Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film

[The Stationmaster]

Well I did 'predict' (i.e guess  ) that Hornby would release a 'Totfield Firebolt' so maybe I need to register that name PDQ, er , just in case ...    Should anybody else wish to get in on this one might I also suggest 'Tatfield' or even 'Tut,tut,field' (also register it without the commas just in case it should  'inspire' somebody at Margate).

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Well I did 'predict' (i.e guess  ) that Hornby would release a 'Totfield Firebolt' so maybe I need to register that name PDQ, er , just in case ...    Should anybody else wish to get in on this one might I also suggest 'Tatfield' or even 'Tut,tut,field' (also register it without the commas just in case it should  'inspire' somebody at Margate).

 

Maybe we should ease up on this. Hornby might send us a cease & desist letter.

[phil-b259]

54 minutes ago, Bulleidboy100 said:

I would have thought that a “Letter before Action” would have been sent by Rapido’s lawyers as soon as they realised Hornby were producing the same model. This is normally the first step before any “further action” is taken. I don’t know (I have not checked) when these models were first announced to the public. It would not be normal practice to put out a “jokey” Youtube clip on a public site, other than to get some form of support. I note (I stand to be corrected) that Hornby do not appear to have made any comment about this possible conflict. However, the video does appear to have got things moving with regards public support. If, and it is a big “if”, this goes to court, it will be some time before there is a full hearing – possibly years. Before the pandemic a hearing lasting 2-3days would not be heard until late 2023 – possibly even later.

 

Erm... Rapido wouldn't have sent anything to Hornby!

 

The people who own the rights to the Titfield Thunderbolt are StudioCanal (i.e. the movie distributors) and THEY are the ones who will need to take action with Hornby as its SCs rights which have been infringed (not Rapidos).

 

What Rapido would have done is write to Studio Canal complaining that the exclusive rights which Rapido paid for were seemingly being trampled on by a 3rd party (Hornby) and requesting SC take action

 

Also folk should note that  if SC did not take action then Rapido could commence legal action against SC for beech of contract as Rapido's 'exclusive rights' would no longer be 'exclusive'

 

 

[Compound2632]

At this point in the discussion I feel it would be timely to post E.H. Shepard's illustration of Pooh and Piglet hunting woozles but fear that to do so would probably be a breach of copyright, so here's a link.

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Maybe we should ease up on this. Hornby might send us a cease & desist letter.

But I was inspired by this thread and the fact that they have announced the train pack

[Hroth]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

At this point in the discussion I feel it would be timely to post E.H. Shepard's illustration of Pooh and Piglet hunting woozles but fear that to do so would probably be a breach of copyright, so here's a link.

 

At least its not a Disney The Pooh...

[Porcy Mane]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But I was inspired by this thread and the fact that they have announced the train pack

 

Should the need arise you may call me as a defence witness. I shall under oath testify that , you, Mr. Stationmaster, can only be described as, "inspiration personified".

[eldomtom2]

6 hours ago, Titan said:

 

Most, if not all court judgements will specifically quote the precedent that they are based on, something like "as per "xxx" v "yyy" on DD/MM/YYY at zzz  There will be thousands of them. Just google it and you should be able to find multiple examples in seconds.

 

In fact here is an example of a typical court judgement, which lists all the previous cases put forward for the judges consideration, of which there are a considerable number. Blink and you will miss it though

 

Bachmann made a deliberate artistic decision to alter the moulds to produce a more accurate model of D9008 rather than just using the same as the other Deltics. Nothing to do with scaling down or other errors, it was deliberate and specific to this model.

 

 

1) I know full well what a court judgement is. My question is if he actually has a court judgement that says what he says they do.

 

2) In that case Bachmann would seem to have very little case. Copyright protection of deriative works usually requires some degree of originality and not the mere copying of a scale model.

[Titan]

7 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

1) I know full well what a court judgement is. My question is if he actually has a court judgement that says what he says they do.

 

2) In that case Bachmann would seem to have very little case. Copyright protection of deriative works usually requires some degree of originality and not the mere copying of a scale model.

 

  1. This is what he says they do, and is what you quoted: There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent

       I attached a court judgement example to my post that does exactly what he says they do in using legal precedent, and lists those precedents as part of it.  Can you please explain why you think that something that answers the question so precisely does not?  Or are you now going to pretend that wasn't the question?

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

 

2) In that case Bachmann would seem to have very little case. Copyright protection of deriative works usually requires some degree of originality and not the mere copying of a scale model.

 

You are ignoring the fundamental point that the class 55 / Deltic is NOT Bachamnn's IP in the first place.  As with all other locomotives (up till privatisation) the IP rights lay with the state owned British Railways who never enforced their IP rights - and as such they are  in the public domain for anyone to use.

 

Therefore ANYONE can make a scale model of it and no manufacturer can claim exclusivity to do so, including in any particular scale.

 

Where Bachmann do have IP rights however is with respect to their design of how that model is executed - e.g. the mechanism, chassis block design, circuit boards, etc. Any attempt to copy these elements will leave the copyist potentially open to legal action for IP theft.

 

Also if Bachmann have included something which wasn't present on the real thing, then that addition could be said to the IP of Bachmann and not able to be reproduced by anyone else. i.e. the same way that map makers will often make small 'intentional mistakes' in their material which will show up someone passing off the map companies work as their own.

 

Now, as I said earlier its up to companies to police their own IP and there is nothing which mandates a company taking action if they don't want to. However its worth remembering that brings consequences - as the Met Police found out to their cost when they attempted to claim they had the rights to the Blue 'Police Call box' used by a certain BBC time traveller and the courts found in favour of the BBC precisely because the Met had made no attempt to try and secure the rights when the TV show was first produced.

 

 

[wombatofludham]

Given Hornby's passing acquaintance with quality control, would it be deeply cynical of me to add the "Sh**box Blunderbolt" to the list of registered trademarks we're collectively registering?

Probably, and no doubt will upset some, but you will be confusing me with someone who gives a monkeys.

[Ozexpatriate]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

to do so would probably be a breach of copyright

Not any more, at least in the US, sort of. The 95 year post publication copyright on the original book, Winnie the Pooh, expires this year and Winnie the Pooh has passed into the public domain in the US.

 

I will say that if the chapter "In which Pooh and Piglet go hunting and nearly catch a Woozle" appears in books 2-4 then it is still protected and according to the article linked above images of Pooh in a red shirt don't appear in print until 1932, so they would remain copyrighted for another 10 years, so 'good call!'.

 

[Ozexpatriate]

7 hours ago, Hroth said:

At least its not a Disney The Pooh...

Still copyrighted. Though, in two years Mickey passes into the public domain. An interesting conundrum for the House of Mouse.

[SamThomas]

20 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Maybe we should ease up on this. Hornby might send us a cease & desist letter.

if they do then hopefully they will have the "details, details, details" correct............

[eldomtom2]

15 hours ago, Titan said:

 

  1. This is what he says they do, and is what you quoted: There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent

       I attached a court judgement example to my post that does exactly what he says they do in using legal precedent, and lists those precedents as part of it.  Can you please explain why you think that something that answers the question so precisely does not?  Or are you now going to pretend that wasn't the question?

No, he specifically said "There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent - it doesn't matter how trivial the spat may be but if StudioCanal let this one go it could very easily cost them millions in lost IP rights for other far more mainstream movies (including those produced in future) as a study of past court judgements on the subject will show.". I was not disputing that the concept of legal precedent exists. I am disputing that the precedent says what he says it does.

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

YWhere Bachmann do have IP rights however is with respect to their design of how that model is executed - e.g. the mechanism, chassis block design, circuit boards, etc. Any attempt to copy these elements will leave the copyist potentially open to legal action for IP theft.

 

Also if Bachmann have included something which wasn't present on the real thing, then that addition could be said to the IP of Bachmann and not able to be reproduced by anyone else. i.e. the same way that map makers will often make small 'intentional mistakes' in their material which will show up someone passing off the map companies work as their own.

Those are all things where copyright protection is unclear at best and denied at worst. In the US things like trap streets are specifically excluded from copyright protection.

Edited January 20, 2022 by eldomtom2

[Ruffnut Thorston]

On 19/01/2022 at 07:53, phil-b259 said:

 

You are forgetting that any piece of rolling stock which has passed through the hands of British Railways (or the private companies which were ultimately nationalised to form said organisation) do not carry IP rights. As such the GBR collection models in no way infringed any of the RTR models they duplicated provided they differed in assembly from the RTR offerings (*and thus would not infringed the specific RTR design (which are of course the IP of the RTR manufacturer).

 

Meanwhile as the LMR coach was built by the LMS in the 1930s that is also fair game for anyone to make (the IP rights would have ended up with British Rail) while there are plenty of old paintings of Rocket from which a model could be created (the real replica rocket being owned by the science museum and who will own the IP relating to that particular interpretation of how it 'should' look)

Actually, all I was doing was clarifying the origins of the GBL series models.

 

Earlier (at the time) discussion on various forums (forae) have debated the implications of the production of the models, as they were so obviously based on existing models.

 

But, in the end, it could be that as the GBL models were static ornaments, that there was no actual competition with the original models, some of which were old enough to be no longer produced by the original manufacturer anyway.

 

The best of it that the GBL models have provided models and parts for many “Bashing” projects, as can be seen in the GBL thread in the Magazines section on RMWeb…

 

So, I hadn’t “forgotten” anything.

 

Now, back to the Hornby Trains On Film series…

 

How about “The Ghost Train”? 

 

Complete with opening swing bridge?

 

(The old Severn Bridge swinging span over the Gloucester and Sharpness Ship Canal…)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Ruffnut Thorston
Typo

[PhilJ W]

[HonestTom]

14 hours ago, Ruffnut Thorston said:

Actually, all I was doing was clarifying the origins of the GBL series models.

 

Earlier (at the time) discussion on various forums (forae) have debated the implications of the production of the models, as they were so obviously based on existing models.

 

But, in the end, it could be that as the GBL models were static ornaments, that there was no actual competition with the original models, some of which were old enough to be no longer produced by the original manufacturer anyway.

 

The best of it that the GBL models have provided models and parts for many “Bashing” projects, as can be seen in the GBL thread in the Magazines section on RMWeb…

 

 

 

One might even suggest that it's not in the manufacturers' best interests to chase it. "M'lud, this model locomotive is clearly copied from our own. Notice the visibly wrong taper of the funnel, the way the cylinders stick out too far, the inaccurate safety valve for the era portrayed, all features unique to the model we offer..."

[Porcy Mane]

15 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

It's the Kentfield Blunderbus

 

Next statement from the Hornby PR machine?

 

"There's no satisfying you lot. If you want reasonable prices we need to use design clever!"

 

They may not be so daft in that Kentfield boardroom?

Edited January 21, 2022 by Porcy Mane

[jaym481]

On 19/01/2022 at 02:35, Titan said:

 

It surprises me that someone from Canada can't understand the difference between North America and the USA!  Seems us UK guys are more savvy than you give us credit for.

On 19/01/2022 at 00:26, Jon Harbour said:

 

North America is the continent that covers both US and Canada.  Granted the OP didn't specifically say Canada, but equally they didn't say USA either.

 

The post I replied to implied that "North America" has a unified approach to legal matters to whit: "its no surprise to me a North American company would reach out for a lawyer & the media before picking up a phone"

 

So check your work navigator.

[Titan]

1 hour ago, jaym481 said:

 

The post I replied to implied that "North America" has a unified approach to legal matters to whit: "its no surprise to me a North American company would reach out for a lawyer & the media before picking up a phone"

 

So check your work navigator.

 

My work is spot on and correct.  It was you that interpreted the statement incorrectly and took the wrong implication, as you have even admitted above, not me.  Clearly it is not us that have a problem checking our work...

Edited January 21, 2022 by Titan

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, jaym481 said:

The post I replied to implied

 

34 minutes ago, Titan said:

My work is spot on and correct. 

 

Tis the duelling season?

[Classsix T]

On 19/01/2022 at 07:38, phil-b259 said:

There is a little thing in UK COURTS called legal precedent - it doesn't matter how trivial the spat may be but if StudioCanal let this one go it could very easily cost them millions in lost IP rights for other far more mainstream movies (including those produced in future) as a study of past court judgements on the subject will show.

Absolutely this. An army of people are employed by various companies purely to protect the IP of their clients, not for petty small fry one offs, but because if not done it sets up the opportunity for others to make serious bank from the inactions of the IP holder which then has weakened legal recourse.

 

Personally I'm amazed Hornby have even attempted something like this, unless they're in cahoots with StudCan and as mentioned upthread if that's the case Rapido need to get their legals on the case pronto.

 

C6T. 

[Classsix T]

On 19/01/2022 at 13:24, Porcy Mane said:

I think I might copyright these just in case Hornby should feel inspired by any of them.

 

Mammarymeadow Thundercrack.

 

Boardroomboob Bombshell.

 

Knockerground Stormcloud.

 

Kentfield Blunderbus.

A subconscious list of 16mm movies you saw advertised when you wandered off the tourist trail into that London's Soho in the 70s Porcy?

 

C6T. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Ah, Trains on Film... 

 

good job Duran Duran decided to rename their single, it might not have been such a hit