Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film

[Chameleon]

I wonder how far they would get if they wee to release a series of models “inspired by” James Bond or spaceship kits “inspired by” Star Wars? Without having copyright permission in place?

[Ozexpatriate]

4 hours ago, Chameleon said:

“inspired by” Star Wars?

Any Disney property (particularly like "Star Wars" or "Marvel Studios") would result in an army of IP lawyers.

 

Hornby are actually a Disney licensee with the Disney-Pixar "Toy Story 3" train set (R1149). Anyone remember how successful that was? (I'd still rather have the LEGO version. Much better play value for children.)

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Ozexpatriate

[mdvle]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And if it gets to the financial pages of any dailies or even to shore tipster sites ...  Especially if Hornby are set on being less than supportive of their retailers.

 

Hornby's share price rose 1.5p (to 57p) between close of trading on Friday and cose of trading on Monday, on Tuesday it fell 4p but recovered back to 55p on Wednesday.  The question now is whether it can hold or whether it will follow what happened a year ago when a period of falling price followed the high around new range release date?

 

The better question is what does Phoenix think as the majority owner?

 

They presumably have some sort of goal for the eventual taking of profit and moving on to the next investment and this can't be helping their plan for their Hornby shares regardless of what the limited trading does.

 

 

 

 

[Kris]

8 hours ago, Chameleon said:

I wonder how far they would get if they wee to release a series of models “inspired by” James Bond or spaceship kits “inspired by” Star Wars? Without having copyright permission in place?

Hornby have already worked with Disney in the creation of Starwars products in the creation of several Scalextric sets. They have also worked with MGM to create James Bond related products. As newer films these franchises have far greater IP in place than many older films. They have the greater protection because film makers have become far more savvy in protecting their products and understand the value attached to merchandising (something that has risen vastly over the years). 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Kris

[ruggedpeak]

https://uk.Hornby.com/terms-conditions/licensing

[Hal Nail]

15 hours ago, Chris116 said:

A wise move given that there are so many possible outcomes to this situation.

I would argue a more commercial decision would be replacing any articles about modelling with pages of speculation about this, repeated every few spreads.

 

Would sell like hot cakes.

 

 

[Bulleidboy100]

Would not the licence from the 2013 Hornby Titfield Thunderbolt be still "live"? Sorry if this has been asked before.

[ruggedpeak]

1 minute ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

Would not the licence from the 2013 Hornby Titfield Thunderbolt be still "live"? Sorry if this has been asked before.

Depends on what the contract says. One would assume not if a new one has been granted to Rapido but IP contracts are usually very tightly worded and specific so theoretical possibility to grant 2 sets of non-overlapping licencing rights for similar things.

 

Very unlikely but technically possible. Back to the "toy" on this or the Rapido thread, if for example Hornby's licence was toy orientated whereas Rapido's was for a highly detailed accurate adult collector grade model replica then maybe. But all speculation until a model railway investigative journalist can get their hands on the contracts and we can all pile in with our IP law expertise!

[Kris]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

https://uk.Hornby.com/terms-conditions/licensing

Quite noticeable how limited the licensing is in the railway world compared to other lines. 

[HonestTom]

16 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

or whether it will follow what happened a year ago when a period of falling price followed the high around new range release date?

I'm getting the mental image of the shareholders saying, "Nothing for me this year."

[30801]

1 hour ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

Would not the licence from the 2013 Hornby Titfield Thunderbolt be still "live"? Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

If it was we'd be seeing a properly branded release ... 

[JohnR]

3 hours ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

Would not the licence from the 2013 Hornby Titfield Thunderbolt be still "live"? Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

It could be that Hornby assumed it was, and then when they doubled checked with Studio Canal, found out it wasnt. 

 

Some of this we will never know.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The better question is what does Phoenix think as the majority owner?

 

They presumably have some sort of goal for the eventual taking of profit and moving on to the next investment and this can't be helping their plan for their Hornby shares regardless of what the limited trading does.

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, HonestTom said:

I'm getting the mental image of the shareholders saying, "Nothing for me this year."

Phoenix make it very clear in their own publicity etc that their modus operandi is to invest in companies which they think will add value over the longer term and, by implication, in which their holdings can be profitably traded when the time comes.  In other words they regard a company in what many would see as an old-fashioned idea of an investment which will come good in the longer term.

 

In recent years Hornby shares have had a tendency to peak around the time of the annual announcement and then tail off - albeit to a noticeably higher level in 2021 than in 2020.  This year the peak around announcement time has thus far reached 57p compared with it reaching 69.5p last year but don't forget that this year's comes after a slightly less good half year report than the previous report.  Thus far the share price is following its recent years usual announcement peak pattern of then dropping back but it is still substantially above its position on 31 December (shortly after which there was a sharp rise - possibly connected with the new board appointment?).   So clearly it suggests that if any investors have heard anything about a potential problem with Studio Canal it isn't unusually affecting their view of the perceived value of the company's shares.

 

We should maybe not overlook the fact that some Board members (but not the new non-exec) and the two directors who are not board members hold shares plus they would be allowed to increase their holdings under the Company's Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) depending on the company's performance.  It is thus in their own interest not to do anything which jeopardises the financial performance of the company.

 

[Clearwater]

We can probably make a guestimate of the size of the exposure.  If Rapido make an average of £200 per set of revenue and sells say 5,000, their sales are £1m.  Clearly their loss isn't going to be the full amount, but I'd have thought a claim in the hundreds of thousand pounds could be a good starting point.  A large number for Hornby, plus legal fees, who don't make much profit, but the real cost in in the management time that it takes up.

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Kris said:

Quite noticeable how limited the licensing is in the railway world compared to other lines. 

I notice they have a licence from Studio Canal for Paddington products.

 

 

[Hal Nail]

Just before i hit ignore, thought might be worth pointing out all the speculation people are coming up with on this thread has already been discussed on the Rapido equivalent. It is like being stuck in a three day old time warp!

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/169526-a-statement-on-the-titfield-thunderbolt/page/18/#comment-4709211

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hal Nail

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

Would not the licence from the 2013 Hornby Titfield Thunderbolt be still "live"? Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

3 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

If it was we'd be seeing a properly branded release ... 

 

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

It could be that Hornby assumed it was, and then when they doubled checked with Studio Canal, found out it wasnt. 

 

Some of this we will never know.

Where Studio Canal owners of the rights in 2013? Looking up the company history they have collected several smaller businesses. I the rights to TT came to them after 2013 it would be a whole new can of worms.

[Kris]

21 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

 

Where Studio Canal owners of the rights in 2013? Looking up the company history they have collected several smaller businesses. I the rights to TT came to them after 2013 it would be a whole new can of worms.

From what I can see they were. The number of companies that TT has been owned by is vast. It seems to have changed ownership every 5 or 6 years. In 1990 it was under the control of a company called the Weintraub Entertainment group. The became bankrupt on the 30th September but it is unclear what happened to their assets beyond that they went to the Film Asset Holding Co. However in 2012 StudioCanal licensed the distribution of many Ealing films that had been under the control of Weintraub, so it seems reasonable that they had control of TT at this time. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

 

 

Where Studio Canal owners of the rights in 2013? Looking up the company history they have collected several smaller businesses. I the rights to TT came to them after 2013 it would be a whole new can of worms.

Surely change of ownership wouldn't matter? Any licences would pass to the new owners.

Also surely it depends on what the licensing terms were.

It could have been for the particular set Hornby did. Roll on a re-release of the 14XX, Lowmac, Railroad coach body and an ex-Airfix Toad.

Maybe it would be for a fixed period. 5 years, 10 years etc.

[ThePipersSon]

Another thought - the current management of Hornby only came into force in 2017 (according to wikipedia).

The previous management was not 'in-tune' with the market and would think that not renewing a license agreement was a reasonable cost-cutting measure.

[30801]

22 minutes ago, ThePipersSon said:

The previous management was not 'in-tune' with the market and would think that not renewing a license agreement was a reasonable cost-cutting measure.

 

Could be worse. From 1977 Kenner had the 'galactic' license to produce Star Wars toys in perpetuity so long as a minimum royalty of $100,000 per year was paid.

After Hasbro bought Kenner and StarWars  went a bit quiet some Hasbro bean counter decided they could save $100k and let the license lapse.

 

When the Phantom Menace was announced Hasbro had to scramble to regain the license at the cost of half a billion dollars or so....

[mdvle]

22 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Could be worse. From 1977 Kenner had the 'galactic' license to produce Star Wars toys in perpetuity so long as a minimum royalty of $100,000 per year was paid.

After Hasbro bought Kenner and StarWars  went a bit quiet some Hasbro bean counter decided they could save $100k and let the license lapse.

 

When the Phantom Menace was announced Hasbro had to scramble to regain the license at the cost of half a billion dollars or so....

 

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I think it's worth cutting the "bean counters" some slack.

 

Yes, they take a lot of flack but we really only hear about their screw-ups and not all the cases where the saving of money made sense both in the short and long term.

 

Anyone who at the time could have predicted that 3 very bad films would not just gross as much money as they did, but return Star Wars to the public conscience in the way they did would be very lucky - not to mention the then rise of video streaming and their need for popular IP to draw people to pay for competing streaming services resulting in numerous spin-offs and of course Baby Yoda.

 

It could have gone very differently - Jar Jar could have sunk Star Wars without a trace, in which case we never would have heard about that bean counter.

[phil gollin]

.

 

Are Hornby actually convinced that they will be producing an "inspired by" Titfield Thunderbolt train  pack ?

 

I received their catalogue this afternoon, and was first surprised to note that Lion/Titfield Thunderbolt wasn't on the cover, then I eventually found it taking up one-half of a page (p.45).  As for Lion (or whatever) I could see no separate listing.

 

Very weird for a model making such a lot of "news".

 

.

[PhilJ W]

I'm not too worried as the only model I'm interested in is the W&U coach.

[phil gollin]

22 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I'm not too worried as the only model I'm interested in is the W&U coach.

.

 

There's a Pierce and Crump coach (Bedford OB) noted, but I can't see any W & U coach, it doesn't form part of the train pack.

 

.