scotrail never owned the Class 92s, and no longer use them since the Caledonian Sleepers were separated from the Scotrail franchise !

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

It would be an interesting question to ask for those who have invested in crowdfunding how their money is separated from his legal fund under the agreed terms of crowdfunding? The basis of crowdfunding would surely be development of the model not funding legal wrangles over IP?

Is the crowdfunding through a kickstarter type scheme or direct with no third party involvement, I would suggest those who have invested check their terms and conditions and ask suitable questions. 

Anyway IP as I understand it is a generic heading for a whole group of other things like patents and copyright, IP itself is fairly intangible. I suspect once you break it down to that you would need to prove infringement of :-

Copyright, do you own the ‘original design’?.

Patent - does the design contain unique and original ideas / features, surely not as it’s a miniature replica?

Etc

 

You can serve up Solicitors letters and threats of legal action but until you get them summonsed to court you  can’t actually do anything and then you have to provide proof that a jury would see it as reasonable and there’s a lot of evidence that the concept of model trains isn’t in any way original. 

Imagine if someone went protecting the IP on Big Ben or models of trees!

 

Agreed. As I understand IP, it relates to whatever is unique to the item one is claiming rights over. Any IP rights accruing to DJM (or any other manufacturer) must be confined to how the item is made of or how it is made to work, always supposing that either or both differ from anything that has gone before.

 

The prototypes pre-exist DJM (let alone any claims made by Dave) and any rights over their appearance/proportions/details must surely belong to the original designers/owners or their successors. 

 

If I were to  take a picture of Flying Scotsman (not that I would:jester:), I wouldn't have any IP rights over an almost identical one taken by somebody standing next to me a fraction of a second later.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

My CAD for a pair of denim jeans, in various sizes, will be lodged tonight. I have included many innovative options on my CAD including front pockets, rear pockets, options for zips or buttons and even, wait for it, worn patches and ripped knees.

 

once registered, i will be a millionaire Rodney.......

Hey! Be careful! My denim jeans have a pocket for foldable beer tokens on the right hand. Any splodges of paint, battery acid, chili sauce & curry will incur my displeasure and a large bill for missed donor kebabs....

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot help but wonder how many of those who have stumped up monies for the various projects "in the pipeline" will now be put off paying any further installments.....and whether said projects will then end up being cancelled as a consequence.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I’m surprised no bodies mentioned coaches wagons yet.

 

not sure would would win the mk1 TSO project.. Bachmann, Hornby or Hachette.

 

obvious ones like the 16ton mineral come to mind, but lets focus on one specific one..

 

If youve got a HEA wagon, flip it upside down and take a look at it closely, asside of the NEM coupling, see how many differences you find between the Dapol, Replica, Bachmann and Hornby one.

 

They have existed 30 years, I dont see how DJs position can challenge or defend his approach with precedents like this model in the industry.

 

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did make it clear in his original announcement that there would be an announcement, that he'd retained the services of that well known Scottish Solicitor's, Messr's Gossip, Slander and Libel w.s. to sort out all you "nare do wells" (his words not mine)....  Whilst he must have known there would be some "feedback" on his announcement, I doubt he'd have seen this lot coming.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok in the RMU, DJ now plays the role Thanos. He has gathered all the Infinity IPs and about to use his finger snap to make duplicates from the competition disappear as the universe does not have enough resources for both.

 

Now we need to figure who is playing Iron Man, Captain America, Black Panther etc (guess Hornby is Thor being the most ancient out there....)....

  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob Reid said:

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did make it clear in his original announcement that there would be an announcement, that he'd retained the services of that well known Scottish Solicitor's, Messr's Gossip, Slander and Libel w.s. to sort out all you "nare do wells" (his words not mine)....  Whilst he must have known there would be some "feedback" on his announcement, I doubt he'd have seen this lot coming.

 

It will have confirmed his worst fears ... infamy infamy ...

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob Reid said:

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did make it clear in his original announcement that there would be an announcement, that he'd retained the services of that well known Scottish Solicitor's, Messr's Gossip, Slander and Libel w.s. to sort out all you "nare do wells" (his words not mine)....  Whilst he must have known there would be some "feedback" on his announcement, I doubt he'd have seen this lot coming.

Like many others, I would MUCH rather have seen a model coming !

Having watched that video interview, I'm afraid that I was also less than impressed - a few points spring to mind

1)     Would you buy a used car from this man ?

2)     He made at least two truthful statements - he HAS made mistakes and he HAS changed the list of forthcoming (?) products significantly

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...