A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.

[The Stationmaster]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Hornby is a household name in this country, a brand as unambiguously associated with one product type, almost like "Hoover" means a vacuum cleaner.  The brand has meant "toy train sets" to just about everybody born in this country since before WW2.

 

People don't know or care who has taken over whom, or that today's products are somewhat different from what our fathers and grandfathers remember.  Most of the population hasn't even heard of Bachmann, Studio Canal or Kader let alone the likes of Rapido.

 

Exactly so - as they so often say themselves the brand is one of their most valuable assets.  So it could be rather embarrassing if the brand gets embroiled in legal action because that sort of thing very often does the brand image no good at all, irrespective of how it fares in such action.

 

 

[Coach bogie]

Surely the name  "Titfield Thunderbolt" copyright lies with T E B Clarke family for 75 years after his death in 198. T E B Clarke wrote the original story. He created the name by combining two local villages near where he lived.

 

As for images for the box. Getty images will sell you the publishing rights.

 

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/titfield-thunderbolt

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Coach bogie

[kevinlms]

31 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

It is one of the biggest in the sector, but it is a small sector. However its brand awareness and power is enormous across its core brands. Everyone has heard of Hornby and Airfix, regardless of gender, status etc.

Which may or may not help them in a court of IP law.

[Paul.Uni]

33 minutes ago, JohnR said:

I'm surprised that there wasnt some action from Studio Canal at the time of the Hornby announcement last March. Maybe there was, and Hornby think this "inspired by" thing, and not using any graphics from the film is enough to satisfy?

Hornby announced 'Lion' in March, not 'The Titfield Thunderbolt'. As Studio Canal have the IP for 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' and not 'Lion' they could not act on the March announcement, they can on yesterdays.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - as they so often say themselves the brand is one of their most valuable assets.  So it could be rather embarrassing if the brand gets embroiled in legal action because that sort of thing very often does the brand image no good at all, irrespective of how it fares in such action.

 

 

Well it would certainly make the national news, as a filler item after whatever Boris might be up to at the time, but I don't see it damaging the brand or their sales in the long term even if they lose the case - unless damages/costs were so massive as to put them into liquidation.  Such a result might of course force in a change of management. 

[GordonC]

48 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I long ago accepted that a high proportion of Hornby's sales are to people who just like the look of a particular models and have few scruples about anachronisms or geographical disconnect.

 

Even a modeller of the standing of the late David Jenkinson wasn't above building and running the odd "funny train" that he just fancied the look of. 

 

Rule One Rules and those of us who keep fairly rigidly to our chosen themes represent a minority that sometimes benefits when the random tastes of others intersect with our own, whilst occasionally wondering WTF is going on?

 

By picking the FLIRT, which seems to be an odd subject, maybe Hornby are assessing what will sell to the market at large rather than listening to the partisans who make the most noise?

 

John  

 

of course, there will be lots of 'rule 1' getting applied all over the place, but I think there's a big difference between an impulse purchase of £100 or less in the past and a 3 or 4 coach unit of £330 or £410. Thats bound to raise a few more questions of how much you really like the look of it and whether you want to buy a model or put a poster on the wall. I think thats quite niche and I'm not sure how well it'll sell outside of the area where people would see or ride on them day to day in addition to the dedicated modellers

[JohnR]

16 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

Hornby announced 'Lion' in March, not 'The Titfield Thunderbolt'. As Studio Canal have the IP for 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' and not 'Lion' they could not act on the March announcement, they can on yesterdays.

 

But it didnt take much for people to join the dots at the time and realise they were doing the Thunderbolt. I mean, even Rapido knew then, in their April 1st announcement. 

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes it is odd to think of Hornby as 'a large company' because it obviously isn't although it still seems to carry an awful lot of top weight for a company of its size.   Maybe part of its problem is its own image of itself (or maybe the image of it in the minds of some of its staff?).

In that final sentence IMHO is the reason for what on the face of it may appear as a calculated decision to indulge in a course of commercial piracy. A trawl through the recent series on UKTV reveals a fervent sense of almost protective messianic pride in the product displayed throughout on screen….mainly by  SK it has to be said….that takes no prisoners. The existence of the series in itself demonstrates that Hornby are very much media savvy and should be aware of the complexities involved in dealing with StudioCanal.  
 

Yesterday’s future programme for 2022 is widely comprehensive and if Hornby actually manage to achieve its completion without the distinct possibility of commercial warfare with a rival and its likely consequences,then isn’t that sufficient ?

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ian Hargrave
Deleting unwanted text

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Hornby is a household name in this country, a brand as unambiguously associated with one product type, almost like "Hoover" means a vacuum cleaner.  The brand has meant "toy train sets" to just about everybody born in this country since before WW2.

 

People don't know or care who has taken over whom, or that today's products are somewhat different from what our fathers and grandfathers remember.  Most of the population hasn't even heard of Bachmann, Studio Canal or Kader let alone the likes of Rapido.

 

No one was disputing Hornby’s brand awareness.

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Of course, that identifies the 'production costs' part of producing the model.

 

If you're adding £75+ to the cost of every coach in multiple car trains forevermore for tooling and development then I'd suggest they need to look at ways either to reduce costs or increase production quantities to spread costs over a larger run. What kind of buyers are FLIRTs aimed at? Are there so many up to the minute Greater Anglia and South Wales modellers that they're expecting to sell thousands? I'm surprised Hornby think they can sell 'enough' even considering they're likely to have a future lifespan and later operators at those kind of price-points

Which is what leads to my second point.

 

How many people will willingly choose to buy a model of an obscure DMU used in a limited part of the country which has been out of service for 30 years when it's not much more to get the big shiny new thing.

 

However if the big shiny new thing is much more expensive if you really must have one people will make the effort to get the funds to do that and so Hornby get their custom and a fatter slice of the profit. however if you can only afford to spend a little Hornby still gets your custom on the 110 because it's within your price range and the margin is still respectable due to the age of the model.

 

[eldomtom2]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Other than the use of images on the box shown on Hornby's website, the derivative works defence you are putting forward would seem unlikely to count, unless you feel like adding some more detail rather than just making bland statements with no supporting information. 

A model of a key "prop" from a film is as clear an example of a derivative work as you can get.

[Global]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Hornby is a household name in this country, a brand as unambiguously associated with one product type, almost like "Hoover" means a vacuum cleaner.  The brand has meant "toy train sets" to just about everybody born in this country since before WW2.

 

People don't know or care who has taken over whom, or that today's products are somewhat different from what our fathers and grandfathers remember.  Most of the population hasn't even heard of Bachmann, Studio Canal or Kader let alone the likes of Rapido.

 

I think it was business size that was being mentioned by the other poster not brand awareness.

 

I think most would agree that Hornby is probably the most well known - but brands can come and brands can go, and if StudioCanal took them to cleaners I’d not mourn the loss of it. 
 

A lot bigger brands than Hornby have disappeared over the years! 

[jaym481]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

The irony here is that Rapido with Rails are engaging in exactly the same tit for tat behaviour that Hornby have been. The video comes across as a spoiler, and seems to be feeding a sense of grievance amongst the Rapido fanbase. If Rapido want to sink to Hornby's or Trump's level then that is their choice, but lets not pretend it is anything other than playing Hornby at their own game. Would be better not to rile up their supporters into some form of hatefest every time someone has the temerity to voice an opinion they don't agree with.

 

I assumed Rapido were above the Hornby type behaviour but it appears not. That's business, still more of a storm in a teacup compared to modellers losing money from various other outfits going bust/liquidating companies etc.

 

The ball is in Studio Canal's court. Given the sums of money involved for them will be trivial in the grand scheme of things they may simply decide the toddler like behaviour of the model train industry is simply not worth the bother. They will be as sensitive to adverse publicity affecting their IP as they are to marginal IP infringements.

You may be making assumptions without considering a few facts. The way Rapido produced the announcement was more subtle than Hornby's now typical "announce a product before the compentition to undercut their sales" tactic. One particularly delicious result was Hornby's flailing with the timing of their own release once Rapido "announced their announcement." The fact is, Rapido's announcement is no where near the same as Hornby's behaviour, as it wasn't announcing a new model just to get in first. It announced that Rapido, and more importantly StudioCanal, were not pleased with Hornby's transparent attempt to abscond with SC's IP and undercut an agreement that likely involved substantial investment for Rapido. 

 

There have been many examples to show why IP infringement is not taken lightly by most industries, even by companies smaller than Hornby. Others have explained why this is so. SC will most likely issue a Cease and Desist letter soon. I expect Hornby will back down, cry a river about "cultural appropriation" (a delicious irony from a British company), and air it all in the court of public opinion, because they can't afford to do it in a real court, knowing they are on very shaky ground. In the end, Hornby will still make it's profit on train sets, and Rapido will still sell well researched and designed models, and provide excellent after sale support. 

[Pint of Adnams]

34 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

No one was disputing Hornby’s brand awareness.

But I remember, and still think of, Hornby as O gauge tinplate and Dublo from Meccano in Liverpool. That stuff from Margate was called Triang, formerly Rovex, and I still think of it as such.

In a sense, the successive predecessor owners '(mis)appropriated' the Hornby brand in the hope of seeming to be the better product.

[TrainMan2001]

I find it rather interesting how the announcements played out overall. Last year, Hornby announced their intentions to do Lion, and Rapido, the Titfield Thunderbolt. Rapido have since gone on to announce a standard version of Lion (which makes sense). Hornby have now officially announced the Titfield Thunderbolt, but as yet haven't shown any indication that they will actually release a standard issue of Lion like they originally said.

 

Whether anything with legalities happens or not, surely voting with our wallets will still send a message? I was only originally planning to get the W&U Coach set from Rapido, but now I may get a Loriot from them as well, seeing as Hornby also went all in on that.

 

It still makes the lack of a standard Lion model by Hornby rather strange. False advertising...

 

And also, we've seen CADs on everything from Rapido, but nothing from Hornby yet, so we also know who's taking their time with the project (if Hornby really are supposed to release theirs first).

Edited January 11, 2022 by TrainMan2001

[Dunsignalling]

The "Hornby is the household name" argument holds much less water than it did historically. 

 

If you never buy a model train, it's irrelevant; if you do, it'll probably ensure your early purchases come in red boxes.

 

However, if you decide railway modelling is for you, as soon as you enter a proper model shop, buy that first magazine, visit a retailer website or a forum like this, you will very quickly become aware of everything else that's on offer.

 

The way the r-t-r trade overall is developing understandably bothers Hornby. Airfix/Mainline first imported the business model into the UK forty-odd years ago (though the Americans invented it). Hornby picked it up and successfully ran with it so it's no surprise that others have followed their lead and are now chipping away at their dominance.

 

My advice to Hornby would be to get on with the day job and not get distracted by unproductive rivalries.

 

1. Concentrate on satisfying the demands of your customers for quality and availability. 

 

2. Accept that occasional duplication is inevitable and deal with it in a dignified but determined manner.

 

3. When you have really started something first, only announce yours when it suits your interests do so, not immediately in an attempt to scare the other guy off. That won't always work, as you have found out.

 

4. When duplication does occur, just ensure your version is as good as it can be. Your best is as good as anyone's so have the confidence to compete on merit not fight over "territory". Also remember that getting yours into the shops first is good, but not if the product is only 95% developed and looks it.

 

In this case back down gracefully before you get dragged into a legal quagmire that you are probably going to wind up in the deep end of. Continue with those items that don't infringe anyone else's agreements and promote them on the same basis. The lesson to be drawn is to be first to obtain similar licences in future.

 

John

 

 

[lapford34102]

Just to clarify something if possible, is the "Lady with the Lamp" set not connected at all to this dispute.

 

Stu

[Edge]

Just now, lapford34102 said:

Just to clarify something if possible, is the "Lady with the Lamp" set not connected at all to this dispute.

 

Stu

Pretty much unconnected, yes.

[mozzer models]

10 minutes ago, lapford34102 said:

Just to clarify something if possible, is the "Lady with the Lamp" set not connected at all to this dispute.

 

Stu

 

9 minutes ago, Edge said:

Pretty much unconnected, yes.

 except its owned by Studio Canal 

[Dunsignalling]

32 minutes ago, Global said:

I think it was business size that was being mentioned by the other poster not brand awareness.

 

I think most would agree that Hornby is probably the most well known - but brands can come and brands can go, and if StudioCanal took them to cleaners I’d not mourn the loss of it. 
 

A lot bigger brands than Hornby have disappeared over the years! 

In any event, Hornby wouldn't disappear. Supply would be disrupted for sure, but the bits that others consider worthwhile would get salvaged from the wreckage, just as happened with Airfix/GMR and Mainline back in the day (some of those bits ending up in Hornby's ownership).

 

In the longer term, that might be the solution to the perceived Hornby problem of a top-heavy structure.

 

"Hornby Railways" and "Railroad" becoming separate entities (for instance) might actually be no bad thing as it would remove the awkward grey areas between the two that have sometimes held the business back. 

 

It would also mean that the (possibly seven or eight) participants in the overall UK r-t-r scene would be much closer to one another in influence/market share, a great driver of innovation and quality. 

 

John

Edited January 11, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, lapford34102 said:

Just to clarify something if possible, is the "Lady with the Lamp" set not connected at all to this dispute.

 

Stu

We're actually in Rapido land in this thread not Hornby land but having said that  the film 'The Lady with A Lamp' is also now owned by Studio Canal as well as the 'Railway Children in older years' thing which is being made for them.  Assuming Hornby has permission to use the Lady With A Lamp imagery - the train formation being an exact lift from the images in the film it seems of dd that they are prepared to do exactly the same thing without permission for the Titfield Thunderbolt - and that is the only connection I can think of.

 

But in the end it comes back to the very simple position that rapido UK have exclusive rights from Studio Canal for models based on the Titfield Thunderbolt and that exclusivity has effectively been trashed by Hornby who would appear to have no such rights.  On top of that - but outside the film deal in some respects - it has been pointed out to me that there will be on the 4mm scale market 4 different versions of a wagon of which there were only ever two examples in the real world.  When you think of all the various wagons Hornby could have chosen to re-tool they set off and do something like this.  For what other reason could they conceivably want a Loriot Y when the chances of seeing one on the real railway were probably even less likely than a win on Premium Bonds?

[Dunsignalling]

Overkill on wagons is nothing new, AIUI Bachmann's bogie well wagon (Crocodile) is based on a prototype of which less than a handful existed.

 

I was quite tickled when Hatton's offered multi-buy deals consisting of more of them than the GWR owned.

 

John

[Coryton]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

It lends weight to the view that various companies are following the Lego route of using licensing to boost sales. Whether that works in model rail is TBC.

 

 

 

The fact that they keep producing Coca Cola branded products suggests that it's working.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

It is one of the biggest in the sector, but it is a small sector. However its brand awareness and power is enormous across its core brands. Everyone has heard of Hornby and Airfix, regardless of gender, status etc.

 

I note you didn't say regardless of age. I think a lot of young people these days don't recognize the name - why would they? No TV advertising, nobody they know is into model trains...

[Kris]

42 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

A model of a key "prop" from a film is as clear an example of a derivative work as you can get.

The "prop" that is Dan's cottage or the bus would most likely be classified as designs rather than items covered under copyright laws. Designs have a far more limited length of protection (a 25 year maximum). 

 

Copyright covers

• original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, including illustration and photography
• original non-literary written work, such as software, web content and databases
• sound and music recordings
• film and television recordings
• broadcasts
• the layout of published editions of written, dramatic and musical works

It is rare for film props to be considered works of art on their own merit (but I am sure that examples can be found)

 

If we start with the example of the bus. This has a recognisable logo and colour. For the purposes of the film these are props. It would be reasonable to have an identical bus painted in the same colours. From the side it would be very hard to distinguish the prop bus and the other bus apart. This brings us on to the  Logo on the back, the distinguishing feature. To be protected this would need to be considered a trademark. In the case of the Titfield Thunderbolt, it is not protected as such. 

 

Dan's Coach is a more complex as a unique item created just of the film, the question with this is would it be considered an artistic piece on it's own? Has it ever been exhibited as an artistic piece in its own right? It is my opinion that it fails these tests. It was created to solve a problem not as a piece of art and as such was protected by design laws not copyright laws.

 

Design law also covers the decoration of the designs. The decoration of the design is not considered to be art so is not covered as artistic work in terms of copyright. 

[Mike Harvey]

Just re-read a Trade Mark infringement case involving LCD Enterprises (now 100% owned by Hornby) and Chipperfield's Circus. That was a battle between two minnows and LCD had £2300 of their costs paid by the other party. LCD Enterprises withdrew Oxford Diecast's range of  Chipperfield's Circus model vehicles as a result.

 

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o05411.pdf

 

Can't imagine that a Studio Canal/Hornby case would have costs in the same ballpark. Might be enough to damage solvency even more than reputation.