# Here we go again, BNSF licensing royalties



## SteveF (Jan 2, 2008)

http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edJan09.html This must have been done by a new hire.
Excerpt from BNSF letter to manufacturers: 

“BNSF requires entities that use our intellectual property to be licensed with us.” 

That “intellectual property” is actually not only BNSF but also Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, Frisco, Northern Pacific, Great Northern, CB&Q, SP&S, and others. They state: “Our standard royalty for use of our logos and associated images is five percent of the total sales of items bearing the logos and related images of BNSF and its predecessors, with a $1,000 advance royalty payment due upon issuance of the licensing agreement.”




Don' they ever learn?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Didn't you know? Pumpkin and green will be the next fad, ALL the kids will be wearing it.Better get in on the ground floor while it ONLY costs ya a grand....


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

hmm.. link is gone already..... 

maybe somebody at BNSF pulled the plug


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Buy Now Sure to be a Franchise later!!! BNSF







The Regal LOL


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Greetings George,

This announcement was posted on the Aristo-Craft Forum a couple of days ago. I know quite a few have written to BNSF about this matter drawing attention to their concerns. Some have written as shareholders, some to other departments and I wrote to the Licensing guru.


From a modelers point of view, especially with hard times at present, an increase in costs is to be deplored. 


I hope that they do re-think this and make note that UP had a change of heart back-a-long.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By George Schreyer on 02/05/2009 11:56 AM
hmm.. link is gone already..... 

maybe somebody at BNSF pulled the plug


It's a pay-to-play service I believe, and the linked article is from last month judging from the URL.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By George Schreyer on 02/05/2009 11:56 AM
hmm.. link is gone already..... 

maybe somebody at BNSF pulled the plug
George

The link is to the Model Railroad News magazine web site, to the Jan. 09 editorial page and the only one available now is the Feb. 09 page.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Another good reason to Freelance your line, or model something so obscure theres no questions of licensing rights.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Since it is now gone, it's a good thing I copied it... 

Excerpt from an editorial by John Sipple.... 
".............It has been sent around to a large number of model rolling stock manufacturers, and it’s from BNSF. Just when we were starting to smile after the Union Pacific debacle, here we go again. 

BNSF wants money, so now they’re going to try to milk our tiny industry. They end up the letter by saying, “BNSF requires entities that use our intellectual property to be licensed with us.” 

That “intellectual property” is actually not only BNSF but also Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, Frisco, Northern Pacific, Great Northern, CB&Q, SP&S, and others. They state: “Our standard royalty for use of our logos and associated images is five percent of the total sales of items bearing the logos and related images of BNSF and its predecessors, with a $1,000 advance royalty payment due upon issuance of the licensing agreement.” 

Later in the letter, it says, “Our goal is to participate in the value derived from the use of our logos, paint schemes, and associated images but not to keep anything bearing those logos, paint schemes, and associated images from being made or sold.” 

Got the picture? There are a lot of angles on this, but let’s approach this from the angle of reality. We have a very small industry. Even the “big players” in model railroading are really not very large companies. Many companies are little more than Mom & Pop operations while others are huge with thirty employees or so. I know several companies that really just meet the needs of their employees, pay modest salaries for the management, and have little to show beyond a lease agreement and various kinds of equipment. 

A thousand bucks up front? I don’t think so. Five percent of the total sales? There goes the profit margin. For many companies, they will just stop putting BNSF brands on their products, the letter’s assertion notwithstanding. We live in a very unstable economy, and the others who go along with BNSF may find themselves out of business. 

What BNSF is doing is not illegal, but it does have the joyful property of the biggest kid in school shaking down the kindergartners for their milk money. It is a prime example of corporate arrogance, where one division or department in a company sets a course of action that seems perfectly reasonable to them, even if they have no idea what impact they are having at the other end. 

Of course, we’ve been here before. In 2002, Union Pacific went on the warpath with the whole business of trademarks and other intellectual property, that last being an oxymoron if ever there was one. By 2005, it had become clear that UP had dug themselves into a hole where their licensing program was costing far more than it was taking in or was ever likely to take in. Not to take anything away from Mike Wolf’s masterful victory over them on the legal stage, but they already had some serious doubts and legal reversals fueling the desire to settle. Don’t be surprised if BNSF doesn’t find itself down that same road. 

What did UP learn that BNSF hasn’t so far? Union Pacific was trying to get its brand up in the pantheon of big-time trademarks such as “GAP” and “Tommy Hilfiger.” I don’t know many kids were burning to spend $125 for a T-shirt with the “Union Pacific” brand just to make their friends jealous, but some folks at UP seemed to think this was plausible. However, the Intellectual Property people told them they’d have to plug the leaks, which is how they described the railroad hobbies. Where they are now makes a lot more sense. They only have to control their trademarks; they don’t have to be paid, which is good because they weren’t going to get much, anyway. 

And that brings us back to BNSF. Guess what? BNSF is lining up to be a corporate sponsor of the Super Bowl in 2011. Along with high-power advertising, they get a bunch of tickets to scalp, and a skybox in the stadium. What’s the catch? I’m guessing the Intellectual Property people have told BNSF they need to plug their leaks. Their net profit will be a ton of bad press and very little cash inflow. They could save themselves a lot of grief if they’d just give out free licenses in return for an application that proves they have control of their brands. BNSF needs to realize there simply isn’t enough pie for them to get any unless they expand the pie first."


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

This is why I NEVER wear any clothing that advertises anything, anybody or any entity. Companies PAY big bucks to advertise, (What was it... $300,000.00 per second during the Insipid-Bowel)... Why should I have to pay any company to give them FREE advertising. (I have been tempted to chisle off the brand name from my car, but it is rusting too quickly as it is, I don't need to add more places for the water to enter!!!!)


There are brands (not necessarily toy trains) that I am loyal to and will brag about to anybody that is willing to listen, but if the company wants ME to advertise for them, they have to pay my advertising fee... NOT the other way round!


----------



## thekollector (Jan 2, 2008)

The catch to this is the 5% fee. To be able to prove to themselves that they are getting their due, they will make you sign something allowing them access to your books. Nobody in their right minds are going to permit that.


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

Right Now, I am creating the Buy No Dollars Forever association. The Logo will be BN$F. Maybe I can get all the model train companies to advertise my association for free.


----------



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh Boy!

Anyone in the large scale business -- wholesale - retail - manufacturing -- wish to offer their response to the question: Anyone in the industry contact BSNF and ask what amount of profit do they want that outweighs the disgust of the model railroading hobbiests, retailers, wholesalers, and manufactuers?

Do they associate the use of their logo with non-railroad uses, e.g. sweat shirts, soiled packpacks, Rap guitarists, Hells' Angels, USC dropouts, Yoga-based attorney trainers, former tax payers now government officials, and crazed snake collectors turned N gaugers in herbariums.

Are they not _charging us_ to advertise _their _ blasted trains? Huh? Yes, the logos are on models of THEIR trains. Gee, what a concept!

Two other questions:
1 - What is the income do they think they will accrue in terms of units sold in HO, S, G, and N after the charge for advertising _them_ is in place?
2 - Is that amount based on the pre-punitive royalty policy?
3 - Is that amount based upon the Santa Fe royalty profit  history -- gasp! Is that at 5% plus a $1000 fee??

Maybe a stimulus offer is needed for BNSF if they are so desperate to charge people who advertise their trains.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

The toy manufacturers are going about this the wrong way.... it is all backwards!!!!









Anybody here know how much it costs to put up a billboard along the highway? What is the assumed readership of a single billboard? i.e. what is the amount of exposure per advertising dollar?

I think the RRs need to be PAYING the toy manufacturers for the advertising that the toys generate. Maybe the price per item the logo is printed on should be varied based on the quality of the item and the assummed exposure each item might generate.

Let's see... break the quality of the toys into 5 categories and apply some numerical value to them

A No quality railcar with the CMBY logo would not be allowed at all. 

Low quality has a value of 1
Medium quality has a value of 3
High quality has a value of 5
Exceptional quality has a value of 7


Then also break it down into the various scales to determine the number of modelers that do that scale and what kind of exposure it might generate.

HO is probably the biggest exposure, followed by O and then maybe N and Z. "Garden" scales (I refuse to apply a letter here and expose the fact tht it stands for "GOOFY!) may be a greater exposure value because of the national status of some of the "Tours" that many clubs give. Lets rank them on a scale of 1 to 10 (I am sure some Madison Avenue type could do a study as to prioritizing these numbers more accurately... and create all kinds of controversy as to the accuracy of it!)

HO = 6
O = 5
N = 4
Z = 3
Garden = 7


May have to split that into a number of units sold AND a separate "exposure" number (i.e.: how many people take a Z scale train to a venue vs how many take a garden train to some place to show it off?)

Now multiply the "Quality" rating by the "Exposure" rating and then multiply that by a scaling number to provide the price the RR must pay for their logo to appear on EACH toy that is sold.



This is beginning to sound like a way to reduce the cost of our hobby!!!!!


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

Don't forget that G-Scale tends to be used in outside displays with a lot of non-train fan visitors, i.e., Several botanical gardens, the Living Desert in Palm Springs and the FairPlex display in Pomona, CA. 

However, what counts is not just the number of eyeballs, but how much revenue those eyeballs bring. TV has a pretty well known response vs eyeball curve, as does spam. How many visitors to a G-Scale display will say, hmm, look at that little BNSF train, I think I will send stuff by BNSF from now on. 

On the other hand, how many folks will say, I only want to run BNSF, MFG A paid the fee and has it, I will buy from them, MFG B does not have it, I will go someplace else.


----------



## barnmichael (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By George Schreyer on 02/05/2009 11:56 AM
hmm.. link is gone already..... 

maybe somebody at BNSF pulled the plug


The article is still there. He just cut the 'l' off the link.

 http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edJan09.html


----------



## barnmichael (Jan 2, 2008)

The BNSF Corporate Headquarters are here in Ft Worth. Each year they have a huge Company Family Day Picnic. They ask our club to set up a display. We typically have 4-8 loops running (about 1,600 sq ft). When we go there, we try to run as much BNSF rolling stock as we can. Maybe next time we should not run any BNSF at all and roll all the UP we can find. Then we put up a big sign that says "We are unable to run model BNSF equipment due to licensing and royalty requirements of the BNSF logo."

Of course it might be the last time we get to set up a display there.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

No no no... don't insult them that way... be sure to run nothing but BNSF engines and rolling stock, just make sure all of it is hand painted stuff and be sure the people that do the hand painting are not professionals.
\


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Keep up the good work BNSF


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

*B.N.S.F. = "But Not So Free"*














-or -

*"Better Now Send Funds"*














- or -


*"Best New Slush Fund"*














-or -

*"Broke Now Solicit Fees"*














-or-


*"But Not So Fast"*














-or -


*"Bank Now Should Fill"*














-or -


*"But Now So Frugal"*














- or if they *DO get negative publicity *







(as UP did) from the same stunt) - 


*"Better Not Stiff Fans!"*






































*Tom*


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

I really don't get it. And believe me when I say I do not agree with it. But isn't BNSF their logo, that they designed? I wouldn't think it is any different than an NFL team. You can't use their logos at will nor can you use Chevy Ford Dodge or any others. Along with restaurants or any other brand name. McDonalds wen on a sueing rampage a few years back. They went after anyone that used Mc in their business or food names that were even remotely close to something McDonalds had "branded". Whille it isn't good business or for that matter even a nice thing to do I would think it is theirs to do with as they wish. Glad I run my own Narrow Guage line. Oh, an feel free to copy the name all u want I won't sue you  
Terry


----------



## Idraw4u (Aug 19, 2008)

Being in the IP (Intellectual Property) business I can tell you that it has a lot to do with keeping a standard of enforcement. If they let one use it, then someone else screams that’s not fair.... why can't we.
It is sort of like my daughters English teacher.... she says he is "way to strict and hard on things that don't matter". I say if he starts off strict and hard he can always easy up, but if he starts of easy... he will never get control of the class.

Same thing here.... If they are not diligent in the protection of their logos and such, it could cost them a great deal of hassle in the long run.
Keep in mind that not everyone that intends to use their images does so with the best interest of BNSF in mind. A lot of people would use it negatively and as I said if they are not tough on everyone it is hard to be tough on just a few. 
No one seems to think twice about going in and paying X$ for a hat or shirt for their favorite sports team.... but I have heard of professional teams suing little leagues and Pee Wee football leagues because of their failure to get permission. That is the same principal. 

BNSF paid a great deal of money in research and development of their logos and then secured the IP rights to them. That means they have the right to let people use them or not. 
Granted it would go a long way in advertising to let people use them as they please and would make a great deal of people happy. But with a name comes a reputation (good and bad) and there is BIG MONEY in that... IP is a BILLION $ business. If you walked out on the street and saw your mug on a billboard in a national sales campaign that was making millions, you would probably either sue the user for the use of your image or expect a portion of the sales. Same with BNSF. Just as soon as they let us use their image for free because we are good guys and promoting their business = Someone else would be selling "BNSF" hats and shirts at the next train show for profit screwing them out of what is rightfully theirs.
They are just looking out for there revenue by being tough across the board.

I would love to see BNSF go the way of UP, but it is easy to see why the may not opt to.

Hope everyone has a great weekend.

Todd


----------



## spodwo (Jan 2, 2008)

Let's see....

1. BNSF is to advertise in the SuperBowl. 

2. They are offering up a licensing agreement strategy. 


3. "However, the Intellectual Property people told them they’d have to plug the leaks, which is how they described the railroad hobbies. Where they are now makes a lot more sense. They only have to control their trademarks; they don’t have to be paid, which is good because they weren’t going to get much, anyway." 
4. It is discretionary in that they can just as easily give model train companies a waiver - as is their right to...and they should as this isn't a huge industry that rolls in 
high dollar incomes - well then again, Lionel sold over a $100-120 million dollars in OGauge trains in 2007. 


5. It IS their Logo. 


Try to put Ford, Coke, IBM, Apple, Nike, Disney Logos on something and sell it for profit. Yah....

"but we're just a cottage industry"

Whatever. See number 4 and number 5. 

When the UP thing came up - I pretty much said the same thing. 


BNSF is the ONLY company in my town that is hiring other than Walmart, Buffalo Wild Wings and McDonalds. 

I live in a RR town....and I am a Burlington guy. My Dad worked for the Burlington for 30 plus years. I still darn near puke every time I say BNSF because the Burlington and the Santa Fe is like having the Cub and Cardinals merge as one team.














But I see the freights every day and a Spur line is less than a mile from my house that I run down to on occassion. I hear the whistles at night...it sounds like progress and jobs to me. A lullaby of sorts as I grew up with that same long, long, short, long horn blast...

Frankly BNSF is a decently run RR. Well the Burlington side anyway!














I talk and know enough BNSF employees to know how things are run and how well the company is doing. I really DON'T mind paying more for a Burlington Route loco or rolling stock - add the 5% if you have to. Render unto Caeser, I say. See number 5. 


Your train manufacturers need to politely write some letters to BNSF and request waivers. But trashing on BNSF? Don't see the need. Just contact them with letters and ask for waivers for your favorite Train manufacturer. 

BNSF - They hire, pay very well and are still rolling. Unlike a lot of other companies... It is one of the last Main Line train companies.


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Guys, 

I am a Santa Fe person.. I use to live by the Trans-Con line.. I know there is some heart-burn over the merger.. But when UP tried this I put black tape over there name & would have painted over it if they had forced the train manufacturers to pay to use there logo.. I will do the same for BNSF, black tape is in hand.. 

BulletBob


----------



## KVBarkley (Jan 9, 2009)

The issue is not BNSF controlling their IP, the issue is whether to bleed a small industry dry over it. I am sure that any company would be happy to pay a $50 yearly fee and report each sale that involves BNSF IP. Advertising is usually not considered a profit center!


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Anyone reading the posts by Jim Davis (02/07/09) on the Aristo General Forum can read the reply by BNSF to John Sipple (editor Model Railroad News) outlining the BNSF licensing policy.

It is no where near the scare story portrayed by some posters and it is a shame that ridicule has been made.


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Alan, 

They must have "seen the righting on the wall", this is a good thing.. They seemed to learn faster than UP.. 

BulletBob


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Bob,

I have spoken with the gentleman who deals with Licensing at BNSF today and he was quite disappointed that the adverse publicity has arisen. He said that no one had checked with him at BNSF before the initial comments were published. 


He told me that one of the staff down at BNSF in Fort Worth is a large scale garden railroader. I don't know who the person is but it is a shame he doesn't come on the Forum.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

It really is amazing what happens when the "Investor Relations Department" of a corporation gets involved after an inquery from a stockholder, isn't it.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 02/09/2009 11:50 AM
It really is amazing what happens when the "Investor Relations Department" of a corporation gets involved after an inquery from a stockholder, isn't it. 

I would like to know exactly what that means. I have not seen the statement from BNSF and that link provided earlier was no good. As I see it, if BNSF wants to take a percentage from the companies who use their various logos, that is one thing. But what if their lawyers decide they want to pursue operations such as mine which are accessible to the public for a fee (at times when I do the tour) and which may include logos owned by BNSF?


----------



## Idraw4u (Aug 19, 2008)

Keep in mind this is just MHO..
If your running trains with BNSF logos which were purchased from a licensed dealer, BNSF will probably not have a problem with it. They made their money off of the sale of those items and the license of the dealer. I doubt your making a bundle giving an occasional tour, so I don't see them overly worried about loosing revenue on your tours.
However from what I read they intend to offer a license to anyone (for $1.00 and a few photos showing how your using their logo). If you pursue that, it may keep things on the up and up and ease your mind.

If one day you expand and say open a gift shop and start selling shirts and hats etc.. with any of the BNSF protected logos, you would need to let them know and expect to pay a percentage of your sales.

Of course BNSF still has the right to refuse a license and or sue whomever they feel is wrongly or illegally using their image(s), they do own them after all.

Best of Luck.


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

If you are really worried Ron then give Patrick Hiatte a ring at BNSF in Fort Worth TX. There is a Toll Free number - it works and I used it.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By blackburn49 on 02/10/2009 9:51 AM
Posted By SteveC on 02/09/2009 11:50 AM
It really is amazing what happens when the "Investor Relations Department" of a corporation gets involved after an inquiry from a stockholder, isn't it. 

I would like to know exactly what that means. I have not seen the statement from BNSF and that link provided earlier was no good. As I see it, if BNSF wants to take a percentage from the companies who use their various logos, that is one thing. But what if their lawyers decide they want to pursue operations such as mine which are accessible to the public for a fee (at times when I do the tour) and which may include logos owned by BNSF?
Ron

What that means, is when a stockholder expresses a concern (e.g. as per the original article in the Model Railroad News magazine [url]http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edJan09.html[/b][/url]) and the "Investor Relations Department" (or what ever any given corporation names it) deems it valid and of importance. Most any and all red-tape gets cut rapidly.

As the following links to specific replies located on the Aristo-Craft forum attest to

[url]http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showpost.php?p=131654&postcount=36[/b][/url]

[url]http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showpost.php?p=131655&postcount=37[/b][/url]

I don't believe that any department in any corporation pulls as much weight as "Investor Relations", maybe the "Sales Department", but it would be a close call I'd bet.

If you compare the editor's article and the letter from BNSF there is a great difference, and the letter is credited to a gentleman in Investor Relations.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 02/10/2009 11:35 AM


Ron

What that means, is when a stockholder expresses a concern (e.g. as per the original article in the Model Railroad News magazine [url]http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edJan09.html[/b][/url]) and the "Investor Relations Department" (or what ever any given corporation names it) deems it valid and of importance. Most any and all red-tape gets cut rapidly.

As the following links to specific replies located on the Aristo-Craft forum attest to

[url]http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showpost.php?p=131654&postcount=36[/b][/url]

[url]http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showpost.php?p=131655&postcount=37[/b][/url] 


Thanks for providing those links. The whole matter now makes sense. I don't see a problem with the BNSF corporate approach as it has now evolved.


----------



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

Hello all, 

Here are some off the wall solutions: 

1. Take the $1000 and divide it by the number of cars that will be sold (say 500 for this example). Up lift the price of cars by the initial charge ($1000/500 = $2) and put them on the market. IF they don't sell because they are over priced compared to other lines, then cancel the agreement and never sell another BNSF labeled train and pass the information up stream. 

2. Get all of the manufacturers together and get them all to agree NOT to cave into this and hence there will be NO BNSF labeled trains sold anywhere. (Now I know that getting everyone to go in and agree is a work of art in and of itself). 

3. Get all of the manufacturers to join together, form an association and have the association license the product! Distribute the cost for these license fees over all manufacturers. In this way the reporting could be done through a separate entity with its own set of books to deal with the licensing issues. 

Food for thought...... 
Rich


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By rreiffer on 02/10/2009 2:31 PM
... Get all of the manufacturers together and get them all to agree...

AHH HAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAHAAAAA AHHHAAHAAAHAAAAA HEHEEEHEHEHEHEEHEEHEEEHEE HEE HEE HEE mrpf...


Whew, just blew my coffee into my keyboard.


----------



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

Now tell me, wasn't the humor in that one worth it all?







If I can make anyone blow coffee out their nose my day has been a success! 
Rich


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I realize that this discussion is six years old but what ever happened to this "licensing" issue?
Both at BNSF and UP?

The links in the forum discussion no longer work.

Did UP and BNSF suspend the licensing requirement for model railroad manufacturers completely or do they still need a license but with a nimonal $1.- fee?
Anyone know?

Also, along those lines - what's the story re licensing of all the other logos, not railroads, on all the rolling stock?

I have heard that for the RhB in Switzerland for instance, one needs a license to use their logos and the payment is with one model of that specific RhB item the license is for.
Makes a lot of sense to me

Knut


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

AFAIK
UP, CSX, NS, and BNSF finally came to agreement through the efforts of the MRIA [Model Railroad Industry Association] and the NMRA to license the logos , etc as intellectual property. The license has no fee but specifically states that the user recognizes that the companies OWN the logos and the model manufacturer has NO RIGHTS to the "intellectual property"and trademarks.

HOWEVER... AMTRAK has just sent "cease and desist" letters to at least two companies that produce embroidery or silk screened logos or locomotive images on clothing like shirts and jackets. The AMTRAK license requires a percentage of sales, proof of workman's compensation and insurance for all employees... and a $1.0M [yes million] liability insurance policy with AMTRAK as the named insured. I guess that is in case you snag your Amtrak logo-ed jacket sleeve in a car door and decide to sue Amtrak for your carelessness.

The companies have decided they don't sell enough stuff with Amtrak logos to even recover the cost of the extra insurance... so no more AMTRAK jackets and shirts.

Of course, this is based on Amtrak deciding it is a private company, instead of a government entity. Phase of the moon I guess.


----------



## Beddhist (Dec 17, 2013)

I may be wrong, but it seems that this IP issue seems to have been around only for a few years. Model trains, toy trucks, etc. had company logos on them for donkey's years and we never heard about having to have a licence to produce them. (It is free advertising, remember?) Now the RHB want to be paid for this free advertising?

Can we take this to the extreme? If you take a picture of your BNSF loco and put it onto a web site (like this one) or publish it in a magazine, do you now need a licence to do that, too?


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

It is only an issue when you blatantly use a company logo because it is their intellectual property which they have the full rights of ownership. Most companies protect them these days. Often there are consumer products sold with logos which the rightful owners do not gain any revenue from. For instance, try selling anything in multiples on eBay with the Harley Davidson logo that is not an official HD endorsed product and the listing will be quickly removed by eBay upon complaint. They have watchdogs and are very quick to pull down infringements.
Sometimes even local Sunday markets are raided because of 'knock offs' of non official merchandise being sold.
Having an image with a company logo item in it somewhere can be ambiguous. If the logo is not the main aspect of the image or if the image is just a form of documentary it is usually OK but if the logo in the image is used as some kind of device I'm sure lawyers can all make a lot of money disputing. It's all about protecting the intellectual property for the benefit of it's rightful owner.
In the case of company logos on model trains etc. Any large company may not be interested in the small revenue they may make on such specialized niche items. In fact if used correctly it only benefits them because it is an emulation of what they actually do which is use their logo for advertising. They probably wish to have legal control on it though in case it's used in a derogatory way. 
Selling your own Harley Davidson caps etc. is a completely different story because they are in the business of doing that themselves being a huge revenue stream selling their merchandise to the masses. 

Andrew


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I raised this issue because it came up in a German Large Scale forum.

Some companies apparently, and Shell was singled out there, are raising their licensing fees to such a degree that the Large Scale manufacturer will no longer produce any cars with their logo.

I never thought that Large Scale manufacturers had to pay licensing fees for the use of these logos - there are thousands of different ones used by USATrains and Aristocarft etc. - are they really paying royalties to all these companies?

Knut


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

...


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Beddhist said:


> I may be wrong, but it seems that this IP issue seems to have been around only for a few years. Model trains, toy trucks, etc. had company logos on them for donkey's years and we never heard about having to have a licence to produce them. (It is free advertising, remember?) Now the RHB want to be paid for this free advertising?
> 
> Can we take this to the extreme? If you take a picture of your BNSF loco and put it onto a web site (like this one) or publish it in a magazine, do you now need a licence to do that, too?


Sometimes the requirement to license the logo, etc. is because there are people that will present the logo/etc. in a bad light to deliberately embarrass the company. The licensing agreement will have a clause that prohibits that sort of thing. It may be 'free advertising' but sometimes the type of 'advertising' is not what the company wants!

Other times, someone is making a profit off of the reputation of the company and the owner of the logo/etc. just wants their cut for the use of "their property".

If you have a photo (taken from a public place and otherwise legal in all respects) you have "fair use" of that image for your personal enjoyment, but if you are making money off of the photo, then there are some legal requirements you may have to meet or you MIGHT be subject to some legal action by the owner of the thing you took a photo of.

It really all boils down to $$$$$ and who is getting it and at whose expense.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

So back to our trains.

With LGB for instance - with their Coke cars and locos or the Peanuts stuff, there was a specific note both in the catalogue and on the packaging that LGB had obtained a license to use those logos on the product.
License could have some monetary compensation tied to it or not - don't know.

But for other more generic items with company logos, Shell, Esso, Texaco, Mobil....well the list is huge - sort of mind-boggling if every modeltrain manufacturer needs a license and pays royalties.
For the modeltrain manufacturers that could be a significant cut of their profits, for these huge companies like Shell and Esso,it's just pocket change - probably costs them more to administer than what they collect.

I would agree that the companies want to make sure their logo is used appropriately and not abused or distorted, but charging for a license underthese circumstances seems rather inappropriate.
I like the RhB approach - give us one of each of the different items you manufacture with our logo.
That gives them first hand the information how their logo is used and the cost to the modeltrain manufacturer at cost level is minimal.

Knut


----------

