A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.

[Clearwater]

As someone pointed out a few pages back, Rapido must have been tipped off in advance of the Hornby catalogue and hence the unseemly shuffle of Honrby’s announcement from 10am to 7am.  That video wasn’t made in 5 mins (though probably not an overly long time period).  
 

Rapido would be taking a huge risk if they’d not cleared with Studio Canal what they were doing with that video.

 

 It may be that Studio Canal are quite amused by this spat.  After all, it could be viewed in a comic light as “two toy manufacturers” argue about an old film.   however if they don’t honour the contract with Rapido, it may have other consequences for them with things they care more about.  

[Legend]

Well it’s better than Eastenders , but then what isn’t ?

[Harlequin]

7 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

As someone pointed out a few pages back, Rapido must have been tipped off in advance of the Hornby catalogue and hence the unseemly shuffle of Honrby’s announcement from 10am to 7am.  That video wasn’t made in 5 mins (though probably not an overly long time period).  
 

Rapido would be taking a huge risk if they’d not cleared with Studio Canal what they were doing with that video.

 

 It may be that Studio Canal are quite amused by this spat.  After all, it could be viewed in a comic light as “two toy manufacturers” argue about an old film.   however if they don’t honour the contract with Rapido, it may have other consequences for them with things they care more about.  

Hey, hey! Only one of them is toy manufacturer…!

[GWR-fan]

It makes you wonder if Hornby even bothered to get the rights to manufacture the 60th anniversary Titfield train pack R3186 (even included a copy of the film).  If they did acquire the rights then did they possibly believe that they had the implied rights to release the "inspired" by set?  Using the word "inspired" implies that they knew that releasing the set would see them in hot water and yet they still went along with the project.  SK stubborness or plain stupidity or has SK passed his use by date?

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Film companies have become far more savvy as to the market for merchandise since the 1950's, as such most modern films have a far greater range of trademarks attached to them.

 

Specifically see: George Lucas & Star Wars.

 

He exchanged a high salary for a low salary and his retention of all merchandising rights, and rights to any sequels, when making his deal with 20th Century Fox for Star Wars.

 

That deal, and the savy merchandising of Star Wars, created the Lucasfilm/ILM/etc empire and made Lucas very rich.

 

But also worth considering that the media companies have been very good over the years in getting IP laws around the world changed to suit their needs - if you are really old you might remember there was a time when copyrights expired (yes, the current 70 years in theory expires - but does anyone today really think as any major property threatens to go out of copyright that length won't get extended/changed again?).

 

So I wouldn't be so quick to make judgements either way on how this case, if it went to trial, would turn out because we don't really know what obscure law those media companies may have had created.

 

 

 

[mdvle]

10 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

It makes you wonder if Hornby even bothered to get the rights to manufacture the 60th anniversary Titfield train pack R3186 (even included a copy of the film). 

 

Given that Hornby has a long record of licensing IP I would assume they did.

 

10 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

If they did acquire the rights then did they possibly believe that they had the implied rights to release the "inspired" by set? 

 

The fact that they approached StudioCanal to attempt to either get or re-license the rights (this is how Rapido found out I believe, I think a year ago Rapido said they were informed somebody else had attempted to get the rights) is a good indication that they were aware any previous rights had expired.

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hey, hey! Only one of them is toy manufacturer…!

 

Not so!

 

Rapidos (whom I imagine you are refering to) products are most definitely 'toys' legally speaking! If any legal action is taken in respect of the dispute then it is very much a case of two toy manufacturers being involved.

[john new]

1 hour ago, GWR-fan said:

It makes you wonder if Hornby even bothered to get the rights to manufacture the 60th anniversary Titfield train pack R3186 (even included a copy of the film).  If they did acquire the rights then did they possibly believe that they had the implied rights to release the "inspired" by set?  Using the word "inspired" implies that they knew that releasing the set would see them in hot water and yet they still went along with the project.  SK stubborness or plain stupidity or has SK passed his use by date?

Knowing how offices work over a length of time with reorganisations etc.,, and IIRC some major management shake-ups that Hornby's staff have had, perhaps more plausible is that the person who did actually know has now gone and their related files had been binned. (Happened where I worked albeit in a different sphere). Hence...

 

Past conversation - along the lines of Person a - "Have we got the rights to Titfield Thunderbolt merchandise?" Response from person b - "Yes I remember when we got those."

 

Options like - (1) They did and at the time were still valid and then the staff shake up happened or (2) No one then bothered to search for the records at the time or they did and they were lost/misfiled etc., etc..

 

Being kind to Hornby here let's assume (1) applied and it is months, or even a year or two later, that production and marketing want to move on to market and so recheck, the oh **** moment then occurs when because of the changes they find out the rights renewal got overlooked because those office staff in the know had gone. It happened with their tooling why not with the office paperwork too. 

 

Where I worked a new broom manager cleared out many of the back records in the 1990s and years of archived civil engineering records and drawings went to skip, all fine until they are needed 10 years down the line when the sites get redeveloped and no-one still working in the place has a clue where all the underground pipe runs and cabling is/goes. So yes these things do happen, yes some were railway related, all academic now as the tramway has gone (and for a slightly different but related reason),  records of the old Weymouth Station site plans had long gone and a major sewer pipe drive hit the old Brunelian era goods shed foundations.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by john new
clarity

[wombatofludham]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

I dont think we can infer anything like that all - unless you are suggesting that Studio Canal gave the go ahead for the video, and Rapido made it all in the space of 30 minutes after Hornby's announcement at 7am?

 

 

Do you really think Rapido would have made that video on the morning of the announcement, AND without first having had a word with Studio Canal that they were happy for Rapido to make the announcement?  Really?

Of course Canal were consulted, and that video will have been prepared in advance.  Doing that kind of editing in of the clips takes time.  Plus, if you are going to make a public comment about a potential breach of rights you'd make sure first that Studio Canal were happy that they were not going to be embarrassed by the message.

So yes, I think it is safe to infer that Canal did endorse the video, and the message, and infer they are confident they had the rights to sell in the first place (despite what some have been claiming in this forum), and presumably will want to protect the agreement they have signed with Rapido, otherwise Rapido might be tempted to claim damages for breach of exclusivity if Canal in any way acquiesce to Hornby's aggression.

 

Of course it is up to Canal to take Hornby down, but the Rapido video can most definitely be taken as having some sort of blessing from Canal and as a consequence can be fairly taken to being representative of their views.  Otherwise they would have told Rapido not to air the video in case of reputational or legal damage.

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

There would be plenty for Hornby to choose from including

 

Selection of films

• The Virginian, 1929 
• High Noon, 1952
• Apache, 1954
• The Big Land, 1957
• Finian's Rainbow, 1968
• Back to the Future Part III, 1990

Might I offer an addition? Bad Day at Black Rock starts with a Southern Pacific F7 running into town. Never mind that it's in Black Widow livery, which post-dated the film's setting by a couple of years, the Technicolor makes it look lovely. Oh, and how many films have you seen where the hero is depicted with only one arm? 

[wombatofludham]

5 minutes ago, john new said:

 

Where I worked a new broom manager cleared out many of the back records in the 1990s and years of archived civil engineering records and drawings, allfine until they are needed 10 years down the line when the sites get redeveloped and no-one still working in the place has a clue where all the underground pipe runs and cabling is/goes. So yes these things do happen, yes some were railway related, all academic now (and for a slightly different but related reason),  records of the old Weymouth Station site plans had long gone and a major sewer pipe drive hit the old Brunelian era foundations.

 

A large city in the West Midlands managed to lose the fact a river ran directly under a site being redeveloped that I was peripherally involved in.  It was only found when the digger went through the roof of the concrete channel it had been place in sometime in the 1950s.

It's surprising just what does get mislaid in terms of archive material.

[Dunsignalling]

I'd suggest that StudioCanal will not only have endorsed the Rapido video, but encouraged it in order to give Hornby a gentle warning before putting their boots on.

 

It's almost certain that SC's legal department (they will certainly have a full-time one) will have followed it up by  "speaking to" senior figures at Hornby to reinforce the message prior to initiating formal action. 

 

When or even if, any of the parties go public in the immediate future is highly doubtful as there will be practical issues to sort out. Not least of those will be whether the release of Hornby's 2022 catalogue can proceed without it being reprinted minus any offending material.   

 

We end-customers are unlikely to learn anything concrete until it's effectively all over and a statement (or statements) issued by one or more of the parties.

 

John

 

 

[Lambton58]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

It's a good many years since I've watched  High Noon, but wasn't the point of the title that the baddie was expected to turn up on the mid-day train?

 

John

Yep - still shot from IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044706/mediaviewer/rm943247105/

 

70 years old this year and still a great movie - almost as good as The Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

Ralph

Lambton 58

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I'd suggest that StudioCanal will not only have endorsed the Rapido video, but encouraged it in order to give Hornby a gentle warning before putting their boots on.

 

It's almost certain that SC's legal department (they will certainly have a full-time one) will have followed it up by  "speaking to" senior figures at Hornby to reinforce the message prior to initiating formal action. 

 

When or even if, any of the parties go public in the immediate future is highly doubtful as there will be practical issues to sort out. Not least of those will be whether the release of Hornby's 2022 catalogue can proceed without it being reprinted minus any offending material.   

 

We end-customers are unlikely to learn anything concrete until it's effectively all over and a statement (or statements) issued by one or more of the parties.

 

John

 

 

 

However if the offending product pages on the Hornby site start returning a '404 error' then we can conclude something is happening.

 

While Hornby might well think they can ride this one out, if formal action is started by SC then I suspect it would be considered prudent to take the offending stuff out of the public domain for the duration.

[Clearwater]

5 minutes ago, john new said:

Knowing how offices work over a length of time with reorganisations etc.,, and IIRC some major management shake-ups that Hornby's staff have had, perhaps more plausible is that the person who did actually know has now gone and their related files had been binned. (Happened where I worked albeit in a different sphere). Hence...

 

Past conversation - along the lines of Person a - "Have we got the rights to Titfield Thunderbolt merchandise?" Response from person b - "Yes I remember when we got those."

 

Options like - (1) They did and at the time were still valid and then the staff shake up happened or (2) No one then bothered to search for the records at they time or they did and they were lost/misfiled etc., etc..

 

Being kind to Hornby here let's assume (1) applied and it is months, or even a year or two later, that production and marketing want to move on to market and so recheck, the oh **** moment then occurs when because of the changes they find out the rights renewal got overlooked because those office staff in the know had gone. It happened with their tooling why not with the office paperwork too. 

 

Where I worked a new broom manager cleared out many of the back records in the 1990s and years of archived civil engineering records and drawings, allfine until they are needed 10 years down the line when the sites get redeveloped and no-one still working in the place has a clue where all the underground pipe runs and cabling is/goes. So yes these things do happen, yes some were railway related, all academic now (and for a slightly different but related reason),  records of the old Weymouth Station site plans had long gone and a major sewer pipe drive hit the old Brunelian era foundations.

 

There's a number of scenarios. I'd be surprised if SK did not know the broad legal position around licensing given it's been a core part of their business. They'll have a General Counsel and almost certainly at least one other in house lawyer.  Whilst I wouldn't expect that lawyer to be an IP expert, I'd expect them to know enough to know when they need to go to get external legal advice. 

 

From the April Rapido announcement, it sounds like Hornby approached asking for the rights and were told they were already given up.  Whether the approach was jointly for the Titchfield and Railway Children or whether the rights to the latter were offered as an alternative, we don't (and probably won't) know.  I'd expect that if this does go to litigation that management would need to flag it in their board report under actual or pending litigation (unless they can convince themselves its under a reporting threshold.  If I was a Non-Exec, and they've just got a new one, I'd be asking the CEO what he knew and other board members knew and when.  And given Hornby's profitability is low, that threshold shouldn't be very high).  Did management know that there was a risk that this launch could be the subject of litigation?  What representations did management give?  What legal advice was sought and given?  How was it summarised to the board?  If there is a relationship problem with Studio Canal, how does that affect the Railway Children licence (and other items in this new film range)?  Lots of questions.  

 

I've just finished watching most of the Hornby UKTV series.  What's noticeable is how front and centre SK is  albeit he is not a main board director.  I assume he is a member of whatever they call their senior management team (ExCo, SLT etc).  He is the face of the Hornby brand.  I think it's noticeable that we don't see the CEO (or at least not memorably) in the programme.  If there is litigation, he will be under a lot of scrutiny as, from the outside, it would appear that he is the central figure in these type of discussions.  eg "Simon has a plan to outfox the competition and is sending junior staff member to measure 2007 Prince of Wales."

 

IF Rapido and Studio Canal press their case, this has the capacity to put a lot of strain on the management team when they should still be focused on the turnaround and delivery of sustainable profit.  Hence part of my thinking above that if this is a problem (and we're not all just living in the RMWeb bubble where we and only we think it matters) that they will have to find a way of u-turning.

 

[wombatofludham]

On the lighter side, I do wonder if "Titgate" might end up becoming the basis for a film script?  It does have a very Ealing-esque feel the way things are developing.  If so, I wonder who might produce it... I'll get back to you on that.

[Miss Prism]

5 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

Lots of questions. 

 

Has anyone asked Simon Kohler anything yet?

 

[Markwj]

40 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

On the lighter side, I do wonder if "Titgate" might end up becoming the basis for a film script?  It does have a very Ealing-esque feel the way things are developing.  If so, I wonder who might produce it... I'll get back to you on that.

Oh my god -titgate-  brilliant!

[Philou]

2 hours ago, Clearwater said:

As someone pointed out a few pages back, Rapido must have been tipped off in advance of the Hornby catalogue and hence the unseemly shuffle of Honrby’s announcement from 10am to 7am.

 

I haven't a dog in this fight, but I knew last Thursday that the announcement was due at 7am and not 10am as announced here on RMWeb. This may have been 'in the air' for a little while.

 

@wombatofludham Pity the Carry On team are no longer about - Carry On Titgate with Kenneth Williams starring as SK (produced by Studiocanal) .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

 

54 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Might I offer an addition? Bad Day at Black Rock starts with a Southern Pacific F7 running into town. Never mind that it's in Black Widow livery, which post-dated the film's setting by a couple of years, the Technicolor makes it look lovely. Oh, and how many films have you seen where the hero is depicted with only one arm? 

 

That is a really good film. I don't know much about American diesels, but it looks fantastic. 

 

Speaking of trains in inaccurate liveries in films, Hornby could always do this (a GSWR Class 52). A 1950s CIE train in the 1920s is still probably the most accurate bit of Hollywood's version of Ireland, but it's still a good film.

 

[Cowley 47521]

22 minutes ago, Markwj said:

Oh my god -titgate-  brilliant!

Just brilliant!

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Might I offer an addition? Bad Day at Black Rock starts with a Southern Pacific F7 running into town. Never mind that it's in Black Widow livery, which post-dated the film's setting by a couple of years, the Technicolor makes it look lovely. Oh, and how many films have you seen where the hero is depicted with only one arm? 

 

Actually, it could be a proverbial win-win for Hornby - they could sell 2 trains!

 

The movie actually uses 2 trains for filming, one indeed being led by #6386 (SP F7A), but the other train used #6151 which is a F3A.

 

 

[john new]

2 hours ago, john new said:

Knowing how offices work over a length of time with reorganisations etc.,, and IIRC some major management shake-ups that Hornby's staff have had, perhaps more plausible is that the person who did actually know has now gone and their related files had been binned. (Happened where I worked albeit in a different sphere). Hence...

 

Past conversation - along the lines of Person a - "Have we got the rights to Titfield Thunderbolt merchandise?" Response from person b - "Yes I remember when we got those."

 

Options like - (1) They did and at the time were still valid and then the staff shake up happened or (2) No one then bothered to search for the records at the time or they did and they were lost/misfiled etc., etc..

 

Being kind to Hornby here let's assume (1) applied and it is months, or even a year or two later, that production and marketing want to move on to market and so recheck, the oh **** moment then occurs when because of the changes they find out the rights renewal got overlooked because those office staff in the know had gone. It happened with their tooling why not with the office paperwork too. 

 

Where I worked a new broom manager cleared out many of the back records in the 1990s and years of archived civil engineering records and drawings went to skip, all fine until they are needed 10 years down the line when the sites get redeveloped and no-one still working in the place has a clue where all the underground pipe runs and cabling is/goes. So yes these things do happen, yes some were railway related, all academic now as the tramway has gone (and for a slightly different but related reason),  records of the old Weymouth Station site plans had long gone and a major sewer pipe drive hit the old Brunelian era goods shed foundations.

 

A last thought before lights out - when did Studio Canal get the rights to licence TT out? Is it a (1) above but the other way round and an accidental double rights  release?

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, TrainMan2001 said:

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).

the above, plus a very tenuous film link supporting this “film” series makes me wonder how serious this commitment to making the model is ? or if what we are seeing is “testing the waters” and calling “bluff” to see who blinks first ?

 

 

8 hours ago, Mike Harvey said:

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.

fascinating read.

 

in my opinion though…

 

I’m not sure its bearing, though it could give insight into previous behaviour.

It does demonstrate that the parties have been prepared to go down the legal path, right to the very end.

 

it does highlight two points of note to me, the importance of quality evidence, and the importance of challenging that evidence.. as lack of these elements seemed very relevant in the final decision, and costs decision.

 

I find myself disagreeing  with the judge’s opinion on the current, and future value of models.. Though this is down to the lack of an independent expert advice, the lack of either side calling an expert opinion, or challenging, which comes back to importance of submission of quality evidence, as this factors into damages.

 

A big difference between the two situations, is Studio Canal has quite definitely not given up on Titfield Thunderbolt.. it has released the film on DVD, Bluray recently, it has been broadcast many times over the last few years. But also, pertinently, it has both previously licensed, and recently licensed rights to the film.. and Hornby would know this being both a previous licence holder, and being aware of the new successful application. 

 

 

[wombatofludham]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

the above, plus a very tenuous film link supporting this “film” series makes me wonder how serious this commitment to making the model is ? or if what we are seeing is “testing the waters” and calling “bluff” to see who blinks first ?

 

The sequence of events gets more bizarre when you think about it.

Whether Hornby had started work on "Lion" in parallel with "Rocket" and thought about the "Titfield" connection or not, the timeline doesn't seem to suggest anything but a spoiler tactic.

April last year: Rapido announced they had exclusive rights to do a Titfield Thunderbolt celebratory model.  April, 2021.

It was then revealed by Hornby that they were doing Lion, and Rapido said that "A N Other" manufacturer had approached Studio Canal for the right to do "Thunderbolt" but told that Rapido had got in first, which had prompted Rapido into an early announcement, which was stated on here and elsewhere.  

Circumstantially it could be reasonably inferred that "A N Other" was Hornby, although that, as far as I know, has never been confirmed (open to correction)

So, as of last April, it was in the public domain that Rapido had exclusive rights to produce a train which matched the concept, appearance and format of the train which is in effect a "character" in the film, an integral part of the story narrative, and therefore, I would suggest, likely to pass the man on the Clapham omnibus test of something unique to the film narrative and protected by Studio Canal's rights.

At this point, Hornby could have continued to produce Lion as part of their Period 1 range alongside Rocket.  However, it was clear, from the fact Rapido had been granted exclusive rights to the "Titfield Thunderbolt" concept as a model, that Hornby could not produce anything that utilised the concept of "Lion" masquerading as "Thunderbolt" pulling a Loriot with a grounded coach body on it, followed by a Toad brake van (displaying a hanging basket, which you could see on the video announcement), as this particular formation of stock is clearly unique to the Titfield Thunderbolt film, was scripted as such, and is an integral part of the narrative.  That particular formation and concept is a unique piece of artistic interpretation and I would suggest is protected under the film rights.  We don't know for certain if Hornby are the "A N Other" who applied for the rights, which forced Rapido to break cover, to an extent it is irrelevant as when Rapido made their public announcement it was clear they had exclusive rights.

Yet, nearly nine months later, they announce a pack using models which clearly are intended to replicate the unique formation, concept and character of the "Titfield Thunderbolt", knowing they did not have the rights to do so.  They can't hide behind the "we thought we had the rights after the 60th anniversary pack" excuse as that wasn't "Lion" but a 14xx with a Loriot and the Toad.  That isn't the formation used in the film, so they could probably claim that as their own original concept as the 14xx in the film dragged the Wisbech coach and Toad.  But that's a moot point.  In releasing a scale facsimile of the formation of the actual train used in the film, which is conceptually such an integral part of the screenplay and a unique character and plot device in the film, knowing that Rapido have exclusive rights, which is out in the public domain, I cannot see how they have any defence, if Studio Canal want to pursue it.