Jump to content
 

Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, manna said:

G'Day Folks

 

If Hornby want to do 'Railways on Film' there is the '39 Steps', 'Forth Railway Bridge' and all that. Probably got all the loco's to.

 

 

manna

.

 

IF  Hornby produce a full sized OO scale Firth of Forth Bridge, then I am willing to build an extension to house one.

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Why would they?

 

Nothing has been infringed yet. I'm afraid people are throwing around terms that either don't exist in law or are irrelevant. I think too many people contributing to these threads have been watching too many daytime American TV lawyer shows.

 

 

Best thing to do if you receive a "cease and desist" letter is throw it in the bin. They aren't legal in the UK and could be seen to be harassment.

 

 

Jason

 

As I understand it, in both the UK and US (and maybe other areas) a cease and desist letter is not legally binding but that does not make it illegal to send. It is used to notify an entity that the sender believes they are doing something that is illegal with their IP or similar.

 

Usually the letter would be hand delivered by messenger to not only gain verifiable proof of delivery (kind of like the US Serving of papers) but also makes it *look* more serious to the recipient.

 

I followed with interest a friend who through his actions got the attention of multinational, very powerful companies with very big legal departments. They collectively served a cease and desist on him which included very clear instructions on what was required for them not to take it further with legally enforceable action. 

 

In this instance, the letter did the trick, and he complied with their requirements. It can be a cheap and effective tool to nip something in the bud before big guns are brought in.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Everything is opinion and assumption, as there are very few facts to go off… 

 

 

What facts do you have that I have not ?


 

 

I don't have any, and I am not going to pretend I have. And that is why I have no further comment, and perhaps you should do likewise.

Edited by Titan
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not going to Wade through every post…. However, with one or two exceptions, it strikes me that railways are usually incidental to the plot of the film.  Interesting to use enthusiasts but ultimately not the thing you focus on in the movie.  Yes, there’s some malapropisms of Bulleid locos in From `Russia with `love and tenuously, you could claim the Orient Express as a feature of the plot but to base a train pack around it?  I think it’s stretching the point.

 

One recent movie that does feature steam trains is Paddington 2.  A chase scene involving Tornado.   A circus train.  A pullman.  That to me has the ingredients for a “Railways in film.”

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Neil said:

 

Yes I was wondering about that. Given that every other model (apart from the Airfix Trevithick)  of a steam engine is of a prototype built after Locomotion I can't see that there would be an issue with making a model of Locomotion. In fact wasn't Locomotion done as one of those GBL jobbies a few years ago along with Rocket and a carriage?


Bachmann made a large scale pewter model of Locomotion No.1 for some anniversary.

it was an ornament, not functional.

 

The Great British Locomotive Collection models were “inspired by” various RTR models. Probably laser scanned. New tooling was certainly made, as the GBL models fitted together differently from the RTR models that inspired them.

 

The GBL Rocket and 1st Class L&MR coach were inspired by the Tri-ang Railways models.

 

The GBL Locomotion No.1 was inspired by the Bachmann ornament, but scaled down to approximately HO scale, 16.5mm gauge.

 

The Airfix kit of the Trevithick locomotive was a larger scale than OO. 
It could be motorised, on its display stand I believe.

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/airfix-a05871-1804-steam-loco--109407

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

... you could claim the Orient Express as a feature of the plot but to base a train pack around it?  I think it’s stretching the point.

Dust off those old Airfix Bedouins and a Corgi Rolls Royce armoured car and recreate the attacks on the Ottoman, Chemin de fer du Hedjaz during the WW1 Arab revolt?

 

... he says facetiously ;) (Trains on Film)

 

The intersection of "Agatha Christie" and "Paddington" suggests an obvious choice: "4.50 From Paddington".

 

Two WR mainline trains - might appeal to some.

 

I'm not sure whether any whole trains were actually in any filmed version.

 

Edited by Ozexpatriate
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

its no surprise to me a North American company would reach out for a lawyer & the media before picking up a phone, but equally its no surprise a UK company is inviting that fight in the first place.

 

It's no surprise to me that someone from the UK can't understand the difference between Canada and the USA. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaym481 said:

It's no surprise to me that someone from the UK can't understand the difference between Canada and the USA. 

 

North America is the continent that covers both US and Canada. :) Granted the OP didn't specifically say Canada, but equally they didn't say USA either.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaym481 said:

It's no surprise to me that someone from the UK can't understand the difference between Canada and the USA. 

 

It surprises me that someone from Canada can't understand the difference between North America and the USA!  Seems us UK guys are more savvy than you give us credit for.

Edited by Titan
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

I still think its a squabble in a teapot. The real prize isnt ‘Titfield’ or ‘lady in the lamp’, but ‘Lion’ as a model, and no one can stop anyone making a model of that.

All this intent, bluster and legal guff about the former is just to try to reduce each others potential imo.

 

its no surprise to me a North American company would reach out for a lawyer & the media before picking up a phone, but equally its no surprise a UK company is inviting that fight in the first place.

 

To me, they both know what they are doing.

But It makes no sense to me.

 

 

NO ITS NOT!

 

There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent - it doesn't matter how trivial the spat may be but if StudioCanal let this one go it could very easily cost them millions in lost IP rights for other far more mainstream movies (including those produced in future) as a study of past court judgements on the subject will show.

 

The fact Rapido happen to be a Canadian company (or Hornby a long established British one) is irrelevant. It could just as easily have been Accurascale versus Bachmann and exactly the same issues would be at stake - issues which have NOTHING to do with model railways or the specific film per say.

 

 

 

  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:


Bachmann made a large scale pewter model of Locomotion No.1 for some anniversary.

it was an ornament, not functional.

 

The Great British Locomotive Collection models were “inspired by” various RTR models. Probably laser scanned. New tooling was certainly made, as the GBL models fitted together differently from the RTR models that inspired them.

 

The GBL Rocket and 1st Class L&MR coach were inspired by the Tri-ang Railways models.

 

The GBL Locomotion No.1 was inspired by the Bachmann ornament, but scaled down to approximately HO scale, 16.5mm gauge.

 

The Airfix kit of the Trevithick locomotive was a larger scale than OO. 
It could be motorised, on its display stand I believe.

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/airfix-a05871-1804-steam-loco--109407

 

 

You are forgetting that any piece of rolling stock which has passed through the hands of British Railways (or the private companies which were ultimately nationalised to form said organisation) do not carry IP rights. As such the GBR collection models in no way infringed any of the RTR models they duplicated provided they differed in assembly from the RTR offerings (*and thus would not infringed the specific RTR design (which are of course the IP of the RTR manufacturer).

 

Meanwhile as the LMR coach was built by the LMS in the 1930s that is also fair game for anyone to make (the IP rights would have ended up with British Rail) while there are plenty of old paintings of Rocket from which a model could be created (the real replica rocket being owned by the science museum and who will own the IP relating to that particular interpretation of how it 'should' look)

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

54 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 As such the GBR collection models in no way infringed any of the RTR models they duplicated provided they differed in assembly from the RTR offerings (*and thus would not infringed the specific RTR design (which are of course the IP of the RTR manufacturer).

 

I have a GBL Deltic. It faithfully reproduces the errors that appear, and only appear on the Bachmann model, and on top of that despite being D9002 has features unique to D9008 that only Bachmann so far have included on their models - I guess they used a Bachmann D9008 to copy. I wonder how that would stand, as I don't think being assembled differently would be any kind of get out in this case?

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

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

I have a GBL Deltic. It faithfully reproduces the errors that appear, and only appear on the Bachmann model, and on top of that despite being D9002 has features unique to D9008 that only Bachmann so far have included on their models - I guess they used a Bachmann D9008 to copy. I wonder how that would stand?

 

Legally speaking Bachmann would most likely have been able to take the same action with the GBL producers as StudioCanal can taken with the Titfield models, with the proviso those 'extras' could be proved to never have appeared on the real loco.

 

In reality Bachmann probably didn't consider the 'copying' worth making a fuss over - which is of course there prerogative to do. The problem with that is if they did decide to object to a 3rd party 'copying' their models external appearance in future then said 3rd party would be able to successfully argue that as Bachmann did not protect their rights beforehand, they cannot do so now.

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Best thing to do if you receive a "cease and desist" letter is throw it in the bin. They aren't legal in the UK and could be seen to be harassment.

 

Not correct.  They have no legal force, but that is NOT the same thing as not being legal (which implies illegal).  They are however a perfect way to indicate that potentially infringing action has been noticed and action is likely if the party persists.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

with the proviso those 'extras' could be proved to never have appeared on the real loco.

 

Indeed they can. The GBL model has squared off buffer cowlings that are not only unique to D9008, but I believe the loco had them from new and the preserved cab still has them.

 

Edit: It seems that it did not quite have them from new, but it acquired them sometime prior to 1964, may have got them after some collision damage and had the yellow warning panel added at the same time.

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

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

NO ITS NOT!

 

There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent - it doesn't matter how trivial the spat may be but if StudioCanal let this one go it could very easily cost them millions in lost IP rights for other far more mainstream movies (including those produced in future) as a study of past court judgements on the subject will show.

Would you happen to have a court judgement that actually says that?

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Legally speaking Bachmann would most likely have been able to take the same action with the GBL producers as StudioCanal can taken with the Titfield models, with the proviso those 'extras' could be proved to never have appeared on the real loco.

This I doubt, unless they could prove they were making some sort of deliberate artistic decision with the various changes from the prototype rather than simple errors or necessary changes made when scaling it down to 1/76th the size.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Would you happen to have a court judgement that actually says that?

This I doubt, unless they could prove they were making some sort of deliberate artistic decision with the various changes from the prototype rather than simple errors or necessary changes made when scaling it down to 1/76th the size.

 

Most, if not all court judgements will specifically quote the precedent that they are based on, something like "as per "xxx" v "yyy" on DD/MM/YYY at zzz  There will be thousands of them. Just google it and you should be able to find multiple examples in seconds.

 

In fact here is an example of a typical court judgement, which lists all the previous cases put forward for the judges consideration, of which there are a considerable number. Blink and you will miss it though...

 

 

 

 

Bachmann made a deliberate artistic decision to alter the moulds to produce a more accurate model of D9008 rather than just using the same as the other Deltics. Nothing to do with scaling down or other errors, it was deliberate and specific to this model.

 

 

Edited by Titan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

 

This I doubt, unless they could prove they were making some sort of deliberate artistic decision with the various changes from the prototype rather than simple errors or necessary changes made when scaling it down to 1/76th the size.

 

Lawyers are experts in arguing of the most miniscule of details. Frequently the reaction from the lay person might well be 'oh come on, pull the other one' but thats not how law works.

 

Its a different field of law but I note that just this week the famous 'Mr Loophole' has got a famous footballer off the hook for being pictured using a mobile phone while driving on the basis that the defendant swears the device was not switched on and it therefore was not in fact a mobile communications device (or whatever the law describes it as) when the picture was taken.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

All this mention of copying other manufacturers models is irrelevant. Just what exactly has Hornby copied? A sketch of some frames from the film and a drawing of Dan's coach. In all probability small barely noticeable but significant details have been changed in the sketches and drawings so that they can deny any copying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

Just what exactly has Hornby copied? A sketch of some frames from the film and a drawing of Dan's coach. In all probability small barely noticeable but significant details have been changed in the sketches and drawings so that they can deny any copying.

 

These aspects are largely irrelevant; the key thing is the use of the film title.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that a “Letter before Action” would have been sent by Rapido’s lawyers as soon as they realised Hornby were producing the same model. This is normally the first step before any “further action” is taken. I don’t know (I have not checked) when these models were first announced to the public. It would not be normal practice to put out a “jokey” Youtube clip on a public site, other than to get some form of support. I note (I stand to be corrected) that Hornby do not appear to have made any comment about this possible conflict. However, the video does appear to have got things moving with regards public support. If, and it is a big “if”, this goes to court, it will be some time before there is a full hearing – possibly years. Before the pandemic a hearing lasting 2-3days would not be heard until late 2023 – possibly even later.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Rapido models are timed for the 70th anniversary of the films release next year. I can't see Hornby waiting for a court case to proceed beyond the middle of this year. In fact the most likely thing is that it will be quietly dropped depending upon what stage the production is at. They are certainly lagging behind Rapido on that score but the only item they have catalogued at the moment that would come under a licencing agreement is Dans coach (and of course the Titfield Thunderbolt name). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I might copyright these just in case Hornby should feel inspired by any of them.

 

Mammarymeadow Thundercrack.

 

Boardroomboob Bombshell.

 

Knockerground Stormcloud.

 

Kentfield Blunderbus.

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...