Jump to content
 

A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.


rapidoandy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Clearwater said:

s someone pointed out a few pages back, Rapido must have been tipped off in advance of the Hornby catalogue an

The Hornby announcement was briefed to the trade & trade press in early December under embargo - plenty of time for a leak.  That’s why my Feb Railway Modeller which arrived in the post yesterday was able to have several illustrated pages describing the Hornby 2022 programme even though it only went public two days earlier.  The RM mentions the Dec briefing and embargo.

 

Richard

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In an ideal world I'd like Rapido to thrive and in a weird way 'Titgate' may have raised their profile and helped sales of their Titfield range. I'd also like Hornby to thrive too, my layout would be much poorer without their stuff, but I'd like them to do it without acting like red brace wearing venture capitalists. Though I predict sniggers from tier 2 and 3 model shops and the sounds of chortling drifting south from the direction of Sheffield if Hornby get taken to the cleaners by Studio Canal it isn't in anyone's long term best interests that money transfers from the hobby into the pockets of law firms.

  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

Simon was asked if there were likely to be any legal issues in this regard; he responded “No, I doubt that very much. You know, you can start going into registration marks and all the rest of it and what class it is in, remember we are producing Class 28 which is classed as toys”.

That suggests that Hornby have been taking legal advice. It's a very specific answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

Simon continued, “I think the key thing is, you know, we’re not using any of the branding from the film and that’s the thing; we are producing a model of items that exist”.

 

Thank you for asking the question it is most enlightening in how it was answered. 
 

It only existed during filming in that guise so he’s on extremely shaky ground ;) 

 

I’d like to see him just produce models of any current livery on that basis without permission from the owner because it exists! More to the point the 70 year copyright on the film is still in force for another 48 years and that’s clearly a copy and labelled as Titfield which is also a creation for the film so it does use unique brands associated with it. They are being rather silly. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest a left field thought. When Rapido say they have bought the rights to the TT what exactly have they bought?

 

To produce a model of Lion? GWR well wagon? or a grounded body of a LSWR(?) carriage.

 

Why would they do that? No one has any copyright in those now.

 

Is it the name Titfield Thunderbolt? Don't see how you can copyright a name.

 

So is this Hornby simply showing Rapido they were duped into paying for something they didn't need to.

 

There would be copyright in any artwork used from the film.

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Kris said:

That suggests that Hornby have been taking legal advice. It's a very specific answer. 

I’m not sure “No, I doubt that very much…you know…” is a very specific answer. Sounds more like waffle from someone caught on the hop. A specific answer would have been “No, we’ve checked this out, because we’re obviously aware of the other company’s plans, and there isn’t an issue. Next question.” 


Richard

  • Like 2
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Kris said:

That suggests that Hornby have been taking legal advice. It's a very specific answer. 

But that could have been advice he has been using for a good few years, not necessarily sought for this very product?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, meil said:

Can I suggest a left field thought. When Rapido say they have bought the rights to the TT what exactly have they bought?

 

To produce a model of Lion? GWR well wagon? or a grounded body of a LSWR(?) carriage.


 

No those exist and can be modelled quite freely in a standard Hornby box. It’s selling as a commercial product clearly associated with the film that is an issue as you are making money off their intellectual property. 

 

4 minutes ago, meil said:

 

Why would they do that? No one has any copyright in those now.

 

Is it the name Titfield Thunderbolt? Don't see how you can copyright a name.

 

No the film is the copyright and that protects the screenplay, music and image. The train as portrayed in the film could be sold as separate parts but as a whole and labelled as Titfield Thunderbolt is using the film to sell it by association so infringes the copyright. Titfield was a name solely created for the film much like Hogwarts for Harry Potter. 
Lion could be sold in the 1930 livery used in the film but it can’t be called Thunderbolt as that was purely for filming. 

 

4 minutes ago, meil said:

 

So is this Hornby simply showing Rapido they were duped into paying for something they didn't need to.

 

So why did Hornby apply for the license? They proved they knew they needed one with the previous set featuring the 14xx so have already thrown out that excuse. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
31 minutes ago, meil said:

Can I suggest a left field thought. When Rapido say they have bought the rights to the TT what exactly have they bought?

 

To produce a model of Lion? GWR well wagon? or a grounded body of a LSWR(?) carriage.

 

Why would they do that? No one has any copyright in those now.

 

Is it the name Titfield Thunderbolt? Don't see how you can copyright a name.

 

So is this Hornby simply showing Rapido they were duped into paying for something they didn't need to.

 

There would be copyright in any artwork used from the film.

 

 

None of the individual models would need licences (so long as the loco doesn't carry the name Thunderbolt), though the coach body is debateable depending on how far it strays from a straight portrayal of it before the props department got to work on it. 

 

What needs licencing is the combination and promotion of those models in the way the prototypes featured in the film. Rapido jumped through all the right hoops with that but it appears that Hornby (probably) didn't. 

 

Unless their legal advice stands up against StudioCanal's, Hornby will take a financial hit, whether it goes to court or not. Hornby may not have the resources to survive a prolonged court battle should it come to that.

 

If Hornby could get a legitimate licence at this point, I reckon it would have to be non-exclusive, and expensive enough for StudioCanal to refund Rapido's fee (without cancelling their licence, just changing it to non-exclusive) plus compensation. However, StudioCanal probably couldn't do that without Rapido's consent.  

 

And that's probably the best case scenario Hornby could hope for. Result: face saved but not a brass farthing in profit from these models. I have a horrible feeling, though, that Hornby will ride their luck and take a bad mauling financially.

 

Wonder who might want to pick up the pieces and buy whatever's left? Hatton's? Rails? 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AY Mod said:

Simon continued, “I think the key thing is, you know, we’re not using any of the branding from the film

 

Would emblazoning the train set box, in large letters, 'The Titfield Thunderbolt', even though qualified by (in smaller letters) 'inspired by', not count as using the branding from the film ?

 

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

44 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Wonder who might want to pick up the pieces and buy whatever's left? Hatton's? Rails? 

 

John

Ooh, wouldn't that be a delicious irony: Hornby pushed into administration by this daft brinksmanship, then a partnership of Hattons and Rails buy the company,,,

  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 6
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

You have the sequence wrong.

 

1) March 8th 2021 - Hornby posted to Instagram (and Facebook) that they were working on Lion, that it was originally to be part of their 2022 range

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/162961-Hornby-announce-lmr-0-4-2-lion/

 

2) March 9th 2021 - Rapido, as a result of 1) posted that they had the world-wide exclusive rights to Titfield, with more to come on April 1st

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/162983-left-for-titfield/

 

3) April 1st 2021 - Rapido does their official announcement

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/163579-titfield-thunderbolt-70th-anniversary-range/

 

4) December 15th 2021 - Rapido announces Lion as a separate product in addition to Titfield

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/168974-liverpool-and-manchester-lion/

 

5) January 10th 2022 - Hornby announce a "as seen in Titfield Thunderbolt" set, but do not as initially stated announce Lion

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

It confirms however that the exclusivity was known about last year, and the squirming answer given by Simon Kohler also shows they have considered this and come to a highly suspect decision.

I stand by my opinion:  whilst "Lion", Toads and Loriots are almost certainly public domain, "Lion" dressed as "Thunderbolt", a Loriot with a coach body on it and a Toad, together, can only be considered to be "The Titfield Thunderbolt" and as an integral part of the plot, a unique combination of features that helped deliver the narrative of the film, and created by the imagination of the team behind the script, that image becomes an "artwork" in it's own right and therefore will be protected by the film rights.

One of my myriad portfolio of jobs before retirement involved commissioning public artist designed functional items which were then fabricated by companies, and I'm sure the artistic copyright conditions we researched would apply here.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

I asked at the press briefing if it was legitimate to do this as it was public knowledge that Rapido Trains had been given an exclusive licence by Studio Canal to produce and market ‘The Titfield Thunderbolt’, he responded by saying “Well, the point is it’s a touch of semantics, it’s not so much as ‘Exclusive’ but what we have produced is what we call ‘Inspired by’. We are not promoting the film ‘The Titfield Thunderbolt’, we’re not using any of their assets as in packaging and all the rest of it. So, the loco exists, the rolling stock exists and, as I say, the key there is that the packs are inspired by the trains that you see on film.”

 

Simon continued, “I think the key thing is, you know, we’re not using any of the branding from the film and that’s the thing; we are producing a model of items that exist”.

 

Simon was asked if there were likely to be any legal issues in this regard; he responded “No, I doubt that very much. You know, you can start going into registration marks and all the rest of it and what class it is in, remember we are producing Class 28 which is classed as toys”.

The issue here, I would have thought, it that by sailing so close to the wind Hornby are opening themselves up to all sorts of potential risks. They'll probably get stroppy letters and legal threats from the rights holders and so on, and even if this never gets to court it will eat into their management team's time and require an unknown amount of costly legal advice.

 

I can't imagine their profit margins on these sets are amazing to start with (despite what some people think about Hornby prices), so adding a load of 'unknown unknowns' into the mix is probably not a great idea. 

  

 

 

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

Thanks for the clarification.

It confirms however that the exclusivity was known about last year, and the squirming answer given by Simon Kohler also shows they have considered this and come to a highly suspect decision.

I stand by my opinion:  whilst "Lion", Toads and Loriots are almost certainly public domain, "Lion" dressed as "Thunderbolt", a Loriot with a coach body on it and a Toad, together, can only be considered to be "The Titfield Thunderbolt" and as an integral part of the plot, a unique combination of features that helped deliver the narrative of the film, and created by the imagination of the team behind the script, that image becomes an "artwork" in it's own right and therefore will be protected by the film rights.

One of my myriad portfolio of jobs before retirement involved commissioning public artist designed functional items which were then fabricated by companies, and I'm sure the artistic copyright conditions we researched would apply here.

Agree, and the Toad with flower basket added is probably the wrong side of the public domain line too although, as you say, not an unadorned Toad model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I suppose the the illustrations on the box are also inspired by the film? I'm not familiar enough with the source material to know if they are exact frames.

 

I can't imagine anyone trying a set 'A special edition train pack inspired by... 'Harry Potter'  and having  images of the iconic viaduct, (perhaps with flying Ford Anglia) or a the stream loco pulling out of Kings Cross within a film reel.

 

It just all feels...icky, and does make me second guess which companies I can ethically  and financially support.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'll be ordering the Rapido one!! Just to support them. Really wanted City of London as I saw her often...........not sure now.

 sorry Mr K . you've really lost me.

Mike

Edited by ikks
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Ahh right . That seems to be Simon Kohler and therefore Hornbys gist of it then . As long as you dont use pictures from the film you can get away with calling it "inspired by"  . You can actually see this in the new Catalogue . Under the Trains on film category there are no pictures at all of the actual film . Interestingly the description is "L&MR Locomotive No57 'Lion'as seen in several classic films including 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' "  The stock is described as "A Loriot'Y' with load and a GWR 'Toad' Brake Van "  The load is clearly a hut/shed/old carriage.   The Lady with the lamp bumpf continues the theme with  "L&MR Locomotive No57 'Lion'as seen in several classic films including 'The Lady with a Lamp' "   So really what you are buying is L&MR Locomotive No57 that just happens to look like the loco in the film . I can't see the name in the catalogue illustration but I think the illustrations on here do say Thunderbolt. If it just said 'Lion' I think it would help their case.

 

The contrast and therefore presumably the distinction Hornby see is that "The Railway Children Return" does feature an illustration from the film  and refers to STUDIOCANAL copyright .

 

So thats what SK thinks . 

 

Now is it just him that thinks this ?  Again I would be astounded if someone hadn't sounded out Studiocanal or IP / Trademark specialists before going down this road . Certainly skating on thin ice . 

 

 

Edited by Legend
Sorry might have been better under Hornby. Got confused !
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I must admit to being somewhat confused by SK's response.  If he, as Hornby's Marketing and Development Director, considers that it's a matter of semantics why did he, or someone in his department, approach Studio Canal for some sort of licence or rights - however you describe it - in the first place?  Surely in a company where at present every £ counts in pursuit of it being able to again post a profit why on earth would they want to spend money on a licence etc deal when, according to him, it isn't necessary.    Somewhere something simply does not add up.  Either they thought they needed a licence etc and were prepared to pay for it or they didn't.  So why has that changed (apart from the obvious conclusion)? 

 

In any event, as I've posted in another thread, anybody who really wants a Titfield Thunderbolt train is going to have to order it from Rapido because their order from the factory reflects what customers, including retailers, have ordered from them.   In the case of Hornby, especially with their recent record, you're just as likely to find that your pre-order won't lead anywhere because your retailer's order is reduced by 'allocation'  or it was cut before they could even place their order.

Edited by The Stationmaster
correct typos
  • Like 5
  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
51 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

In the case of Hornby, especially with their recent record, you're just as likely to find that your pre-order won't lead anywhere because your retailer's order is reduced by 'allocation'  or it was cut before they could even place their order.

 

Maybe there are hurdles even before that stage as I've had several Tier 1 retailers telling me that they've had their allocated stock quantities and the value next to TT is 0 so, at present, it seems they can't even order it which puts them in a difficult position with prospective customers.

 

Meanwhile I see a retailer where several instances have been reported on here that money was taken but no goods received who can't be anything above a Tier 3 is advertising it for sale. Some mug will order it.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, Legend said:

Ahh right . That seems to be Simon Kohler and therefore Hornbys gist of it then . As long as you dont use pictures from the film you can get away with calling it "inspired by"  . You can actually see this in the new Catalogue . Under the Trains on film category there are no pictures at all of the actual film . Interestingly the description is "L&MR Locomotive No57 'Lion'as seen in several classic films including 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' "  The stock is described as "A Loriot'Y' with load and a GWR 'Toad' Brake Van "  The load is clearly a hut/shed/old carriage.   The Lady with the lamp bumpf continues the theme with  "L&MR Locomotive No57 'Lion'as seen in several classic films including 'The Lady with a Lamp' "   So really what you are buying is L&MR Locomotive No57 that just happens to look like the loco in the film . I can't see the name in the catalogue illustration but I think the illustrations on here do say Thunderbolt. If it just said 'Lion' I think it would help their case.

 

The contrast and therefore presumably the distinction Hornby see is that "The Railway Children Return" does feature an illustration from the film  and refers to STUDIOCANAL copyright .

 

So thats what SK thinks . 

 

Now is it just him that thinks this ?  Again I would be astounded if someone hadn't sounded out Studiocanal or IP / Trademark specialists before going down this road . Certainly skating on thin ice . 

 

 

Within IP law there are “passing off” and “lookalike” which don’t have to be exact copies of original IP, but enough to convince the general public ie the buyer that the product is related to, produced by or “the same as” the original.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...