My post has to do with the usage of RR Herald’s and other corporate properties that are commonly used in the Model Railroad hobby arena. THe idea deals with the use of such symbols to the mutual advantage of bot the Hobbiest and the Railroads. Use any licenseing fees or royalties on either present day or retired corporate names for support of worthy PR work like Operation Life Saver and get some positive PR. Last I looked I have yet to see a corporation of any kind that had to much positive PR. Think about it, you can bet they (The railroads) are.
Why always pick on UP, when AMTRAK and CSX also have fees (AMTRAK had them before UP !!!) ???
If the money obtained went only to OS or other such uses, how would the RRs fund the paychecks, equipment and supplies involved in running their license program ???
I would bet that most of the fees (which really aren’t that much, all things considered from the RR bottom line point of view) go to just that !!!
The fees were not created to make a profit, but because court rulings told the RRs to charge for it or lose it.
Of course, they could always do a McDonalds and just say NO ONE could use the trademarks (How many McD restaurant models do you see made ??? NONE !) !!!
That works, from a legal point of view, and eliminates the headaches for the RRs in running license programs at the same time !!!
Lets face it - model railroads are neither the “advertisments” nor the “PR” the RRs need - MRRers don’t tend to ship large amounts of goods over the rails !!! The RR needs to impress SHIPPERS (who neither see or care about our layouts), not MRRs, railfans, or, except for AMTRAK, even the general public (no more rail passengers for UP or CSX !).
The RRs will put money into OS - not for the “PR”, but to try and reduce accidents (and the resulting equipment damage, RR employee danger, and the resulting lawsuits).
I second what George says…Its a different world out there then in the past years…Sadly corporations must protect their interest to wit.I have seen freight cars on e bay lettered Cheesy System,Cheap & Ornery,Lackofnooky -theres been several others but,I notice these “custom” painted cars has all but disappeared over the last few months.
As far as fees I am sure the other railroads will start charging a fee to use their logos.
The mighty UPS said no for years before granting permission with a licensing fee.
Again railroads are not the only corporations that now charges a fee for the use of their logos.
…assuming, of course, you completely ignore the “classic” McDonalds and modern McDonalds models that were released in O gauge by MTH a couple of years ago. While I don’t do anything in O gauge, my dealer of choice has been selling these for a while, now.
I think that a big piece of why you don’t see many manufacturers releasing models of chain businesses is that they just don’t want to go through the work of licensing/approvals/etc., especially if there is a chance royalties will be involved. It’s a lot less effort and cost to make a generic building and slap a fictitious name on it than it is to deal with trademark owners, especially if the model manufacturer doesn’t perceive it as being likely to increase his sales.
Last I heard, McDs didn’t license … is this new - or is it old, and you can’t make them anymore ???
Hmmm … wonder if MTH had a license with McD’s to make the models - maybe McDonalds should SUE them - THAT would be a nice change !!!
Anyhoo, my point is that, under the current laws, any company can simply refuse to let models of their trademarks be produced. And sue if someone does.
gbailey,
Interesting points to be sure. Although I really have a problem with the licensing/royalties in the realm of the hobby, I do see your points and they are valid. I believe you are the first to say that UP could always just say “OK, no one can use the heralds” which is very true. Always a bummer when someone that disagrees with my view has valid points lol. Of course that’s what makes debate/discussion so much fun!! Much more fun than a debate discussion that melts down to the “did to” “did not” “oh yeah?” “yeah” thing. Learning other points of view and the reasoning behind such points of view has always interested me and even if they don’t change my mind about something I can at least say that I’ve heard the otherside, understand where they’re coming from and actually thought about my position.
I always enjoy reading your posts, we totally disagree on somethings, totally agree on others which is as it should be. Bottom line, though - we both love our hobby!!
Of course if someone really wants a McD on their layout there is always scratchbuilding - but that’s another issue.
MTH sued McD’s claiming to have invented Golden Arches, Big Macs, and the concept of Supersizing…
:sarcasm:
Paul
so if UP , CSX , Antrak etc. didn’t have licensing fees for their logos i could just paint a UP logo on the side of a truck and charge folks for delivering stuff , and when UP dragged me into court the judge would say ‘go home there’s no law being broken here because UP let their logo be used on some models’ ???
i guess that makes as much sense as somebody sueing macdonalds for making the coffee too hot
when the revolution comes , we shoot the lawyers first
ereimer,
Probably not.
Hopefully no one decides that you owe them something and because he couldn’t recover through the system decides to shoot you and recover what he thought you owed him. Having been in countries where there isn’t a legal system or where individuals are not given the right of counsel, I can say that people living in such places would love to have our system. Think Rwanda, Liberia, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and the South Africa of the past. I’m sure lots of folks would have loved to have shot the lawyers who had the audacity to argue that a black child deserves the same education as a white child.
As to McDonalds - I agree that suing someone for selling coffee that they agree is too hot for consumption and then getting burned in a such a way that two years of skin grafts is required and the company refused to at least pay medical expenses is silly - but I leave it to each person to form own opinions after knowing the facts.
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
This site lays out many of the facts both pro and con and leaves it up to the reader to decide. Many of these facts are not mentioned in the various emails and blogs etc that discuss this case.
Hypothetical question - If you are ever falsely accused of a crime are you going to go to court unrepresented? If you are ever ripped off by a contractor or someone just decides to terminate your employment because of your religeon are you willing to go forward alone? It’s amazing the number of people that think every case is frivolous except the one they are plaintiffs in.
The UP’s licensing is not for models. It is for everything. Its just that model railroaders forget there is a world outside their basement and don’t understand that there are other things that can be done with a logo besides stick it on a model boxcar.
The suggestion of putting a UP herald on a truck is EXACTLY what the UP is defending against. The UP owns several trucking authorities (the MP, UP and SP all had susidiary truck lines.) You see a add in the yellow pages for “Missouri Pacific Motor Express” with a big buzzsaw. Is it a subsidiary of the UP or is it a pirate? The UP has software development companies, has land development companies, logistics companies. Those are the companies they are trying to protect. A salesman comes to your company with a business card from “UP Software Development Inc.” with a shield on it and offers to sell you a software for managing logistics of a distribution network. Is it a subsidiary of the UP or is it a pirate? That’s where the risk is, that’s where the money is. Other businesses, not model trains.
Dave H.
I do belive the RR have ever right to protect there Logo’s and trademarks they do belong to them.
On the other hand there is a compromise to be made on the MR issue but we are not in the talks and I do not know what the criteria is that would have to be met to use there trademarks on models.
It is possible in my opinion that the model makers make so few models of a building that makeing a generic building is better for there profits that say paying a trademark holder for the use of there logo.
The stupid lawsuits of todays world have caused many companies to shy away from many things because they feel that jurys might find them guilty by association.
I can see it now someone buys a train set made by the ABC train company with a UP logo, The set has a bad transformer and shocks the consumer. The ABC company and the UP are hauled into court and the ABC company and the UP have to pay a multi millin dollar settlement. Why you ask would the UP have to pay since it didnt make the product? Well some half wit jury decided that the UP should have known the product was bad since they put there name on it and are just as at fault as the ABC company.
Sound to far fetched well we used to think getting paid for burning yourself with hot coffee and sueing a McD’s was out there too.
Only my opinion
Because UP unlike other corporations initially were trying to make a profit from the licensing of their logo. Most of the other corporations only charge a FIXED nominal fee, some as low as $1 per year which adequately protects their rights.
Bob DeWoody
Back in the early 70s I had a plastic HO model of a McDonalds. I don’t remember who made it.
Sometime in the mid-90s copyright laws were changed, and it became much harder to successfully defend against copyright infringement if there was not a track record of vigorous enforcement. Used to be, it didn’t matter a whole lot if Atlas sold UP diesel models without a license agreement from UP if UP had to defend against malicious copyright infringement (a case like dehusman’s example). Now, if the defense can show other known infringements that weren’t challenged, even inoccuous ones like logos on model trains, they’ve a much greater chance of not facing any repercussions for their malicious infringement. You can thank the web and some international agreements that sprung from it for this one, folks.
There once was a time when the idea of suing for equal education, on the job safety, freedom to live where one wanted to in a town and to stop acts by the government was out there.
Brunton and dehusman,
How dare you bring in facts!!
Brunton,
I think the McDonalds model was talked about several months ago here. While I’m not sure if I’m remembering it correctly I believe the agreement was that the model was only to be produced for a limited time as some sort of promotional item. Sure wish I could get my hands on one!!
very true Dave, but sueing for equal human rights are a necessity, but sueing because we dont want to resposible for our own actions thats where I draw the line. We must be accountable for our own actions. Coffe is served hot (unless you like cold coffee) Ice is cold water is wet the sky is blue these are all known things. So just how can we justify sueing just because we didnt pay attention. All the Railroads have the right to protect themselfs but I do belive that there is a way for all to have there cake and eat it too.
Will,
What if McDonalds testified in court that the temperature they served the coffee at was “unfit for consumption?” What if they knew of 700 burn cases previously but decided not to lower the temperature because it may hurt profit? What if the burns required 2 years of skin grafts and originally all the plaintiff wanted was her medical expenses compensated? In talking to the attorney who represented the lady involved the jury was really turned off when the McD’s rep basically said he really didn’t care how bad someone was burned or how many - McD’s was going to continue on as usual.
There used to be a train of thought that when one got injured on work no one would be liable as the person assumed the risk of working there. I’m thankful someone decided that that changed and it wasn’t just chalked up to “not paying attention.”
[#offtopic]
If you can’t stand the heat of the coffee don’t buy it. The stuff is hot for a reason, this is absurd. They have very strict temperature controls (I did some work for Burger King and it had better be right at the temperatures they want) people want hot coffee and it sells, give it to them. The cups do say hot coffee. It’s not there fault people are to clumsy to drink it. Could find a link to an article that says a patient needed 2 years of skin grafts. What other than medical bills should be paid. I agree with ereimer too many lawyers.
James[C):-)]
Thanks james for the backup…
Dave,
So what your saying is if I or you buys a coffee and we get burned by the hot coffee that store should be held liable? Hello world wake up Coffee is hot you know this when you bought it!
700 cases and millions of cups served. Ok how many burns that the normal person just said “dang thats hot I should watch what I am doing” and did not sue?? if the store poured it on them I can see the suit but to do this on your own and try to sue because you spilled it on you self crazy!!!
So what your saying is if I burn my hand on my stove I can sue because the temperature was too high and I wasnt told. Common sense should be the norm not the exception…
For those interested in the facts, here is a link to the CSX license (for for-profit MRR models among other things):
http://www.csx.com/share/media/tlic/docs/For-Profit_License_Agreement-REF21386-REF21816.pdf
This is a .pdf file, so you need the Acrobat reader to see it.