theres a lively discussion on the N&W forum about the 611 trademarking.




Thats the initial question.

Theres been plenty of comments including the MTH/UP lawsuit.
Perhaps the lawmaker here can chime in, its obvious VMT is protecting an image, but there is already a lot of existing 611 material out there already.
The issue at hand is you just cannot trademark the J in general, but if some big chinese whomever makes Tshirts/cups whatever they are going to protect it.

Heck they just did a big photoshoot with the J, 1218, and 2156 invite everyone over take a shot. They're not going to be that so uptight.

If your going to do something I am sure they would love to know who what. VMT has plenty of projects to work on and restore, they've been in the hallow for a long time, the 611 is an opportunity to bounce up and get it going. I think of the early times of IRM and so on, they need this.

just shoot them the email.

I do think the trademarking needs to be figured out right tho and what they can/can't do.

I am seriously thinking about changing www.steamlocomotive.info to respect their new trademark(s)/policies. Instead of referring to the locomotive as N&W 4-8-4 No. 611, it would become "The Locomotive Which Must Not Be Named" and the photos of the locomotive would be replaced with photos of a large object under a tarpaulin.

Probably won't do it, at least not now. But it has been fun to thnk about.

I was adamantly against the trademarking of 611 when I first heard of it, and still am. We discussed it here on RYPN a month or so ago.

I think it sets a bad precedent and causes more harm than good. Their intended target for this are people who sell N&W J class merchandise, which in the grand scheme of things will never be a substantial source of revenue for VMT. But, some people run small businesses producing videos, apparel, books etc. and do we really want to put them out of business? Do we want every steam locomotive operator to trademark their respective locomotives with the resultant complex network of fees, rights, agreements etc. to just produce and sell a single video of the next Railfair type event? Or the inevitable video that shows a certain locomotive blurred out because they didn't get an agreement with the owner? What if so many youtube videos of 611 pop up that it seriously depresses official 611 DVD sales? VMT could then ask youtube to take down all 611 videos because they show the locomotive without a license agreement. That is what trademarking allows you to do.

There is the obvious problems with even attempting to trademark a 65 year old object that already holds a meaning other than as a symbol of VMT. In this case trademark law is being used solely as a club to beat down competition, and is not truly used as a mark of VMT. It can't be, because 65 years of precedence says that when you look at a J class locomotive, you automatically think about the N&W or the NS steam program, not VMT.

VMT would have been much better served to not trademark the 611 but instead to create a catalog full of merchandise that is so superior to any other offerings that they would dominate the market. They have captive selling opportunities at VMT events and on the trains that competitors cannot breach, and they have the moral appeal to make of buying products from the official source instead of the imposters. So they could easily dominate this market, and at the same time avoid this controversy.

Bottom line though is that like most of today's society, 99% either don't care or don't take the time to think of the long term effects of actions taken today. Most fans wouldn't care what VMT does as long as 611 continues to run. Steam at all costs is their motto!

I tend to think its lawyer thinking again, every youtube video is free advertising in a way, and you know advertising can be expensive on the big networks.
Posting something up on youtube isnt going to do anything, its who's selling something making money, VMT could look for a little of the profit off that. But if you get a whole bunch of small vendors selling teeshirts, coffee cups, putting a little back in to 611, then your making a little something, even tho it might not be much from each, collectively it works.
I don't think things like steamlocomotive.info etc have to worry or youtubers etc.

VMT needs to verify clearer how what when why the trademark ways.

This is true. However, any--and I mean ANY--brand or marketing consultant with a brain will make sure that DOES NOT happen. You don't go after every last amateur. Instead, you retain those (Powhatan?) arrows in your quiver for when some sloppy documentary maker makes a totally erroneous, drama-laden, hyperbolic "documentary" on the loco for cable TV, or some indie movie outfit makes stock footage that they later blend into the likes of a "Blair Witch Project" movie that makes the loco look bad or dangerous. The trademark gives you a form of veto power.
We already went through this with Union Pacific trademarking its logos and even its "heritage" SP and WP brands, and we've even had "conspiracy theories" abounding that state the entire "heritage" paint scheme diesel programs by NS and UP are simply a trademark/copyright enforcement tactic so they can go after model makers and t-shirt makers for money.
Has that happened yet? Have UP models and decals disappeared from the marketplace?



You yourself said in the next paragraph that "99% of railfans don't care". I would extrapolate that to "99% of the souvenir-buying public." The problem is that maintaining, and marketing, a line of merchandise, sold out of the commissary car (wait, do these trains even HAVE a freakin' commissary car anymore?!?!?), or better yet from a nice-looking van that pulls up at every servicing stop, bears with it a massive expense all its own.
Meanwhile, Joe's Local T-Shirt Shoppe cranks out two hundred cheapo "611 Returns To Podunk" t-shirts with cheap printing, and sells them trackside an hour before and after train time for $12 a pop, undercutting and robbing sales from the $19.95 "official" shirts. And, without the trademark registration, there's not a damned thing you can do about Joe.
There are other situations and scenarios as well. I've already shown off Roanoke Railhouse Brewery's two beers featuring images of a J. Experience has shown that some dour teetotaller is going to complain to VMT about "endorsing drinking," even though one has nothing to do with the other. Of course both VMT and the brewery can tell the person to buzz off and gain perspective, but it would be much better if the brewery were paying an officially sanctioned sum per year to the VMT as per a rights agreement. And, again, that can't be enforced without a trademark and precedence.

I honestly think the VMT dropped the ball on this. They may or may not get the trademark protection they seek for reasons debated by others (it's N&W, not VMT, etc.), and the time to apply for this was a year or two ago, BEFORE the massive spectacle of 611's return.

Let me ask those who have been to Spencer, trackside, etc.: has there been much in the way of 611 merchandise to buy, official OR unofficial? Did any Joe's Local T-Shirt Shoppe or other "craftsmen" show up with their own "bootleg" 611 caps, buttons, shirts, etc.?

I think that's probably a good idea. I was planning to go to VMT to see the return, but decided I might get sued if I looked at the locomotive.

Good, one less chaser in the way.

Imagine how massive the crowds would have been, and how many images and videos would have been posted, had they NOT scared away every law-abiding citizen who is so respectful of trademarks.

It's telling to me that people who have contacted VMT about licensing haven't heard anything back. Someone issued that press release without thinking it through and likely without running it by a lawyer, even one of those they had on hand.

The intent was honorable--"We put a lot of time, effort and money into this restoration, so please consider a donation if you profit from pictures or books about it"--but the execution left a lot to be desired and looked like a massive, and likely unenforceable, overreach.

This is probably another lesson, isn't it? When your museum issues a major statement, make it clear and run it by the board first.

Looked with happened when a real corporation (UP) went round and round with a fan making calendars.
A judge would likely toss out any attempted lawsuit from VMT, especially since they didn't design, build or run the Js originally.
For example, I own a 1944 jeep. The company that made it (Willys Motors) hasn't been in business for years. But I can't register the look of my Jeep for a copyright and if I did, I'd be in for a rude awakening if I went after anyone for any violation. Same thing even if I somehow owned the only WW2 Jeep in existence.
The entire concept is laughable.

If you don't actually understand the (important) difference between "copyright" and "trademark/service mark", you should reconsider even being in the discussion.

I used the wrong word. Sue me.
I think "Supreme God of rypn" hasn't been taken as a trademark, you should lawyer up and go for it.

I've said it before, and will probably say it again, but if I take a photo of that engine from public property, and am selling small (or large) quantities of that photo, *without implying it is endorsed, approved, or otherwise affiliated with VMT or anyone else*, I cannot possibly see how they'd be able to do a damn thing.

It has been my experience that you can stop people from photographing items on private property and then selling those photos for a profit (Disney for example) but once you're visible from public property, you're fair game and can't control it (Every issue of the National Midnight Star Enquirer ever printed).

One place this whole issue gets real sticky is "editorial use" versus "commercial use". If you've ever submitted photography to a stock agency, you'll know that they have all kinds of rules for what can and cannot be submitted for stock photos for commercial use. As an example, here in Seattle, you cannot sell stock photos which prominently feature the Space Needle. They also prohibit corporate logos of any kind. They basically want to be sure nobody can make an add saying "Official Beer of the Space Needle" without the Space Needle's official permission.

However, for editorial and art use, the rules change. Exactly how and when is where copyright and trademark lawyers make a living.

How does somebody trademark something that is not (their) original work and has been in the public domain since 1950?

Maybe the nice folks repatriating a certain LNE S-2 will have to pay a royalty to VMT to use the number assigned by the original owner?

Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship"

Trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.


http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm

Consider how "merciful" you/we would be to someone who confuses "locomotive" and "train car." Or "combine" and "caboose."

Or mangled some military terminology between, say, the Army, Navy, and Marines. (I'm not going to get specific because I admit I don't know. Wait--maybe if I called a C-47 a "DC-3"...... )

When you screw up on that basic a level, even with an "oops" typo, you give those who know the particulars and language the license to ignore you as ignorant or incompetent at the subject at hand. It's not fair, but it's inevitable.