Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film

[Harlequin]

8 minutes ago, Titan said:

And what good would that do?  If Hornby can do what they are doing without needing a license, they would not need any more licences for anything else either, so they would be withholding something Hornby did not need, or anyone else for that matter. 

 

This case seems to be a bit nebuluous but other, more recent, IP is probably more tightly controlled by Studio Canal, with copyrights, trademarks and design rights all lined up.

 

[autocoach]

I would have thought better of Lyndon Davies...

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

I take the exact opposite view.  I think we as a hobby need Hornby to be strong and if these sales help Hornby then I think that's great. The new niche manufacturers may be good for the established modelling community, but Hornby is our hobby's flag-bearer with the general public and we need it to succeed and be strong.

 

We need the hobby to be strong, Hornby may or may not be part of that.

 

Part of making the hobby strong is a diversity of product, and much of that product (some of the newer locos) that only have 10 or so made will only be available in model form if the company investing £££'s can be sure they can make a profit - which is why we are seeing things like the Class 93 have IP rights secured for a model version.

 

Hornby, saying IP rights don't matter, hurts the hobby.

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

Hornby started all this  main stream pre grouping froth with Rocket, why are they not allowed to try and capitalise on it with other ranges,

 

If they want to release Lion, that would be perfectly acceptable (and legal).

 

But they aren't doing that, they are releasing it labeled Titfield Thunderbolt despite being told by the rights holder (StudioCanal) that someone else already had - and likely paid for - the rights to Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

4 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

if another company is doing the same then so be it (as long as the law has not been broken), like or not we are in a capitalist world here in the west. Car companies all make the same looking cars, same size engines, same number of doors, they copy each other all the time, so does nearly every other industry, why are trains any different?

 

I suggest you actually do some research - there have been many, many lawsuits over the years over things like look and feel.  Classic examples include Apple vs. Xerox (Xerox actually invented the mouse), Apple vs. Samsung

 

In the car realm, a quick search reveals (and a random choice) that Ferrari sues to protect their IP.

 

Back to models, and any model of a modern (and perhaps not so modern) car involves getting a license from the manufacturers (Ford, GM, Ferrari, BMW, etc).

 

So the real answer is why Hornby thinks they should be different than the rest of the world.

 

4 hours ago, jonnyuk said:

Hornby can see the competition creeping in from all directions across their entire train range of products, are they to simply say fair enough, you go and have that product, you over there, have that one, you over that have that one as well? Hornby can't protect all their area's of interest so have to be strategic on what to defend/go up against. if this means the smaller competition then so be it.

 

You start out above saying like it or not we live in a capitalist word, now you are trying to argue Hornby should be classified as special and protected from that capitalist world.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

 

[m0rris]

16 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

This case seems to be a bit nebuluous but other, more recent, IP is probably more tightly controlled by Studio Canal, with copyrights, trademarks and design rights all lined up.

 

 

I seem to remember that the arrangements surrounding Studiocanal's Paddington Bear image being used on both the real and Hornby model class 800s were exceptionally tight (worth noting that even the real unit no longer carries the door logos). Studiocanal most likely weren't expecting this and, as others have eluded to, have quite the back catalogue of IP including signficant items that are much more valuable that they would vigorously defend.

 

Once upon a time, VW bought Rolls-Royce and Bentley but... BMW were able to whip the Rolls-Royce brand from under their feet. I don't think we're seeing quite the same clever tactics here, merely a big fish in a little pond risking a trip into an ocean of legal sharks.

 

On a semi-related note, this years Scalextric range has a signficant number of new licensed products from Bond, The Blues Brothers, Mr Bean, Knightrider, Back to the Future, Batman and Only Fools and Horses. Funnily enough, none of them appear to be "inspired by".

Edited January 10, 2022 by m0rris

[MarkSG]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

That was some time ago though and that type of thing gets rattled round social media these days. Not one I’d choose for that and it’s not exactly an iconic film in our hobby or generally   The Ealing films have a lot of retro appeal and have been re-issued three times that I can think of and I’ve got two of the Titfield re-issues. 

 

They could always do the original Great Train Robbery. Apart from the fact that nobody got hurt, so it doesn't have the sensitivity of the later re-run, it would also be another Era 1 train. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gold_Robbery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Great_Train_Robbery

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Train_Robbery_(novel)

[Sadnerd]

Long time listener, first time caller... After seeing SK this morning I just had to look this up. Hornby definitely had a licence agreement. I've got the old Titfield 60th anniversary set no one else seemed to like. But without knowing the terms, regarding length of agreement etc, who can say?

 

But it does seem like they may have an agreement that runs out this year. It looks like a spoiler tactic for those with a 70th anniversary license does it not?

 

 

[MidlandRed]

I can’t help wondering whether this (the inspired by Titfield etc) is some sort of ill considered publicity stunt by Hornby. However as an organisation apparently trying to up its game with serious modellers and collectors (Dublo - improving the authenticity of other models), one wonders whether they’ve considered just how much negative this creates with the people they’re trying to develop a market with, who will more than likely side with a smaller company producing a quality product. 
 

One can imagine Hornby being issued with a cease and desist by Studiocanal’s lawyers and the offending set quietly disappearing from the catalogue without announcement - if it appears after their licence expires - or perhaps an unadorned Lion appearing separately in it’s place. Presumably the only cost to Hornby could be the artwork for the release - but in the longer term may affect future licensing deals.

 

We know that Hornby are very protective of their ‘turf’ and maybe they feel they are the only model railway company which should be receiving such deals owing to their position in the ‘mainstream’ beyond the railway modelling community -  one can imagine that view being taken by them based on previous experience. So more a position statement to the people giving licences as a spoiler to Rapido (if I was in the market, it wouldn’t make me change my order from Rapido). 
 

Whether the swell of publicity created initially impresses Hornby’s shareholders or conversely, makes them shudder at the ability of its senior staff to make daft decisions only time will tell. 
 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by MidlandRed

[darrel]

I just do not understand the decision from Hornby to duplicate lion and the titfield rolling stock. Anyone interested in a model of this will have already placed a pre order for the already announced rapido models. Do Hornby honestly belive we will all go out and cancel those preorders to preorder the Hornby version? I certainly won't be. 

Let's face it Lion while a nice subject is a niche model that will have a limited market. Hornby could end up with a lot of unsold models that they can't shift.

I could understand it if they duplicated a model that would have mass appeal like a class 37 or 47 where they operated over many routes in many liveries over many years. And we would buy multiple numbers of them. How many people want more than one Lion? 

Maybe Hornby had been planning on doing this before Rapido beat them to it, but as soon as Rapido made their announcement Hornby should have written it off and spent their money on something else instead. 

 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, MarkSG said:

One of those is, still, copyright. I know I sort of dismissed that, above. But there is one thing that Hornby are using that might amount to an infringement, and that's the "Thunderbolt" nameplate on the loco. If StudioCanal are able to argue that the design of the nameplate is sufficiently distinctive (ie, it's more than just letters forming a word), then it could be considered a logo.

 

If somebody, on seeing Hornby's model, thinks that it's an officially licensed product, then that forms the basis of a passing off claim against Hornby. Even more so if their decision to purchase it is made, at least partly, on the misbelief that it is officially licensed. If someone said that "I bought the Hornby pack instead of the Rapido pack because it's cheaper, and otherwise they're both the same" that would be evidence of passing off, because the reality is that the models are not the same - the Rapido model is licensed and the Hornby one is not, and that's a material difference which should be made clear to a prospective purchaser.

 

 

A very thorough and detailed response.

 

So if they made the loco without the nameplate, or in a different font, that might void one aspect ?

 

Similarly on passing off, the groundswell of opinion on this forum looks quite strong towards that.. are we in danger of this forum and others being used as circumstantial evidence to support that position ?.. especially when this forum is a highly informed concentrate of the wider hobby ?

 

Whatever the outcome, and how far these disputes travel, it looks like duplication is set to happen, its just about what the box looks like… 

 

in that regard maybe Hornbys calling bluff, knowing that a big legal fight wont change very much in the end state, and Rapido probably know that too,  how much investment these parties have is unknown..weve not seen EPs yet, let alone a product..perhaps this situation has already been anticipated, and were watching a stage show of a film show playing out before us ?

 

Somewhere in this a “Big Trouble in little toyland” media headline may yet appear…and you know which name the media will latch on to.

Its all eventually a squabble amongst lawyers and the conversation will move onto money at some stage. 

 

Who knows a big media feast might bring a modern film remake next year ?.. Story of a rural to a village line being closed and a few volunteers opening a line with a j94 and a mark1.. only to see it written off by HGV, and the locals rob a pacer to use instead.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by adb968008

[melmerby]

18 minutes ago, m0rris said:

 

 

 

Once upon a time, VW bought Rolls-Royce and Bentley but... BMW were able to whip the Rolls-Royce brand from under their feet.

 

 

I think you will find they were both wrong footed by Vickers who had the rights to the RR name for carmaking and owned the car factory.

 

VW thought they were getting RR, they did but not the RR brand name only the car company.

BMW thought they were getting RR, they did, just the RR brand name, not the car company.

 

As it now stands, the lineal succesor to the original RR motor company is VW's Bentley Motor Company.

The current Rolls Royce is built on a BMW platform and owes nothing to the heritage of the name.

Edited January 10, 2022 by melmerby

[MoonM]

I find this frustrating again from Hornby. And if the lawyers need to get involved then the people that are impacted are us. We grumble the models are getting more expensive but, if those high prices are really need to keep the likes of Hornby afloat for years to come, I do not mind paying. However, investing in a duplicate product makes no sense to me. It is taking profitability out of either Hornby or rapido to our detriment (Hornby/rapido will them need to charge us more just to make the same level of profit). Then, if lawyers get involved, that is more money out the hobby and into lawyers hands.

 

I really don't understand the commercial rationale from Hornby. It would have made more commercial sense for Hornby to expand the 'film' series to both 'TV and film' and invest their tooling in the jaguar xjs 'sports train' and audi a8 'caravan train' built one time for top gear and offer those as models instead...! 

[adb968008]

I suppose we now know why they needed an extra 10% price rise on Jan 1st.

Edited January 10, 2022 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Pmorgancym said:

Something that didn't seen to affect the film.

 

Thats because most of the general public are not 'into' trains (be it model or full size) and the screenplay toned down the violence involved making the movie (Buster)  considerably more light-hearted than reality.

 

Those who are into railways (model or the real think) are likely to take a very different attitude to the crime (particularly the latter) and seeing as they would be the main market for any movie tie in any sane model company would be best advised to steer well clear.

Edited January 10, 2022 by phil-b259

[mdvle]

25 minutes ago, Sadnerd said:

Long time listener, first time caller... After seeing SK this morning I just had to look this up. Hornby definitely had a licence agreement. I've got the old Titfield 60th anniversary set no one else seemed to like. But without knowing the terms, regarding length of agreement etc, who can say?

 

But it does seem like they may have an agreement that runs out this year. It looks like a spoiler tactic for those with a 70th anniversary license does it not?

 

Nope.

 

If Hornby had a license, even one expiring at the end of this year, they wouldn't be playing games calling it "inspired by" they would simply call it Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

And given that they knew they had a problem in February/March of last year, they could have accelerated the development schedule if they had an expiring license.

 

They are attempting to take advantage of the film's upcoming anniversary without a license from all appearances.

[dibber25]

Maybe those who think 'Titfield'  is an insignificant movie to Studio Canal should note that a digitally-enhanced version has recently been made and is sold on Amazon Prime - so presumably still of some importance to Studio Canal. Also, protecting a lucrative aspect of one's business is very important. If you sell an exclusive contract to someone and then don't enforce it, your exclusive contracts then become worthless. (CJL)

[wombatofludham]

I think if the StudioCanal legal team decide to push this it will inevitably be leaked or fed to the press.  We will then have a potentially toxic mix in certain parts of the press of a French owned media giant, supporting a Canadian owned model company against a British company, household brand, who wanted to make a model of a much loved classic British film. 

The fact said British company is playing fast and loose with legally binding contracts will not even register and I suspect if it does go to court, with Joe and Joanna Numpty and Grandad Numpty it'll be Canal and Rapido's reputation in tatters, not Hornby's, although hopefully those of us in the modelling fraternity will take a more nuanced view.

I don't think this is going to go well.

[Legend]

I know what everyone is saying and I’m tending to agree. That Hornby is out of order. But I’d just be amazed that they haven’t taken advice on this before proceeding . Let’s face it everyone else on here thinks there maybe an issue . It must be apparent to Hornby yet they continue on . Could they really be that stupid? 

[neal]

3 minutes ago, Legend said:

I know what everyone is saying and I’m tending to agree. That Hornby is out of order. But I’d just be amazed that they haven’t taken advice on this before proceeding . Let’s face it everyone else on here thinks there maybe an issue . It must be apparent to Hornby yet they continue on . Could they really be that stupid? 

 

Perhaps they took legal advice from Mr Jones….

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, neal said:

 

Perhaps they took legal advice from Mr Jones….

He who must not be mentioned

[Chris116]

5 minutes ago, neal said:

 

Perhaps they took legal advice from Mr Jones….

I don't do legal advice, please don't blame me.

 

Chris Jones

[Legend]

7 minutes ago, neal said:

 

Perhaps they took legal advice from Mr Jones….

Nearly as good as his accounting and book keeping !

[sidmouth]

How much is Hornby's offering a spoiler to dent Rapido's sales , smarting as they are by not getting the rights to The Titfield Thunderbolt . There is a play that says we won't see the advertised product ....

 

irrespective of the legal matters , to me this and previous steps are morally wrong . Q6, King, Large Prairie , Hornby have become a company which comes across as bullying 

[wombatofludham]

4 minutes ago, Legend said:

Could they really be that stupid? 

You'd think not, but the legal textbooks are full of cases where people thought they were fine but weren't  It might be they think they have "grandfather rights" from the 60th anniversary set, or feel they could argue that even if it isn't the case.  Or they might have a paralegal* from the local solicitors advising them.

*I've had planning law arguments with a local solicitors who used a paralegal arguing black was white and claiming compensation, and won.  A lot of solicitors work on the basis taurean faeces baffles brains.  Not always...

[Chris116]

8 minutes ago, Legend said:

Nearly as good as his accounting and book keeping !

Oi, that is unfair.

 

Chris Jones