OO gauge Raven Q6 0-8-0 steam locomotive

[Fenman]

The easy counter to that is that customer has more choice as they have products X and Y rather than just 2 x X. I know it isn't that simple but sometimes we forget how small our market is and miss the obvious. It is all well and good saying that the customer benefits from having choice from 2 X's (possibly with different features and prices), but that soon falls flat if one or both manufacturer struggles and goes out of business leaving the customer with no manufacturer or a monopoly.

You're right that the choice disappears IF one of the parties goes bankrupt, which may lead to a loss of customer benefit. But they are assumed to have a self-interest in trying not to go bankrupt and, instead, adapting (maybe like Dapol seem to be doing, with their new range?).

 

But history tells us that businesses doing secret deals almost invariably screw over the customer.

 

Some people on here have written about the good old days when they were parts of businesses which engaged in what might appear to be anti-competitive behaviour. Though it strikes me that much British manufacturing industry over the years seemed to be uncompetitive in world markets.

 

Paul

[dibber25]

Who would claim to own the copyright to an item constructed fifty to a hundred years ago, whose original designers and owners are long defunct, and whose image has been in the public domain for many years?

The National Railway Museum, for one. (CJL)

[micklner]

70 years according to this

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom

[ruggedpeak]

IP law (unsurprisingly as lawyers get paid by the hour!) is complex and every situation is unique. I like the idea of a loco owner auctioning off the right to laser scan, with say a 5 year exclusivity window. This is not a copyright issue necessarily, more a practical one of access to the loco. There is nothing to stop someone doing the same loco from drawings if they can access them.

 

With more modern designs it is much clearer e.g. Class 68. I'd assume Vossloh own the copyright to the design of the loco, DRS hold rights to the livery and control access to their locos in the UK. Relatively simple to agree terms if they owners are amenable. In theory the rights holders of older locos such as say the class 58 could ask for money, although their claim might be time expired as the models have been out for some time.

 

Stepping into my ignorance zone, especially for steam locos, given the number of new entrants into loco manufacturing and duplication based upon the concept of laser scanning and product development from there, is there now a gap in the market for producing models of those locos not preserved and not able to be scanned?

[ruggedpeak]

A laser scan would be a different matter. That's a new product, copyright of either the scanning contractor, or the owner of the specimen scanned, according to the contract. THAT would be copyright, in tne sense that a photograph of a 9F isn't copyright in the general sense, but a specific image might well be. A model demonstrably produced from that scan probably isn't copyright per se, but there would be SOME kind of "intellectual property" issue.

The scan data belongs to those who did the scan (subject to any contractual terms).

 

The design of the 9F rests with the designer. Their IP may be time expired, so the design can be freely be used. If not and the design is still protected, then the owner of the scan data cannot use it to build a replica (1:1 or 1:76) without the necessary consents from the owner.

 

Hence, if you scanned a Class 68, you couldn't then produce a model without the permission of Vossloh (assuming they have retained and protected their design), unless you materially change the design of the product to make it different (and we know how that would go down!!).

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

Hence, if you scanned a Class 68, you couldn't then produce a model without the permission of Vossloh (assuming they have retained and protected their design), unless you materially change the design of the product to make it different (and we know how that would go down!!).

OK in OO but dodgy if done in P4, then?

John

[Dunsignalling]

Someone or somebody, who owns the last remaining example. Has done for 50 years, and has ongoing maintenance, insurance and operating costs.

 

Plus any Intellectual Property lawyer.

 

Mike

 

As I understand it any (remaining) IP rights to the actual design rest with the designer/builder of the item in question (or his/their successors) for 70 years.

 

Ownership of the finished object is not the same thing at all. It would be ludicrous, for instance, to suggest the NRM has any greater claim to copyright over a Bulleid Light Pacific than the owners of other examples, so why should the law apply differently to classes of which they possess the sole survivor?

 

The rights to anything pre-privatisation, such as works drawings, presumably rests with whoever was designated to inherit this aspect of BR. I don't know who that was, but the NRM is a reasonable assumption unless anyone knows better. That being the case, they will have received whatever unexpired IP rights remained with BR at that time but much actual material had been dispersed or destroyed long before then.

 

No doubt some has subsequently been bequeathed to the national collection by those who acquired it but there is plenty more in the public domain (some since before the NRM even existed) over which they can have no rights. There is also masses of stuff rescued from skips by enthusiasts within the rail industry since privatisation that would have otherwise been lost altogether.

 

The NRM undoubtedly controls (and can charge for) access to their artefacts for scanning etc. but cannot prevent anyone making models of them without recourse to such access.

 

John

[DJM Dave]

In conversation with the NRM, they realise that they cannot stop anyone making a model of an A4 for example as you can't IP that.

However, and this is where it will start to pinch those that haven't complied, they have IP'd loco names within their collection.

 

For example Mallard and Flying Scotsman are covered by this and the NRM expect a royalty from each sold.

However, KGV isn't covered....yet so was free to use.

 

I say yet, as I understand that the NRM and Science Museum are slowly working through the locos and I.P.ing those that they see as a valuable income stream to themselves.

 

Access to locos is another matter entirely, and depends what department you go through I've found, but is generally welcomed.

Whether this will now stop, pending a fee, remains to be seen.

The locos are, after all, owned by both you and me in the end.

 

Cheers

Dave

[PaulCheffus]

Access to locos is another matter entirely, and depends what department you go through I've found, but is generally welcomed.

Cheers

Dave

Hi

 

My wife tried to get me into the cab of 26020 for my fiftieth birthday and the person she spoke to at the museum was downright rude to her.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Porcy Mane]

For example Mallard and Flying Scotsman are covered by this and the NRM expect a royalty from each sold.

 

I say yet, as I understand that the NRM and Science Museum are slowly working through the locos and I.P.ing those that they see as a valuable income stream to themselves.

 

...and isn't that a load of b*ll*cks. It might be OK for the likes of Hornby and Bachmann who can factor that cost into the retail price, so the cost is ultimately born by the end purchaser but what about the small specialist etchers? For them it could be another poke in the eye.  Bit like IP on Loco liveries. Wasn't it EWS in the UK that started to charge reproduction fees following orders from their American owners. Don't they realise they are getting free publicity?

Whilst I appreciate museums need to supplement their incomes they are in effect asking for another payment from people who fund them in the first place, I.e the taxpayer.

Rant over.

P

Ps. Isn't it BR Residual that handle IP and copyright requests for items produced after Nationalisation up to privatisation?

[Culmhead]

Hi,

 

I just wonder, if locomotives are named after counties, buildings (e.g. halls, castles), kings, queens, warships, birds, (race) horses, etc - how anyone can 'own' these in railway related circumstances.  For example, the Mallard was named after the duck so unless we are saying that the nameplate style and font (combined) are so unique that IPR applies, especially as naming was almost eighty years ago - I really fail to understand ( I know I'm pretty thick), but  how does IPR applies to just the name plate?  References to, and or endorsement from the NRM, that I can understand.

 

I hope I haven't offended anyone.

 

Cheers,

 

Aidan

[No Decorum]

Remember the lawyer feast over the J*f lemon?

[mikeharvey22]

. Wasn't it EWS in the UK that started to charge reproduction fees following orders from their American owners. Don't they realise they are getting free publicity?

 

P

Ps. Isn't it BR Residual that handle IP and copyright requests for items produced after Nationalisation up to privatisation?

I am not sure that "free publicity" has any great value in the freight market where the customers are savvy about the range of suppliers, and quite often are companies with well developed image licensing policies as well. Joe Public is blissfully unaware of rail freight.

 

Licensing should help to ensure that livery elements are produced accurately, reducing the "wrong font" observations seen regularly in these pages!

[Oldddudders]

...and isn't that a load of b*ll*cks. It might be OK for the likes of Hornby and Bachmann who can factor that cost into the retail price, so the cost is ultimately born by the end purchaser but what about the small specialist etchers? For them it could be another poke in the eye.  Bit like IP on Loco liveries. Wasn't it EWS in the UK that started to charge reproduction fees following orders from their American owners. Don't they realise they are getting free publicity?

Whilst I appreciate museums need to supplement their incomes they are in effect asking for another payment from people who fund them in the first place, I.e the taxpayer.

Rant over.

P

Ps. Isn't it BR Residual that handle IP and copyright requests for items produced after Nationalisation up to privatisation?

A quick Google reveals that BR Residuary was wound up in 2013. The Rail Safety and Standards Board now appears to hold IP for rolling stock built before 1996.

 

BR Residuary was overseen by the Board's last Secretary. While I don't really claim to know him, I will be sending a Xmas card as usual - our wives once worked together ar BT Hotels.

[PenrithBeacon]

IIRC (AIMN) if the owner of a copyright doesn't actively defend that ownership then it lapses. I suspect that the NRM has to copyright these names in order to stop somebody else doing it.

 

Doesn't this matter come under Crown Copyright anyway?

 

Regards

[Revolution Ben]

Hello all,

 

It's worth bearing in mind that English law is taken as much from precedent as from statute.  This is why legal challenges are such a significant part of our legal system - even if something "seems" quite clear on face value to the layman, a "learned judge" after hearing argument in court may make a ruling that creates a new precedent.

 

In the case of railway models, nameplates etc there are numerous conflicting arguments that to my knowledge have never been *specifically* tested in court.

 

These include apparent conflicts between the right of a party to patent, copyright or otherwise protect something they consider to be *their* intellectual property, against the freedom of speech and rights to artistic expression that are now enshrined in our legal system thanks to our adoption of some European laws.

 

For example no one would argue that if I were to paint a picture of Mallard, or take a photograph of, say, a maroon Class 60 that I need permission from either the NRM or DBS to do so. (I might need to if I were on land owned by them when I did it, but that is a different argument.)

 

In addition, if I wish I can go on to sell these pictures or photographs with no requirement to pay any kind of fee to the NRM or DBS. 

 

Similarly, it can be argued that a model of a train is no different to a sculpture.  It is a 3D depiction of something and nothing more.  A Farish 2mm scale Class 60 is simply their artistic interpretation of something they can see, and they can sell this model without paying Brush, or DBS, or Colas, anything.

 

Of course, companies have a right to protect their commercial good name and to protect intellectual copyright on items that they may have spent a lot of money creating, such as a corporate image and logo.  They need to be able to stop dishonest traders painting their logo on a van and falsely claiming to represent them.  

 

But it would be hard to argue that a model train is in any way "falsely claiming" to be able to provide the same service as a proper 100t loco when it comes to actually pulling a train!

 

In the case of our Revolution TEA tankers and Pendolino we chose to seek the support and encouragement of the real railway operators simply not just because we don't want to risk the possibility of court but because it actually adds value - VIrgin provided access to a pendolino for laser scanning and sound recording; VTG were able to provide similar access and comprehensive drawings.  These partnerships not only saved a lot of time but also enhanced our credibility.

 

These are just some of the conflicting arguments; there are many more.  But as I say, as far as I am aware these have not been tested in court.  Perhaps it is time they were?  Anyone got any very deep pockets and a lot of spare time?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[brack]

Hence, if you scanned a Class 68, you couldn't then produce a model without the permission of Vossloh (assuming they have retained and protected their design), unless you materially change the design of the product to make it different (and we know how that would go down!!).

Doesn't making it 76 times smaller, hollowing out the insides, shoving a 5 pole dc motor and gears in and making it from plastic count as materially changing the design?

[Adams442T]

Doesn't making it 76 times smaller, hollowing out the insides, shoving a 5 pole dc motor and gears in and making it from plastic count as materially changing the design?

 

Basically, no.  You are still attempting to reproduce the design as faithfully as possible, albeit in a smaller scale representation.  What you'd put inside it to make it work has no bearing on the design as such.  The same thing applies to model aircraft, most of which don't fly!

 

If someone considers that they have IP rights to a design/logo, etc., and 'they' are usually a large company, it would be a brave soul who would attempt to challenge them in court.