A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

This Rapido vs Hornby saga reminds me of another film; "High Noon". Were there any trains in that I wonder?

Good luck to Rapido, by the way. 

[john new]

10 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

A generic magic wand doesn't have "inspired by Harry Potter" written on the packaging much as a Gold Ring doesn't say "Inspired by the Lord of the Rings". That is the issue with what has been done by Hornby.

Fully concur; however, the point being made by @eldomtom2 that I responded to (as quoted above) was a reply that as the items are props they are out of copyright due to 25yrs. That may well be true for Titfield Thunderbolt props as the whole argument is over items released for a 70th anniversary BUT isn't true for the two examples that were quoted as both LofTR and the last Harry Potter film were released within the last 25 years.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by john new
Added the name of the poster I was responding to.

[JonathonAG]

1 hour ago, Peter G said:

The success of Hornby’s Rocket has spawned several new models from other manufacturers and it is inconceivable that Hornby did not look around for other possibilities. Lion is too obvious an example to miss. Given the delivery date of this June, development likely started well before Rapido’s announcement. For some years Hornby has announced and delivered in shorter timescales than any other manufacturer. So this is not a company taking other ideas, it is a company keeping quiet until it is actually near putting the model in the shops. It is a waste of time reading about most product releases, they are simply too far away. Even Bachmann has woken up to that.

I think people are assuming that a product delivery date automatically mean production and development have been ongoing for a longer duration than a separate project with a later date.  For a company like Hornby, it is possible to focus resources onto individual projects to ensure a quicker development and release time compared to small set ups, no doubt at the sacrifice of releases deemed to be of less importance to the heads. 
As it stands, Rapido have said that their main packs are likely to be available this year.  When in comparison to Hornby's* recent difficulty in making a projected release date, I wouldn't bet on which company would be first to market (legal challenges notwithstanding).

*The 2019 range announcements of two new liveried J36's are now expected Summer 2023 according to Hornby's own website, a perfect example of a model release being relegated to make way for bigger headline releases.

[pete_mcfarlane]

6 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

But Hornby like it or not are not a large company in the scheme of things, 191 (2020) employees is far from large, just because the company is long established doesn’t mean it’s a modern and up there with others.

 

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes it is odd to think of Hornby as 'a large company' because it obviously isn't although it still seems to carry an awful lot of top weight for a company of its size.   

 

There's definitely a recurring theme on Rmweb where some people regard of Hornby as some kind of global mega-corp like IBM or BAe, which clearly isn't the case. I guess this is probably down to people's perceptions - if you've only ever worked for a small business with a few employees then a firm with 200ish employees might seem 'large', but it isn't. 

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter G said:

The success of Hornby’s Rocket has spawned several new models from other manufacturers and it is inconceivable that Hornby did not look around for other possibilities. Lion is too obvious an example to miss. Given the delivery date of this June, development likely started well before Rapido’s announcement. For some years Hornby has announced and delivered in shorter timescales than any other manufacturer. So this is not a company taking other ideas, it is a company keeping quiet until it is actually near putting the model in the shops. It is a waste of time reading about most product releases, they are simply too far away. Even Bachmann has woken up to that.

However when Hornby made an announcement that they were going to do 'Lion' it was no more than an obviously quickly cobbled together set of words.  As I've said before I don't doubt that they had it in their sights for the longer term and I think I might even have incorrectly forecast it for 2021 release.

 

But then we get to facts - such as when they reacted, very much on the hoof, to the Hattons 'King' announcement they showed sections of their completed drawings - real evidence of work done.  They showed nothing to indicate that they had actually done anything tangible for Lion whereas within weeks Rapido were showing 3-d prints - so easy to see who was in front by quite a margin.  And don't forget that Hornby are quoting November, not June, for delivery of the two Lion train packs which pushes them out towards the best part of two years in development from the very early months of 2021.

 

I can't understand where you get Hornby announcing and delivering within shorter timescales than others.  True until the past couple of years their models normally appeared in the year for which they were announced but don't overlook the fact that they were working on a two year gestation period and even then many models were only illustrated in the catalogue as computer generated or altered images rather than photos of what was actually coming.  The only one where they have appeared to reduce development time was with their Terrier which they didn't develop anyway but took over a fairly advanced Oxford Rail project - something that was all too obvious from early photos of it.

 

But when it comes down to the wire the simple fact is that Rapido got exclusive right to the Titfield thunderbolt before Hornby asked for rights to it.  Which raises an interesting question because why would Hornby think they wanted the rights back then, and were obviously prepared to pay for them, if all they needed to do was print 'inspired by' on the box lid and not have to pay anything?  Surely they run their business with more effective financial control than needlessly spending money on something they think they don't actually need?   It could be quite amusing to hear how they explain away that one 

[eldomtom2]

51 minutes ago, john new said:

But even if they are film props the two items specifically quoted would still be in their running 25yr copyright; however, a generic magic wand* wouldn't be in just the same way every jewellers shop stocks rings. The question would be immaterial unless it was a new design and accidentally (on purpose?) copied one used in another production made since 31st Dec 1996 (25 years up to 31st December 2021).

 

* A prop that might be out of copyright now, the one from Sooty & Sweep unless that has been remade.

 

You are continuing to miss the point that they are inherently protected under the *film's* copyright.

[The Stationmaster]

32 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

This Rapido vs Hornby saga reminds me of another film; "High Noon". Were there any trains in that I wonder?

Good luck to Rapido, by the way. 

Here you go (right at the end I'm afraid)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuvcMkaXUU

 

[Kris]

56 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Film props are covered by copyright in that they appear in a film. You try selling replicas of the One Ring or Harry Potter's wand and see how far you get.

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. These do give protection, and would give most of the protection to the wands or rings you mention. Warner Bros have hundreds of Trademarks for the Harry Potter world alone. StudioCanal appear to have none for Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

[eldomtom2]

Trademarks are irrelevant. A toy of Harry Potter would still violate copyright even if you referred to it as the untrademarked "Harry".

[Peter Kazmierczak]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Here you go (right at the end I'm afraid)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuvcMkaXUU

 

Thanks Mike. Judging by the track, filmed on the Wrington Vale Light Railway...

 

Of course, Tri-ang produced a "Western" style set in the early 1960s. 

 

If only Hornby use their energy to:

• Improve their relationship with retailers
• Improve their customer relations
• Ensure their products are posted in more suitable packaging
• Improve their stock quality control

Rather than duplicating models.

 

[MrTea]

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

At a rough guess with the research, CAD drawings, and (eventually) tooling of 5 brand new models Rapido will have invested around $400,000 - that will be money spent before production of the models even starts.

 

Rapido will also have invested an amount of money to pay StudioCanal for the license to use the Titfield Thunderbolt IP (the amount - though it won't be cheap - and whether paid upfront or later is unknown).

 

So that is a significant investment of money.

 

If you had spent that money, based in part because you would have exclusive rights to sell the "collectible" version, would you view it as "can't possibly be worth the hassle"?

That’s absolutely true. I’m not disputing why Rapido would want to protect their investment. I just don’t understand why Hornby have approached it the way they have? They’ve had 9 months to figure out an approach or come to an agreement, between admitting that they were working on a Lion model and their 2022 range announcement yesterday. 
 

It doesn’t seem to be worth the risk for Hornby from a legal or a reputational damage point of view? Or am I missing something?

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by MrTea
Weird paragraphs

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

as a Gold Ring doesn't say "Inspired by the Lord of the Rings". 

 

I cast my wedding ring into the flames. I'm not saying what eldritch words were revealed.

[Dunsignalling]

6 minutes ago, MrTea said:

That’s absolutely true. I’m not disputing why Rapido would want to protect their investment. I just don’t understand why Hornby have approached it the way they have? They’ve had 9 months to figure out an approach or come to an agreement, between admitting that they were working on a Lion model and their 2022 range announcement yesterday. 
 

It doesn’t seem to be worth the risk from a legal or a reputational damage point of view? Or am I missing something?

 

In a word: Hubris

[JohnR]

3 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. Might be enough to damage solvency even more than reputation.

 

And given that experience, it seems even stranger that this has been allowed to get to this point. 

[Kris]

10 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Trademarks are irrelevant. 

What rubbish.

Trademarks are a key part of UK and international intellectual property law, they fall directly alongside copyright, patients and design laws.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

This Rapido vs Hornby saga reminds me of another film; "High Noon". Were there any trains in that I wonder?

Still shot of it here. Scroll about 1/3 way down the page 

https://www.framerated.co.uk/high-noon-1952/

 

The loco, Sierra No.3, was built in 1891 and appeared in numerous guises in something like 170 films and TV episodes between 1920 and 1996.

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

 

Some of the TV Shows.

• The Lone Ranger, 1956
• Casey Jones, 1958, portrayed as Midwest & Central Railroad #1.
• Rawhide, 1959-1966
• Lassie, 1961–1962,
• The Big Valley, 1964–1966
• The Legend of Jesse James, 1965
• The Man from U.N.C.L.E., 1967
• Gunsmoke, 1971. In the episode Gold Train: The Bullet parts 1 - 3, portrayed as Burlington Northern Railroad #8.
• Bonanza, 1972,
• The A-Team, 1984,  in the episode "When are you comin' back Range Rider?"
• Bonanza: The Next Generation, 1988 TV movie

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[john new]

18 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

You are continuing to miss the point that they are inherently protected under the *film's* copyright.

Personally I don't disagree with you that the global "film" copyright may well/almost certainly does encompass all the things used as props within it when badged Titfield Thunderbolt. Let us not fall out over semantics as, even if the suggested shorter 25 years  is correct for the props, then the two items specifically quoted (from LoTR and HP) will still be in copyright irrespective of whether it is 25 years for props or the much longer period covering the original book (death of Tolkein 1973) or from the later release dates of the films (including the little known cartoon version).  Taking the "one ring" and HP's wand as an example the restriction on names may well long outlive their actual designs in copyright so a design copy simply called a wizard ring or wizard's wand yes - called the One Ring or HP's wand no.

 

Given this debate what is actually copyrighted, for example, on the bus if the 25 years thing is right? I would argue (If I was Rapido) yes, the names etc., on it but probably not the actual design of the basic bus (prop) and if the used colour combo' can be found on some other company's bus fleet in use at the time then not that either. Hornby, however, will argue if that posited 25 years is correct, that there is no copyright on the to be modelled things (they are props) so SC can't actually specifically endorse them as there is nothing to endorse. What I cannot see, personally, is how they (Hornby) are going to get over using the name of the film as key people did not die until after the film's release therefore even if the models and everything else are significantly delayed until 2024 that aspect is copyright and Rapido are claiming they have been given the exclusive rights. All I am likely to consider buying would be the verandah coach so this debate is a bit academic for me but I will still be watching for the outcome albeit solely due to general interest.

[Darius43]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

This Rapido vs Hornby saga reminds me of another film; "High Noon". Were there any trains in that I wonder?

Good luck to Rapido, by the way. 

 
I recall that at the start of the film Grace Kelly arrives by train along with one or more of the baddies.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[john new]

5 minutes ago, Kris said:

What rubbish.

Trademarks are a key part of UK and international intellectual property law, they fall directly alongside copyright, patients and design laws.

But they are time limited, we recently enquired re trademarking the SLS name, so possibly yes irrelevant re Titfield Thunderbolt specifically but not as a concept.

[Aire Head]

5 minutes ago, john new said:

simply called a wizard ring

 

I don't want to see what gets pulled out of that

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

This Rapido vs Hornby saga reminds me of another film; "High Noon". Were there any trains in that I wonder?

Good luck to Rapido, by the way. 

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

[john new]

7 minutes 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

 

On a light hearted note - yes the arrival of the baddie on the noon train was pre-announced!

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by john new
Typo correction

[wombatofludham]

Isn't the real point here that:

1)
Based on Rapido's video announcement, which used fully licenced clips from the original film, Studio Canal were as surprised as Rapido that Hornby were doing the "Inspired By" Titfield products and:

2)
We can assume from this that Studio Canal have endorsed Rapido challenging the legitimacy of Hornby's announcement in a public video, which:

3)
Suggests by inference Studio Canal believe they have the right to challenge Hornby for rights violation?

Arcane debates about copyright and intellectual property on this forum are to an extent irrelevant, the tone and message of the Rapido video - which will have been vetted by Canal - is clear.  The rights holder to the film had no idea Hornby were about to do this and, having sold the rights to Rapido, clearly feel that they were perfectly entitled to sell those rights. Undoubtedly they will take a dim view of someone producing a rival product no matter how described as "inspired by".  We don't know if Studio Canal had some sort of promotion planned around Titfield 70, perhaps with cinema showing and special Blu-Ray collector's set, and the Rapido set would have been a centrepiece of a "Titfield" memorabilia push aimed at cinema fans and railway fans.  These sorts of celebrations of film anniversaries are increasingly popular, so whatever we think about copyright, IP and other technicalities, I suspect Canal will be several steps ahead of us.

I genuinely think this is Hornby actually falling foul of a bout of self entitlement, not a cock-up or misunderstanding and I suspect this will get very serious, although of course, as is the way of these things, we'll never find out unless Simon Kohler has a paddy on screen or leaks something to the press.  I'm tempted to go to the bookies on that.

[Legend]

8 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

But Hornby like it or not are not a large company in the scheme of things, 191 (2020) employees is far from large, just because the company is long established doesn’t mean it’s a modern and up there with others.

It might be a big company in Margate, or even the biggest but TBH watching parts of the recent television series made me think of Hornby more in a long established “cottage” industry sense than a cutting edge model making company.

 

In perspective the company I worked for had just 4500 employees at one location in this country, which was one of six locations in the U.K. and only one of over a hundred around the world.

 

 

 Yep I also work for a large Corporation and you are right Hornby is a minnow by comparison . But I bet they have access to to specialist  IP consultants and lawyers . Going the other way they are looking to patent their steam system or aspects of it . They won’t have an IP lawyer on site but inevitably they can call someone in who will be delighted to charge them for the privilege .  
 

In terms of corporate governance , again accepting that this is a small company , there should be procedures in place that stop employees landing the company in litigation . I think there is a tendency to lay this st the door of Simon Kohler but for something that could involve the company in litigation he should have had to refer this upwards .

[JohnR]

11 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

Isn't the real point here that:

1)
Based on Rapido's video announcement, which used fully licenced clips from the original film, Studio Canal were as surprised as Rapido that Hornby were doing the "Inspired By" Titfield products and:

2)
We can assume from this that Studio Canal have endorsed Rapido challenging the legitimacy of Hornby's announcement in a public video, which:

3)
Suggests by inference Studio Canal believe they have the right to challenge Hornby for rights violation?

Arcane debates about copyright and intellectual property on this forum are to an extent irrelevant, the tone and message of the Rapido video - which will have been vetted by Canal - is clear.  The rights holder to the film had no idea Hornby were about to do this and, having sold the rights to Rapido, clearly feel that they were perfectly entitled to sell those rights. Undoubtedly they will take a dim view of someone producing a rival product no matter how described as "inspired by".  We don't know if Studio Canal had some sort of promotion planned around Titfield 70, perhaps with cinema showing and special Blu-Ray collector's set, and the Rapido set would have been a centrepiece of a "Titfield" memorabilia push aimed at cinema fans and railway fans.  These sorts of celebrations of film anniversaries are increasingly popular, so whatever we think about copyright, IP and other technicalities, I suspect Canal will be several steps ahead of us.

I genuinely think this is Hornby actually falling foul of a bout of self entitlement, not a cock-up or misunderstanding and I suspect this will get very serious, although of course, as is the way of these things, we'll never find out unless Simon Kohler has a paddy on screen or leaks something to the press.  I'm tempted to go to the bookies on that.

 

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?

 

Their use of the film clips could well be covered under their agreement with SC. 

 

Its not for Rapido to challenge Hornby - Studio Canal need to do that themselves. They will be aware of this, so Rapido's video is irrelevant as far as that is concerned - only a solicitors letter from SC to Hornby would have any bearing on the matter.