This is from Bob Webber
: Re: FW: UP
There have been more than a few notes regarding the UP Licensing program and how UP "gave in".
It should be important to note that the only thing that has been in any way resolved is the monetary portion of the license and certain other issues relative to the modeling industry. Which is not a minor thing to be sure. But, that isn't what the whole licensing issue is about, nor is it what troubles a lot of people.
For instance, it doesn't address the fact that UP still asserts their ownership of the trademarks of past railroads. It doesn't address their ability to deny use of those trademarks. It doesn't address clothing, photos (for instance, they claim you can;t use a UP image on the cover of (or inside) a book without their permission), calendars, and other non-modeling issues. It doesn't address decals - for UP or past railroads - which is a very big issue. It doesn't address images and drawings of equipment. There are any number of things that it DOESN'T address. Or that it doesn't appear to address - we may not know.
That the monetary issue and some of the more odious issues of time and inspections and such are gone are a good thing. Are the requirements to have all issues brought to court in Omaha gone? Again, we don't know. It will be interesting if we ever see a redrawn agreement or the decision - note that the original agreement between the UP and the entity was always supposed to be kept secret.
What is a shame is that this has really muddied the waters of what should be the one continual program that provides UP with constant good will - the heritage steam program. By tying the licensing program in with the steam program, they really sullied the skirts of that program. They really developed a kind of schitzo PR organization, typical of huge corporations going through huge changes due to mergers and changing market dynamics. To let their number one PR device suffer was really painful to see. Because through the steam program and through their work with on-line museums and other entities they DO great work, and always have. One look at the museum at Portola, North Freedom, and other associated museums should be enough to convince people of that. To alienate that very sector of people who support those areas was always a strange move - the administration costs alone were not being covered. And, saying that the image was important to them while seeing car after car pass in a train covered in rather base graffiti that had been there for years - and seeing even new locomotives tagged and not cleaned - seemed like a dubious argument.
But, make no mistake - the recent MTH announcement certainly does not mean UP "gave up". They gave up one portion of the program. Until all the results are in, I don't think they'll let the rest go.
(and later I wrote to another group):
The UP issue is only partially about modelling royalties. It's also about whether the UP can legally claim trademarks of "fallen flags". Especially flags of LONG fallen railroads. For instance, such railroads as The Colorado Central, Denver South Park & Pacific, Rio Grande Western, Denver &Salt Lake, and even Western Pacific. They actually went to court to block use of trademarks they hadn't claimed yet - and then went to court to lay claim to those same marks. That whole ball of wax really needs to be cleared up - because UP claims that you can't issue a book with an image with a mark they claim, or a photo with said image without their permission. Which could change the way rail photography has historically been used. That a FEE has been rescinded means nothing, if you still need (and the corollary indicates that it can be refused) permission to publish a photo.
Further, even if there is no money involved, the whole issue of some of the items in the agreements as indicated in the various complaints are still up in the air. Do all complaints still have to heard - at their expense - in an Omaha court? The model issue aside, does UP still have the right to decide if an article of clothing is "good enough"?
The whole issue comes down to basically UP insisting that they have - or should have complete control over their image, and yet, when you look at their physical plant - the one HUGE and most obvious purveyor of that image, it is replete with cars and locomotives that have been tagged with various sketchy symbols by graffiti artists some of which have not been cleaned or repainted for years. If UP is so concerned about their image, these rolling billboards would be the surest and quickest way to ensure a positive image, yet how many of us see horribly scarred UP box cars, covered hoppers and even locomotives that remain that way for years? SO image is hardly something that seems to be in their interest. So why is it that they should be so critical of how a D&SL patch is used on an engineer's hat - and what gives them the right to take all the inventory, all of the accounting information, all of the moneys associated with that and other items in that line, and the only recourse is to go to Omaha and enter into a court battle - with all of your inventory tied up, all of your money gone, and all of your computers gone? These are issues that have people extremely upset, and that have to be cleared up. Note the language in the releases, and how these issues are not addressed.
If you take a photo of a UP locomotive, from your land, and publish that image, do you need to get UP's permission? According to UP, you do (or did - and THAT is still unclear). If you take a photo of a building on your property and a UP locomotive is in the background, do you have to get UP's permission to publish it? According to UP you do (or did). There are still serious questions of fundamental freedoms and trademark laws that have not been addressed or have not been explained by these releases.
A
