Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film

[PaulRhB]

A cease and desist letter is the most likely first move and as they are due in November it’s highly unlikely any models are yet assembled, let alone painted. Mr K and Co are seeing if they can get away with it on a technicality before the deadline for actual production. 
 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Din said:

If I say the word "Hoover" am I talking about the household appliance or the company? That's become a generic term in the zeitgeist because it was the first successful company to market them commercially.

 

This sort of thing comes up in lexicography from time to time. Google got unhappy with dictionaries giving "google" as a verb meaning "to use an internet search engine". Google wanted the definition to indicate the trademarked status of the word and for the definition to indicate that it only applied to Google's own proprietary search engine. The lexicographers' response was that a dictionary reports rather then prescribes usage; the evidence being that google was in wide use in the sense given - exactly parallel to the usage of the verb "to hoover". Woe betide the interfering busybody who dares suggest to a lexicographer that a definition should conform to some theory of correctness. They'll happily indicate that a word is vulgar, sexist, racist, pejorative, offensive, or whatever, or considered so by some. 

 

Oxford Languages have made their peace with Google, conceding Google's request for the sake of Oxford Languages providing the data for Google's online dictionaries. Filthy lucre always wins out!  Oxford Languages make the following disclaimer:

 

Note on proprietary status:
 
Our dictionary content include some words which have or are asserted to have proprietary status as trade marks or otherwise. Their inclusion does not imply that they have acquired for legal purposes a non-proprietary or general significance nor any other judgement concerning their legal status. In cases where the editorial staff have some evidence that a word has proprietary status this is indicated in the entry for that word but no judgement concerning the legal status of such words is made or implied thereby.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Compound2632

[PhilJ W]

The 'Lady with the lamp' (1951) train is technically 100% correct. Lion, together with the three L&M replica coaches were hired for the film. Apart from the actors attire it seems that that is all that was 1850's in the scene.

http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/the-lady-with-a-lamp/

Lion had previously been used in the film 'Victoria the great' (1937) hauling all six L&M coaches

http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/victoria-the-great/

In fact this is a good guide to trains in films. http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The 'Lady with the lamp' (1951) train is technically 100% correct. Lion, together with the three L&M replica coaches were hired for the film. Apart from the actors attire it seems that that is all that was 1850's in the scene.

http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/the-lady-with-a-lamp/

Lion had previously been used in the film 'Victoria the great' (1937) hauling all six L&M coaches

http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/victoria-the-great/

In fact this is a good guide to trains in films. http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/

 

Which emphasises the fact that the enclosed and open carriages first produced by Hornby are models of the 1930 replicas, which differ considerably, for reasons of practicality, from the L&M carriages depicted in the Ackermann prints. The newly announced goods wagons, whether using the same underframe or not, are flights of fancy that might best be covered by the words "inspired by". The delusion that any of these are models appropriate to "Era 1" (!) should be given up: Rocket, Lion, and the replica carriages are appropriate to the era 1930 - present day, and no other.

[asmay2002]

13 hours ago, melmerby said:

Except for the original RR motor company? That was the company that started the aero engine business.

Vickers who bought the car company were given/leased/whatever the right to use the name for car manufacturing and it was Vickers who sold those on to BMW.

Rolls Royce AFAIK did not receive anything from the 'sale' of the name to BMW but, I assume, would need to have approved it.

BMW definitely paid Vickers for the use of the name, they didn't get it from RR.

There was quite a bit in the financial press at the time of how Vickers "sold" RR twice.

From Wikipedia. 

"the Rolls-Royce brand name and logo were controlled by aero-engine maker Rolls-Royce plc, and not Rolls-Royce Motors. The aero-engine maker decided to license the Rolls-Royce name and logo to BMW and not to Volkswagen, largely because the aero-engine maker had recently shared joint business ventures with BMW. BMW paid £40m to license the Rolls-Royce name and "RR" logo, a deal that many commentators thought was a bargain for possibly the most valuable property in the deal. Volkswagen Group had the rights to the mascot and grille, but lacked rights to the Rolls-Royce name in order to build the cars; likewise, BMW had the name, but lacked rights to the grille and mascot.

The situation was tilted in BMW's favour, as they could withdraw their engine supply with just 12 months notice, which was insufficient time for VW to re-engineer the Rolls-Royce cars to use VW's own engines. Volkswagen claimed that it only really wanted Bentley anyway, as it was the higher volume brand, with Bentley models out-selling the equivalent Rolls-Royce by around two to one." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Motors

 

Vickers never owned the name - just a license. The real Rolls Royce and successor to the original company makes Jet engines not cars. The name has never been sold. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

Note on proprietary status:
 
Our dictionary content include some words which have or are asserted to have proprietary status as trade marks or otherwise. Their inclusion does not imply that they have acquired for legal purposes a non-proprietary or general significance nor any other judgement concerning their legal status. In cases where the editorial staff have some evidence that a word has proprietary status this is indicated in the entry for that word but no judgement concerning the legal status of such words is made or implied thereby.

There are other words in dictionaries that are trademarked etc.

The dictionaries I have include the word "hobbit" as a diminutive person, however New Line Cinema, who own the rights to the JRR Tolkein works that include them wont allow any usage of the name and throw their legal muscle into the ring.

There was a small cafe in Moseley, Birmingham that was close to where JRR lived and called itself "The Hobbits Kitchen" There was no reference to any of the works, printed or filmed apart from the name, but they were still forced to drop to stop using it.

Edited January 11, 2022 by melmerby

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, asmay2002 said:

From Wikipedia. 

"the Rolls-Royce brand name and logo were controlled by aero-engine maker Rolls-Royce plc, and not Rolls-Royce Motors. The aero-engine maker decided to license the Rolls-Royce name and logo to BMW and not to Volkswagen, largely because the aero-engine maker had recently shared joint business ventures with BMW. BMW paid £40m to license the Rolls-Royce name and "RR" logo, a deal that many commentators thought was a bargain for possibly the most valuable property in the deal. Volkswagen Group had the rights to the mascot and grille, but lacked rights to the Rolls-Royce name in order to build the cars; likewise, BMW had the name, but lacked rights to the grille and mascot.

The situation was tilted in BMW's favour, as they could withdraw their engine supply with just 12 months notice, which was insufficient time for VW to re-engineer the Rolls-Royce cars to use VW's own engines. Volkswagen claimed that it only really wanted Bentley anyway, as it was the higher volume brand, with Bentley models out-selling the equivalent Rolls-Royce by around two to one." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Motors

 

Vickers never owned the name - just a license. The real Rolls Royce and successor to the original company makes Jet engines not cars. The name has never been sold. 

Interesting.

That's not how it was reported at the time.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, melmerby said:

There are other words in dictionaries that are trademarked etc.

 

Yes, but the dictionary is obliged to report the general usage of the term, even if it is a trademarked term. Trying to control or regulate language is ultimately futile. And of course a prior use trumps any proprietary claim: no movie house can stop a Welshman trading in hobbits of wheat.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Compound2632

[Harlequin]

Railway Modeller Feb 2022 reports the announcement of Hornby's "The Titfield Thunderbolt train pack" dryly and purely factually. Not surprising really but I was wondering if they might simply not mention it at all.

 

[Andy Hayter]

I think that will have been written over a month ago and printed some weeks ago.

[jaym481]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

A cease and desist letter is the most likely first move and as they are due in November it’s highly unlikely any models are yet assembled, let alone painted. Mr K and Co are seeing if they can get away with it on a technicality before the deadline for actual production. 
 

^This. And all of the frothing around the issue will be free publicity, especially if Hornby can frame it as two foreign companies denying British culture to a long-established homegrown company with ties to the childhoods of millions of Britons. Kind of suits the insular views that've become fashionable of late.

[Nearholmer]

True, sadly.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

True, sadly.

 

Perfectly legitimate and legal sale of a treasure-trove of British culture to a representative of a foreign power.

 

Now you know how the Greeks feel about the Parthenon marbles.

[Nearholmer]

I think you might have misunderstood what it is that I believe to be true, and find sad.

 

 

[Compound2632]

Just now, Nearholmer said:

I think you might have misunderstood what it is that I believe to be true, and find sad.

 

Sorry, yes, I was aiming to reply tongue in cheek to @jaym481's tongue in cheek comment. In understand perfectly well that your regret is at the prevalence of those insular views. For my part I don't believe they are fashionable, just stated loudly and aggressively.

[Harlequin]

Unusually, there are no Hornby items in today's Hattons OO Gauge Mailing list...

 

 

[melmerby]

Anybody think that Hornby could have blundered into this by error?

 

They were going to make Lion, Fact. (Following on from Rocket)

They had a previous licence for the Titfield Thunderbolt, Fact

They have a current licence for another Studio Canal film, Fact.

 

They went to Studio Canal to renew their license after they had already started work on doing a new set based on Lion, wrongly assuming it would be straightforward, only to find that they couldn't renew because it had now been let exclusively to another Manufacturer. (Possible)

 

Wrongly or rightly they then decided to carry on regardless.

[Titan]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They have a current licence for another Studio Canal film, Fact.

 

However they are promoting models based on three Studio Canal Films, so are they deficient by one licence or two?

[Harlequin]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Anybody think that Hornby could have blundered into this by error?

 

They were going to make Lion, Fact. (Following on from Rocket)

They had a previous licence for the Titfield Thunderbolt, Fact

They have a current licence for another Studio Canal film, Fact.

 

They went to Studio Canal to renew their license after they had already started work on doing a new set based on Lion, wrongly assuming it would be straightforward, only to find that they couldn't renew because it had now been let exclusively to another Manufacturer. (Possible)

 

Wrongly or rightly they then decided to carry on regardless.

 

Yep, all of that coupled with a bloody-minded sense of proprietorial ownership of the Thunderbolt model concept that blinds them to the external realities.

 

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

A cease and desist letter is the most likely first move and as they are due in November it’s highly unlikely any models are yet assembled, let alone painted. Mr K and Co are seeing if they can get away with it on a technicality before the deadline for actual production. 
 

I doubt if they are even tooled - unless Hornby havre been shoving other things to one side ina race to get their product out first.  However as yet another city has reportedly just been locked down in China the entire situation regarding any stage of any model railway production must be very firmly in the lap of the great god Co-Vid.  So unless the things are already on a ship who really knows when they will reach our shores and on recent performance even the year must be in doubt let alone the month?

[Porcy Mane]

I wonder if Hornby might consider painting it's BG in Crimson & Cream, sticking a tenner on the price, then marketing it as "Trains on Film - The Gold Express".

 

Most of the action takes place in a caged Mk1 BG and the baddies duly  get their comeuppance.

 

Watch it at the BFI.   

 

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-the-gold-express-1955-online

 

or how about a, "Trains on Film - Cool it Carol" set?

 

I'm sure if they still own the rights to the giraffe car they could adapt the mechanism to replicate Robin Askwiths bare backside moving up & down against a compartment window.

 

P

Edited January 11, 2022 by Porcy Mane
Spillang

[The Stationmaster]

37 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Unusually, there are no Hornby items in today's Hattons OO Gauge Mailing list...

 

 

If what I've been hearing has any foundation in fact some of them won't be in any lists from Tier 1 retailers either because allocations are being applied before they place any orders.  Which I suppose id s in some respects better than finding out that your allocation has been reduced months after you placed your order.  But is that in turn telling us something else about the way Hornby are 'running' their business?

[30801]

2 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

I'm sure if they still own the rights to the giraffe car they could adapt the mechanism to replicate Robin Askwiths bare backside moving up & down against a compartment window.

 

They own the rights but previous management went on a bender weighing in old tooling for scrap. Don't know if the giraffe car still exists. 

[Porcy Mane]

2 minutes ago, 30801 said:

They own the rights but previous management went on a bender weighing in old tooling for scrap. Don't know if the giraffe car still exists. 

 

It'll have to be the TPO mechanism then.   

[melmerby]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If what I've been hearing has any foundation in fact some of them won't be in any lists from Tier 1 retailers

Correct

My preferred retailer is only sending lists to previous customers and all items are available in fixed numbers, guaranteed (sic) by Hornby to be delivered.

Mind you I also buy from Hattons and haven't had anything from them.