> I know from a reliable manufacturer, that the fee's arent all that
high. But they arent allowed to discuss the reats UP charges them.
Adam <
Adam, others, hi,
A couple of things: 1) The LICEN group at yahoo was established to
discuss the model licensing issue and nothing more. Interesting
reading there. 2) The Union Pacific application form requesting
licensing is insultingly invasive. It requires personal information
be submitted that I would hesitate giving to a family doctor. So,
beyond UP's legal right to do so (which, I understand, is
questionable when it comes to certain facets of its claims), I object
strenuously to the way in which the company has gone about this
business.
We own a startup fine scale modelmaking company. We've made a
considerable investment in it, but I recognize that this is our
problem and not UP's. I am concerned, though, that UP is far
overreaching its legal claims and, in doing so, imperils many small
businesses.
One example: We have ACF manufacturer general assembly drawings of
the 19k gallon tank produced in the mid-1950s and used by a number of
railroads in company service. If we offer this tank commercially,
even though as an undec, would the fact that it was in UP company
service make us liable to UP's licensing policies? One opinion I've
read said that it just might.
Another example: We are producing interlocking towers for each of the
granger railroads our business intends to focus on. Master patterns
have been created from brass etchings and castings will be made in
hydrocal. The first four tower etchings are in hand -- CB&Q's
Seminary Street tower (Galesburg), CNW's Beverly Junction tower
(Cedar Rapids), CGW's Tower A (Waterloo), and Rock Island's Short
Line tower (Des Moines).
UP is making claim to predecessor logos and identities (although a
strong argument is made it is not within its legal right to do so).
Will this also extend to predecessor architecture? Will UP attempt to
require licenses for us to produce CGW and CNW buildings long gone
from view?
A last example: We wish to produce, via etchings, lineside markers
such as flanger signs, mileposts, yard limit signs, etc., for each of
our focus railroads: CB&Q, C&NW, CGW, CMStP&P, CRI&P, IC, M&StL and
Soo. We hope these offerings would aid prototype modelers to create
the appearance and atmosphere of their favorite road on their
layouts. Will UP claim ownership of these items, too (that is, those
of its predecessors)?
UP-created uncertainties will seriously impact the cottage businesses
that allow prototype modelers to go about their hobby. Sincerely,
Brian Chapman
Granger Roads
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV . . . <g)
---
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BRHSlist/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BRHSlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|