I can certainly see justification for a licensing fee to use logos and such. After all someone is using them to make money. However, no one is going to mistake model railroad use of logos or brands for the real thing. So, when a company wants intrusive access to “protect” it’s image, they come off looking like a bully and it does affect PR.
EXACTLY
I couldn’t have said it better.
The politically correct thing to do these days is ba***he large corporations for trying to make money. People seem to forget that the first and only goals of a company is to be profitable and increase shareholder value.
As long as what they are doing is legal, the company has a responsibilty to increase profits.
As others have said, PR for most railroads today is all about rates, on time delivery etc. The general public is not a direct customer so railroads don’t need to worry about what they think about them.
Bryan
I think it hits the nail right on the head . The big corporations don’t care who they step on these days! If they can make a buck from it, it seems to be the attitude to stick it to whomever they can in order to do so! For example, take a look at all the major oil companies that posted record profits as of late, and still kept gasoline prices high, so the rest of us paid through the nose just to drive![xx(]
I have to say I don’t think that licensing their logo or having some sort of relationship with the manufacturers is bad. They have every right to care, and have some control over who uses their logo and in what way. This is corporate America after all… I guess the way they are going about it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as it were. Since I don’t know anything about the case itself, I have only found posts on this web site I am not sure what the monitary value of the suit is. I would like to think that any licensing and or agrements with publishing companies, or manufacturers would be more a gentalmens agreement. By this I mean there would be a working relationship between the railroad and the manufaturers to provide an avanue for them to acuratly model various prototype models, and in the case of Trains magazine get access to locations and settings to get good photographs of the rail comanies equipment. Any monitary compansetion should not hinder the manufacturers ability to provide it’s customers with quality products. Since I am not in this buisness I can not say what that fee should be, but having a working relationship in good standing I think will do more in the long run. I don’t think companies will stop making UP equipment and we certantly wont stop buying it, but I fell ther could have been a better way of going about it.
Also I was wondering if other railroads are also doing this… The reason I ask is because if this is the first incident then it would set a precident for other railroads to follow.
So if I scratch build a UP loco and print my own decals do I also need to pay for licensing?
“People gladly believe what they wi***o.” -Julius Ceasar.
“Belief is convenient.” -moi.
HAHAHAA Yes we do… Will keep an eye out for any more specifics on the case. It may be a while though. I would like to know more about it since I do find it interesting…
DSilver668,
If you’re not selling it no. If you are, then that may be another issue.
Off Topic:
When I was a kid during the early 70s in New York City, one of my buddies in grade school was David Silver. Amazed me how your forum name reminded me of him (it’s been 35 years!)
So UP’s sued Athearn, Lionel and MTH so far…I wonder who’s next on their list?[:O] Probably Walthers, since they’re a large well-known company and own Life-Like.[:p]
If I were to start making my own UP decals and selling them to make a little money, would they sue me too?[:O]
The last time this was topical on the forum, I googled UP and MTH and found the complaint. It looked like MTH was refusing to pay royalties or refusing to let UP ok the use of the logo – UP has a published policy on this. I reached this conclusion from the prayer for relief, which demanded that MTH turn over stuff with UP logo so the stuff could be destroyed. (Can’t help but wonder if the UP ok’d the logo on IHC’s 2-10-2 – I posted on that in the prototype forum about ten days ago).
It’s also pretty apparent that this was not a suit that reached the attention of anyone in a particularly meaningful executive position. As in “who really cares?” My best guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the suit will make a wonderful training ground to help develop a baby lawyer into a real litigator. And I’d be astonished if it isn’t settled after a few well placed depositions.
Thanks RClarkDC!!! that was the kind of info I was looking for. I was thinking the same thing. UP already has a huge marketing, and law department, heck they have at least a few law suites to deal with with regard to hitting a beuty queen, and killing a few other folks with disabled crossing gates. LOL
It makes sence as this would be good training…
Oh well hope it all turns out for the best for both sides.
Antonio that is funny… My Dad grew up in new york. but he was in school like 50 years ago so no relation there.
I’m really wondering if the income from the additional licensing deals justifies the assets expended in getting them. As mentioned above, UP certainly seems to have other, more pressing issues for their legal department. I could see more justificationif another transportation company started using names/logos in their business.
Short answer is YES that is infringment of a copy righted item for profit. If you gave them away NO.
Rolls Royce has the same thing with the flying Lady the picture is legal because I own the car and I use it for my advertisement. If I DID not own the car they would sue the heck out of me like they have other folks.
The bottom line is that ANYTHING that has a copyright can not be used without permission period. It is up to thw owner of that to enforce the law on their items.
One thing it seems many people are missing here is that any corporation must protect its trademarks or they will loose them. That is the law of the land as my wife informed me. She has been reading about patents and trademarks. It really gets quite anal. For example, a trade mark may not be used as a noun, only and adjective. For example, in any official documents, commercials, and product labeling, Kleenex must always be in the context of Kleenex Facial Tissue, not just Kleenex. Because Kleenex has become more and more a noun, they are in danger of loosing their trademark. The same thing really applies to logos and the like. If a company lets anyone use their logos without permission, the trademark can be lost. These trademarks can be very valuable to a company.
Nail on the head! If we use Rejuvinator Oil it is a trademark because we MISPELLED IT on purpose bu the name LEATHERIQUE is our Trademark of record and when we ALLOW our destributors and such to use it they have a license from use to use that name and by contract must have it in their business name.
We had a fight over this in the late 60’s and after a LOT of money won our case. The whole thing appears that a logo was infringed on and IF the correct procedure was followed of paperwork to allow for it’s use this owuld be a long uneventful thread.
I use Color draw and their is every major logo in there and I can use them because Corel ASKED first.
Take care
George P.
Most of this sort of litigation is caused by attorneys trying to justify their fees to the corporations. If attorneys were not involved I suspect that some sort of reasonable licensing arrangements could be set up. The issue of protecting trademarks is valid. Sticking it to model railroad manufacturers and hobbyists just to add one thousanth of a percent (if that) to your annual gross revenue is absurd behavior. They’d spend a ten times the amount they receive from their program to garner the goodwill via advertising that they lose among model railroaders because of the program itself. It’s dysfunctional behavior…
It really, really irritates me to see people (presumably Model Railroaders, who i would expect to be pro-other Model Railroaders) on this forum taking a righteous position supporting UPs right to collect royalties and licensing fees.
For one piece of evidence on how ridiculous the finances of this are, consider the following which I believe was stated in MR, or one of the model publications, a few years ago: the entire gross domestic product of the model railroad industry would not equal the smallest company on the Fortune 500!!!
The amount of revenue UP gets for these licensing fees ca’t be more than “rounding error” on their financial statements.
UP ought to limit themselves to exercising the right to approve the use of their logos and paint schemes, which is perfectly reasonable, and let it go at that.
Further. I think the companies that are being sued are allowing themselves to be sued, specifically in order to force a public issue of this matter, in the hopes the news media will make UP look publicly ridiculous. This tactic may or may not work, but I think that is what’s going on
Take a look at a “Microscale Decal” catalog, I quit counting “logos” after a 100. They don’t seem to have any problems…
[#ditto]X10!
In the two or so years this has been discussed on this forum, I have yet to see anyone who supports stUPid’s position and thinks it’s a really great idea explain just how this licensing scam in any way benefits the model railroad community.
I know the odds are about the same as Catherine Bell turning up in my shower, but I really hope the judge in this case tells stUPid to go pound sand.
Tom, GrayLoess,
In reading back over this thread the posters are not “supportive” of UP. On the contrary it’s safe to say that all of us here were upset and saddened when UP started this trademark issue one or two years back.
The trademark issue does not benefit modelrailroaders in any way,shape, or form.
BUT…The point was that this is REALITY. Corporate America today is all about business and unfortunately we’re seeing more and more that business is ICE COLD. It’s about profit, political connections, and lawsuits. Loyalty is seen as a low priority. The days of beneficial deals with a handshake involving genuine Goodwill vaporized long ago.
While it would be great if it happened…the chances of a judge telling UP to go pound sand in this case are slim. Why? Too many precedents since the 1970s and 80s have been set…Disney being one of the best known.
As for the term stUPid…I have to admit it does bother me for the simple reason that the trademark flap was started by a tiny group of UP executives and higher level managers. The thousands of good dedicated employess, including some that are hurt or have been killed in trainwrecks, that work for UP are not at fault. A friend of mine went to work for them and I know that he certainly doesn’t deserve that label.
I had to chuckle when I saw the article about UP suing MTH…
I thought of one of those Japanese movies where Ultraman is fighting against two giant monsters, but pretty soon the two monsters are going at it and end up killing each other.