EMD Copyright Laws

[bl4882]

I wonder how much trouble Andy Warhol got into for painting Campbell soup cans?

Do you think UP got confused and downloaded a fleet of locomotives from the DLS rather than purchasing some from EMD? Must we shade our eyes on the approach of EMD locomotives so as not to dilute their trademark?

Or has EMD copyrighted "EMD" and "Electromotive Division," and does this remove these words from the English language? Quaere: How do we address emails or letters about this nonsense to the company without infringing their copyright? Can we reveal to the world that SD9s were built by EMD or may we not speak or write their name so as not to compromise their share of the six decade old road switcher market? Or is it that they wish to go underground, perhaps to evade taxes or go into some other nefarious activity?

Should the Justice Department be informed?

Bernie

 

[Euphod]

Should the Justice Department be informed?

What would be the point? They seem as corrupt as any other government department! Cat would kick them some green, and they would go after us harder, you know, "redistribute" the wealth...

 

[bl4882]

Ah, yes. Well, I suppose if they do want to go underground, have a secret logo, and.... Wait! I just figured it out. They've created a stealth locomotive. Perfect. Now no one will even know they exist.

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a logo in the first place?

Just musing out loud with a glass of wine, which may be obvious.:hehe:

Bernie

 

[RiverRun]

I didn't remove the address because he has it on his site. It makes me wonder when she will contact RRMODs or Jointed Rail and demand they remove all EMD Logos and Trademarks from their Payware.

I skinned this one just for her.

 

[paulzmay]

There is a legal reason for their action. I think hoover is now generic because they did not enforce their copyright.

The normal thing is to issue a license for a nominal fee which legally means the copyright is being respected.

Cheerio John

I seem to remember that the reason for this is that in a major copyright/trademark dispute, a company with a poor record for protecting their IP in the past will be seen as inconsistent in court. To retain effectively retain protection, companies need to show that they have been diligent in protecting their interests up until now. Unfortunately, this can mean coming down unreasonably hard on minor infringements (something which is REALLY good PR for the companies involved).

Personally, If this was a use of the logo for content, I'd be inclined to apologise and ask politely about licensing arrangements. If they then stonewall you, at least you can show you tried to be reasonable.

Paul

 

[wreeder]

Trademarks and copyrights are two very different legal entities.

A company may trademark their graphic logo which protects them from someone else using the same logo to sell a product or service. The Hoover logo is protected by a trademark. The slang use of the word hoover to mean using a vacuum does not diminish their legal protection of their trademark. You cannot trademark common words or names just because you name your company using those words. For example, you can have Hoover Dry Cleaners, Hoover Auto Sales or Hoover Barbeque. None of these names can be protected by a trademark because they are common words or proper names. This is why companies choose unique and some might say nonsense words like N3V, n3vrf41l or the granddaddy of them all Xerox because then they can seek a trademark for their plaintext name. Google "how did Xerox get their name" to read that story.

Trademark law is pretty cut and dry. If you knowingly use someone's trademark without their permission then you are in the wrong. Most companies will protect their trademark with all means possible even when the use is seemingly harmless due to the fact that to do otherwise could be seen as giving passive approval which could lead to the loss of the control of the trademark. The bottom line is ask first. Most companies will grant the use of their trademark for non-commercial use as long as they have approval. This allows them to argue in court later that they have actively protected their trademarks.

Now a company's logo may also be protected by a copyright since someone did the creative work to create it but in terms of dollar value, a trademark is worth much more to the company than the copyright.

In this case it sounds like the complaint was over the scanned pdf files of the service manuals which show their protected trademark logo and also contain copyright protected material. They seem within their rights to ask it be removed. The webmaster might seek permission to continue and they might grant it.

As for the no harm, no foul argument, due to the outright bribing of american politicians by major corporations, copyright violations here are punishable by criminal courts and can mean years in prison or massive fines. I believe in principles as much as the next person but with that hanging over your head it isn't worth the chance IMHO.

William

 

[backyard]

Don't start hatin' CAT...

I would do no good & leave a foul taste for railfans in Caterpillars mouth if you come off unprofessional.

The items involved are the locomotive manuals...George has stated that no copyright can be found, I have the SD45 manual and can also confirm the EMD logo cannot be found anywhere in or on the book....but the General Motors logo is on the first page...:hehe:

Remember that the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors ceased to exist when Greenbriar bought EMD from GM. They were the original copyright holders.

It became Electro-Motive Diesel.

But it would be good to remember & suggest the railfan-history of EMD, which is probably why they did not always present copyright data...they were only into protecting sensitive engineering & development. In fact, they were so loose with the business you could photo in-plant activities, so GE sent some Japanese engineers undercover to tour the plant...they took ideas out the door & that plus robotics is how GE dominated the market!

 

[JCitron]

If we can't use EMD and SD, GP, etc. why not call an EMD SD-9 a MED DS-9 instead?

This is no different than some of the other generic industries we've used in the past with names and looks of the real thing, but in no way are the real thing.

 

[gaugetamper]

so GE sent some Japanese engineers undercover to tour the plant...they took ideas out the door & that plus robotics is how GE dominated the market!

I can't understand if that's true or not although I have a true story of GE raising to the top by the misfortune of ALCO, and to be specific, the US Army..

I'd add into this conversation my personal opinion, but I don't find it necessary anymore as many have already contributed similar opinions....Hope this all resolves well for the website, I could personally care less about CAT and all their endeavors.

Cheers

 

[Red_Rattler]

Riverrun, all I see is a red "X"

 

[RiverRun]

Riverrun, all I see is a red "X"

It's a pic from photobucket. I never had anyone say they couldn't see a photobucket photo before.

 

[ct_krogen]

It's a pic from photobucket. I never had anyone say they couldn't see a photobucket photo before.

yes, if they have pictures or some other thingie turn off