Big Dawg Originals - Intellectual property theft

No one is arguing that. The accusation is the BD took an actual Rapido body shell, poured liquid rubber around it to form a mold, and is casting resin copies of it. Just because Rapido's model is based on a prototype doesn't mean they don't have intellectual property rights on the model that they produced through their own research and work. They can't stop someone from doing their own research and work to produce a model of the same loco, but they can stop someone from simply molding one of their own shells.

Steve S

 

However I've also heard some of the BD shells still have the Kato or Atlas part numbers or what not molded into them.

 

That's where it gets sticky. You CAN take someones work and copy it....for your own use.

 

Where does it say that?

I think digital formats are the only allowable copies and that just one for yourself.


Jason

 

I've read that BD had removed the Rapido based shell - likely until all the fur and feathers settle, then maybe they'll put it back up again. uh huh.

 

I bought a wide cab from him, I could see a number on the side of the cab, so I looked into it. It was a mold of the IM SD40-2W cab with no modifications what so ever. He didn't even strip the cab before he molded it. I emailed IM to let them know. I'm all for modifying something, but I'm not keen on theft.

 

You've always been allowed to do that, you just can't sell it. Quick one off the top of my bald spot...Kalmbach drawings....user is allowed to make copies for his own use, but not for commercial purposes.
The rub (and legality) seems to come into play when you make a bunch and try to sell them. Then you've crossed the line.
And I could tell you about the K-27 drawings in MR in 1973...and how that played out over the decades. Sort of like the non-existent street or tow or road on a map. They do it to catch folks who just copy and sell.

 

Actually, no, you've never been allowed to do that. There are no provisions in the copyright law to make copies for yourself, not even one. It is written in plan text that the owner of the copy has the exclusive rights to making copies. Now as I said before, there are digital exclusions to this, some of which have been over turned recently in the UK, where you can make backup copies of software or make multiple copies of music to have on different devices.

Within the scope of model railroading, by law, any copies you make regardless of what they are used for, are a violation of the copyright law.

Of course we live in the real world not a law book, and we tend to push the boundaries when it comes to things like this, but at some point you do cross a line and different people will have different ideas of where that line should be.

Jason

 

This board has way too many lawyers.

 

Read it carefully. It says you cannot make a profit, sell, or distribute to others.
The issue in this thread is making a profit, and selling that to others.
The big issue is if you don't sell it or provide it for others, no one will know.
Go back and familiarize yourself with what this thread is about. THERE is the copyright issue.
On some things, it is quite clear. On others, like most laws, it is not, hence you need a lawyer to muddy the matter.

 

edit:

Nevermind, I thought I found what you're referring to, but it says nothing about profit or distributing.

Here's what I read. Section 106.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Jason

 

Technically, Rapido owns the molds correct. I mean, they can't own the design per se, because it's a scale model. A cast of the shell and a shell made from that mold would be a derivative work, but I do believe a personal use mold would fall under fair use. Otherwise kitbashing would also be illegal.
Section 107: Fair use is the relevant section.
Honestly, I'm not sure how you copyright a shell.

 

Not really, with today's only make what is ordered, there are no spare parts available, and if there are any they go to repair damaged units. Why should Rapido sell to somebody who is ripping off their intellectual property when they need any spare parts to cover their own sales.

Rick J

 

Rapido would be selling WHOLE units to power the BD shells. Even if the parts were available, it would cost someone far more to assemble a powered chassis from parts rather than just buying an extra unit.

I enriched Bachmann by buying an extra one of their DDA40Xs to power an original-work DD35 Shapeways shell by James Norris.

The point is, this entire thread should be entitled "We Don't Want to Spend the Money on Lawyers So We'll Use a Public Forum to Engage in a Little Character Assassination".

Rapido may be right with legal recourse available to them but they should pursue that recourse or remain quiet.

Right or wrong, this thread is street-corner bullying.

 

Why are you defending a dodgy party? I disagree that Rapdio should remain quiet just because it would be cost prohibitive to take legal action. What? Just lie down and be ripped of? SMH. It isn't character assassination if Rapido is clearly in the right.

 

CopieS. derivative workS. That's where the issue lies.....multiple copieS or workS.
There is a section on commercial use....part of the "fair use" disclaimer.
Like I said, it is so unclear it takes a lawyer to muddy the matter.

 

To be clear:

I am not taking sides in this matter.

If Rapido wants to pursue legal action, as is their right, then do so.

But they are attempting to try the case in the "court of public opinion" and many of you seem to be willing accomplices.

You are being used.

That is not right.

 

I was gonna say, the idea that it must cost you more to build from parts must come from someone whose never done an rpp shell