NSWGR_46Class
Just call my Captain Rude
Well its funny you say that but yes you should seek permission = Union Pacific are known for going after people using its trade marked logos with out permission - check out there corporate web site
So much for copyright
- Thread starter frogpipe
- Start date
No, in the olden days (until the mid 1970's, or so, Athearn and Atlas did not have to get a license, because at the time carriers did not consider reproduction on a model to be an infringement of their copyright or trademark. This began about 1975 or 1980; I remember the first photo in one of the model railroad magazines about a C&O locomotive with the (R) painted on it. Today, the issue is somewhat more complex; people modeling the UP and CSX enforce their copyright and trademark rights vigorously (and in the case of UP, the enforce trademarks and copyrights to disused material), but I understand that the other North American railroads don't worry much about it. UP licensing information can be found on their website (cf. <http://www.up.com/aboutup/corporate_info/licensing/index.htm>)
ns
KingConrail76
Active member
"Copyright" and "Trademark" are not the same thing, but are both legally protected, world-wide. Union Pacific has been very clear on the use of their "Trademarked" name, logo, slogans and paint schemes. They are also one of the most receptive and easy to deal with Railroads, which is why you see so many "Trainsets" that feature Union Pacific engines and rolling stock. Norfolk Southern and CSXT on the other hand charge much higher fees to people like us, who wish to use their "trademarks" and "logos" LEGALLY on "virtual" model railroads...and Yes, the "major player" Payware providers DO have Licenses to use the Trademarks of the respective Railroads (if they don't, the Railroads do/will enforce their right to control/compensation). Canadian Pacific, for example, used to host on their corporate website, content for MSTS...so they are "aware" of Train Sim "games", and do participate/monitor.
KingConrail76
Active member
Athearn, Walthers, Atlas and Kato have all, at one time or another, used Trademarks without permission, and have been caught and sued over such. Here in the Mid-Atlantic states, a big deal years ago was the situation between Walthers and SEPTA, where Walthers made a "Horizon" passenger car, using SEPTA names and logos without permission. SEPTA sued, and won, Walthers had to cease and disist<sp> immediately from producing those particular paint schemes, recall from all retailers and destroy whatever warehouse stock they had on-hand. Ironically, that made them immediately collectable, and the few that are out there are worth many times their retail price...I have 3 Coaches and 2 Cab-Cars, worth a mint...lol
While I am aware that copyright and trademarks are two entirely different concepts under intellectual property law in the US, from things I see written in these forums, I think that not all Trainzers are aware of the distinction, or at least, do not worry about of the fine points of that distinction.
ns
KingConrail76
Active member
Completely agree. That's why I mentioned it, not directed in any particular direction.
:hehe:For example, CSXT has a "Slogan"; "How Tommorrow Moves"...This is a Copyrighted(text) Trademark, where-as the pictures/logos of the "Chessie Kitten" or "Chessie Cat" are stricktly "Trademarks".
Think of "Trademarks" as "Brand Identification" (Nike "swoosh", Coca-cola "ribbon", McDonalds "Golden Arches") and "Copyright" as "Ownership of Idea" (color/material patterns of sneakers, soda/burger ingrediant proportions). Trademarks can be Copyrighted.
Last edited:
My family work in the graphics industry and occasionally this becomes an issue. Many years ago my dad ran into a situation where someone took some of his artwork and reproduced it without his permission. He brought the people to court and was awarded triple-damages based on the value of the artwork. Considering this was a corporate logo design, it was pretty expensive to begin with. The judge in the small claims court awarded the judgment immediately to my dad before the other people could say anything.
Heed copyrights and trademarks!
John
Heed copyrights and trademarks!
John
Sometimes the licences that come with an asset are not absolutely clear. I've done a snow reskin of an asset for my Lavenham route that involved whitening the main texture a bit and changing some of the colours. The licence for the parent asset states:
You may use, redistribute and (where appropriate) re-skin the model as long as you do not do so for profit or suggest that the work contained in this file is your own. If you redistribute the file it must not be altered in any way (including this licence).
Does this mean I can upload the reskin to the Download Station? What does "where appropriate" mean and does "it must not be altered in any way" also preclude any alteration of the textures? I should add that I've been unable to make contact with the original creator to obtain express permission so now I'm in a quandary about whether to upload.
Sometimes this copyright stuff isn't clear cut!
Paul (bemused)
You may use, redistribute and (where appropriate) re-skin the model as long as you do not do so for profit or suggest that the work contained in this file is your own. If you redistribute the file it must not be altered in any way (including this licence).
Does this mean I can upload the reskin to the Download Station? What does "where appropriate" mean and does "it must not be altered in any way" also preclude any alteration of the textures? I should add that I've been unable to make contact with the original creator to obtain express permission so now I'm in a quandary about whether to upload.
Sometimes this copyright stuff isn't clear cut!
Paul (bemused)
Last edited:
Ted, your statement lacks the crucial qualifier, "in the US". While what you write is true in the US, it may or may not be as true in the UK, where Paul is writing from. I know there are significant differences between UK and US intellectual property law concerning copyright, though I'm not sufficiently informed as to the exact nature and character of those differences to have an opinion as to how the license would be interpreted in a UK court.
ns
Thanks for the feedback chaps. It's hard to know what to do isn't it? I'm going to seek advice on my Lavenham release thread and see what members of the UK Trainz community think. In this particular case I don't think that the original creator would object in truth, but I think it's important to try and observe the proprieties when it comes to redistributing other people's assets. Ideally, it's always best to get something from them in writing if you can even if they appear to have an open licence. But when you can't contact the original creator it gets tricky......
Paul
Paul
Does copyright exist if there is no one to exercise it?
Paul,
In the US, we, like most everyplace else in the world these days, have "automatic copyright", that is, copyright exists for the copyright owner from the moment of creation. Enforcement, however is locomotive of another guage. In the US, to be able to pursue infringements in the legal system (beyond hiring a soliciter to write a "cease and desist" letter), the copyright must be registered. But there are two other facts that complicate the issue, too. Only the owner of the copyright, or his agent, can initiate an enforcement action. Even in those cases where criminal infringement is held to have occurred, the action was brought not by the State (or Crown, in your case), but was initiated by the copyright holder. So, in the US, this is currently the situation: if the holder of a copyright does not properly transfer that copyright to heirs, the copyright stays with the original copyright holder. After that copyright holder dies or otherwise ceases to exist, in the absence of proof of registration, and proof of transfer of copyright, there is no one to bring an action. This is common enough in the US that there is a name for it: an "orphan copyright". This is a common enough situation that there are WIKI pages discussing the matter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works>.
Frankly, I think the implication of orphan copyrights for the Trainz community is minor. While I understand bringing forward beloved older content, the fact of the matter is, it's still old content. I suspect that a skilled creator could, for just a bit more time and investment than it takes to track down a living departed member for permission, create a new mesh up to newer standards.
ns
Paul,
In the US, we, like most everyplace else in the world these days, have "automatic copyright", that is, copyright exists for the copyright owner from the moment of creation. Enforcement, however is locomotive of another guage. In the US, to be able to pursue infringements in the legal system (beyond hiring a soliciter to write a "cease and desist" letter), the copyright must be registered. But there are two other facts that complicate the issue, too. Only the owner of the copyright, or his agent, can initiate an enforcement action. Even in those cases where criminal infringement is held to have occurred, the action was brought not by the State (or Crown, in your case), but was initiated by the copyright holder. So, in the US, this is currently the situation: if the holder of a copyright does not properly transfer that copyright to heirs, the copyright stays with the original copyright holder. After that copyright holder dies or otherwise ceases to exist, in the absence of proof of registration, and proof of transfer of copyright, there is no one to bring an action. This is common enough in the US that there is a name for it: an "orphan copyright". This is a common enough situation that there are WIKI pages discussing the matter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works>.
Frankly, I think the implication of orphan copyrights for the Trainz community is minor. While I understand bringing forward beloved older content, the fact of the matter is, it's still old content. I suspect that a skilled creator could, for just a bit more time and investment than it takes to track down a living departed member for permission, create a new mesh up to newer standards.
ns