WHY I CAN'T 3D PRINT CERTAIN ITEMS. SO PLEASE DON'T ASK!

Sorry if I miss-read part of this, but in reference to scaling.

Let's say you purchased a 1:1000 model kit, if you were to scan the original and then 3'd print a copy but scaled to 1:500, you WOULD be in violation of the copyright?  Just making sure I am understanding this correctly.

In general, assuming the item in question was protected in the first place, then changing the scaling would not destroy the protection.

For example, if you shrink or expand the size of a Disney sign, it would still violate whatever protection they may have. 

Copyright law is complicated, and then there is if the holder bothers to defend it. People were shocked when the railroads suddenly went after model train makers over using the logos of the various railroads, when for years they viewed it as free advertising (heck, some companies paid Lionel to use their logos and such) and didn't bother (personally, I thought it was stupid, like ASCAP trying to hit the boyscouts and girlscouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire, brought a lot of bad publicity).

Then, too, there is for your own use versus commercial. For example, using a copier to copy commercially protected work is legal (like a book), if it is for your own use, like copying a section of a book or a magazine at the library for doing research for example (on the other hand, copying an entire book you didn't buy would be illegal; however you can copy a book you own if it is for your own use).

If someone offers a detail kit for an engine commercially, and you use their parts and make copies using 3d, it is illegal, but if you create your own based on scale drawings, that is perfectly legal.

Can you make a version of a NY Central trackside signal? For your own use, yes. Could you sell it to others? Depends on if the copyright holder still has the copyright, and if they care (so for NYC, likely might be CSX...). Could you make a signal for a friend and give it to them? Gray area, since it is non commercial (among other things, I doubt CSX legal department would care).

In general, where copyright infringement becomes an issue is where doing what you do somehow effects the copyright holder. The train companies went after model makers in a revenue grab, but would they go after someone making a model of a signal? I doubt it. A kit manufacturer, on the other hand, if you copy their parts, is being hurt.

Another gray area..so someone needs a part for the body of a Lionel engine and it is not available..Lionel might still own the copyright, but in that case fair use (as I understand it) would allow it, because in that case Lionel isn't hurt, since they don't make the proper part (and obviously, for yourself, even if Lionel makes the part, if you can do it, not likely they would know).

On the other hand it isn't a bad thing to assume that there could be copyright infringement and not do it, safer that way if there is any question. FYI I am not a lawyer, so anyone who is one and knows copyright law, and feels what I said was mistaken, feel free to correct me....I did some research on music copyright (specifically digitizing old 78's of classical music my son wanted to turn into a business) and it was pretty bizarre, in a nutshell pretty much anything that was done before the mid 20's would be legal, after that likely not...but there are exceptions, too.

What is "fair use"?

Fair use is the right to use a copyrighted work under certain conditions without permission of the copyright owner.  The doctrine helps prevent a rigid application of copyright law that would stifle the very creativity the law is designed to foster.  It allows one to use and build upon prior works in a manner that does not unfairly deprive prior copyright owners of the right to control and benefit from their works.  Together with other features of copyright law like the idea/expression dichotomy discussed above, fair use reconciles the copyright statute with the First Amendment.

So fair use is not applicable to making parts not being made.

Fair enough, Allan, though I think if Lionel tried to go after someone for producing a part they themselves had discontinued, they would have a hard time (and again, not a lawyer, from what i have seen and heard in real life). They would likely have a hard time if someone printed a part they needed if Lionel wasn't producing it for sale themselves..and obviously, again, if we are talking non commercial, it is unlikely the Lionel would even know about it. I remember vaguely a case like this in business law, where someone produced something a manufacturer had abandoned years before, and one of the arguments in the ruling was that by not producing the product for years, that they were not supporting the copyright (and my memory is hazy, it is also possible others had produced the item, and the company owning the rights never challenged them , which I do know is a case where a copyright becomes de facto invalidated, if the holder doesn't defend it for years then suddenly decides to).

On the other hand, if something goes beyond someone's own use, it is dicey territory; if someone does it for themselves, not likely anyone would know or care, even if ethically dubious.

A few small observations from someone who teaches this stuff for a living:

• A trackside signal is unlikely to be copyrightable for two reasons. First, in the case of anything produced prior to 1989, if it did not bear a copyright notice then it most likely passed into the public domain. Second, the design of a "useful article" is copyrightable only to the extent it possesses artistic features that are conceptually separable from its utilitarian aspects. Since signals and other equipment are entirely utilitarian, a replica of one has no copyrightable features.
• Even if something is theoretically copyrightable, there must be a minimum quantum of creative expression to qualify for copyright. While it is impossible to say exactly how much creativity is necessary, simple designs and logos are often held insufficiently creative to merit a copyright.
• The same comments above apply to a part. Very few, if any, parts of a model would contain sufficient expression separable from their utilitarian functions to qualify for copyright protection. And anything produced before 1989 without a copyright notice would be fair game regardless.
• The doctrine of fair use is not limited to uses that build upon or make something new out of the old work. The effect on the market for the copyrighted work is said to be the most important factor in assessing fair use, and making (especially on a limited scale) copies of parts that are not available from the manufacturer is unlikely to affect the value of any copyright that might exist in a part.

@Richie C. posted:

In general, assuming the item in question was protected in the first place, then changing the scaling would not destroy the protection.

For example, if you shrink or expand the size of a Disney sign, it would still violate whatever protection they may have.

Some times I ask co-workers to explain things to me like I am five, this is why. Thank you much! This is a very interesting topic, just because I want an O scale Walters Blast furnace, knowing a guy with a 3d printer is a not a legal solution!

If a person materially benefits from production of said item, they are in violation of the law.

So if I set up a movie projector in my backyard and show same to friends at no cost, it's fine. If I charge admittance, problem.

I can make parts and give them away, then technically I am not in violation. Selling them, not so good. Of course, most companies don't have the time or resources to pursue the small fry. (How many VHS tapes have we all copied?)

However, some companies (someone earlier mentioned Disney) have trademarks on some items, which can effectively extend the life of a character or copyright. I don't pretend to understand the complexities of all this, but if you were to make a Mickey Mouse doll after 2024 that looked "too much" like MM, Disney might sue you for violating their trademark. Only the old original Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain, so if you produced say a sorcerer Mickey, which will be PD in 2036, you have violated their trademark and they will hunt you down...........

Not sure how any of the above applies to 3D printing model railroad parts, but I like researching!

look at the forum, see all the very creative things that are made here.

there are sooo many OTHER things to make with a 3D printer why make someone else's design??

Just a note...

When we started this forum one of my primary interest was and still remains unobtainable 'parts'.  I wrote to Lionel about this specifically stating that I was and intended to continue 3D printing unobtainable parts.  I further stated that the parts I produced would not be offered for sale... but, that I would provide other modelers those parts upon request 'free of charge'.   Apparently, Lionel did not consider this activity threatening to their bottom line as they did not reply.

Cheers

Dennis

Your  thread reminds me of the joke.

A guy is falling off a tall building.

I open up a window and as he passes by I yell,

How's it going

The guy yells back.

SO FAR SOOOO GOOD.

I'm still falling Alan!!!!  No bottom in sight! 

Some of you folks need to brush up on copyright law, trademark law, patent law and what the difference is. So much misinformation in one small thread...

@Professor Chaos posted:

A few small observations from someone who teaches this stuff for a living:

• A trackside signal is unlikely to be copyrightable for two reasons. First, in the case of anything produced prior to 1989, if it did not bear a copyright notice then it most likely passed into the public domain. Second, the design of a "useful article" is copyrightable only to the extent it possesses artistic features that are conceptually separable from its utilitarian aspects. Since signals and other equipment are entirely utilitarian, a replica of one has no copyrightable features.
• Even if something is theoretically copyrightable, there must be a minimum quantum of creative expression to qualify for copyright. While it is impossible to say exactly how much creativity is necessary, simple designs and logos are often held insufficiently creative to merit a copyright.
• The same comments above apply to a part. Very few, if any, parts of a model would contain sufficient expression separable from their utilitarian functions to qualify for copyright protection. And anything produced before 1989 without a copyright notice would be fair game regardless.
• The doctrine of fair use is not limited to uses that build upon or make something new out of the old work. The effect on the market for the copyrighted work is said to be the most important factor in assessing fair use, and making (especially on a limited scale) copies of parts that are not available from the manufacturer is unlikely to affect the value of any copyright that might exist in a part.

I'm quoting this because what you said can't be repeated enough!

@AlanRail posted:

So fair use is not applicable to making parts not being made.

Only if the parts not being made were actually copyrightable in the first place. Most aren't. A Lionel coupler can't be copyrighted.

@Magicland posted:

Only if the parts not being made were actually copyrightable in the first place. Most aren't. A Lionel coupler can't be copyrighted.

A lot of this will boil down to are you being paid or is it for your own use? A very good example of this was a few years ago a group of "trekkies" built a full scale set of the USS Enterprise bridge and would film themselves enjoying the hobby/set. Then they would post the videos, Paramount the company that owns the Star Trek brand sent out a cease and desist letter, they wrote back and forth a few times explaining that they are just fans of the show, in the end Paramount had no issues as long as they made no profit from the production/set/film. Many companies take the same tact.

Another good example of this is many years ago a friend of mine who modeled NYC subway cars in HO Brass wanted the original TA emblems reproduced. I contacted the NYCTA and asked for a copy of one of the decals/emblems. They wanted to know how I was going use them, I wrote back explaining the use and that no fees would be charged. They sent me multiple photos of the emblem with different styles. When in doubt just ask.

@Dennis-LaRock,

I don’t know if this matters, but did you send the letter to Lionel via registered or certified mail?

@ThatGuy posted:

A lot of this will boil down to are you being paid or is it for your own use? A very good example of this was a few years ago a group of "trekkies" built a full scale set of the USS Enterprise bridge and would film themselves enjoying the hobby/set. Then they would post the videos, Paramount the company that owns the Star Trek brand sent out a cease and desist letter, they wrote back and forth a few times explaining that they are just fans of the show, in the end Paramount had no issues as long as they made no profit from the production/set/film. Many companies take the same tact.

Another good example of this is many years ago a friend of mine who modeled NYC subway cars in HO Brass wanted the original TA emblems reproduced. I contacted the NYCTA and asked for a copy of one of the decals/emblems. They wanted to know how I was going use them, I wrote back explaining the use and that no fees would be charged. They sent me multiple photos of the emblem with different styles. When in doubt just ask.

Wrong. Being paid CAN play a part, and "for personal use" certainly does, but your example is wrong. First, it has nothing to do with copyright. Second, since they were distributing the videos, they weren't for "personal use". If I posted the complete text of a bestselling novel online for free, it would still be a copyright violation, even though I receive no compensation for it. Same if I uploaded a current movie.

Your example of the NYC subway cars also has NOTHING to do with copyright. The emblems aren't copyrighted. They probably involve the use of trademarks, but that's a totally different thing. And, as the MTA is a government agency, it probably is prohibited from trademarking its logos by the Lanham act.

@Magicland posted:

Wrong. Being paid CAN play a part, and "for personal use" certainly does, but your example is wrong. First, it has nothing to do with copyright. Second, since they were distributing the videos, they weren't for "personal use". If I posted the complete text of a bestselling novel online for free, it would still be a copyright violation, even though I receive no compensation for it. Same if I uploaded a current movie.

Your example of the NYC subway cars also has NOTHING to do with copyright. The emblems aren't copyrighted. They probably involve the use of trademarks, but that's a totally different thing. And, as the MTA is a government agency, it probably is prohibited from trademarking its logos by the Lanham act.

Next time read what I say not what you think I say, in the end I said when in doubt ask the TA has trademarked and copyrighted the older TA logo. While you reply is technically correct, you miss the whole point.

@peter allen 072518 posted:

Some times I ask co-workers to explain things to me like I am five, this is why. Thank you much! This is a very interesting topic, just because I want an O scale Walters Blast furnace, knowing a guy with a 3d printer is a not a legal solution!

Peter, most of us who model steel mills have wished that Walthers would reproduce their HO structures in O. That's not really a viable (profitable) business endeavor in O.  They are just too big and sales would be a lot less than we think.  Not many people have that kind of real estate.  Regardless, I'll offer you some encouragement in this regard:

1. Scratch-building is much easier than most of us think (I know from personal experience).
2. The truly difficult aspect of a blast furnace (in my opinion) is the downcomer piping.

So if you find yourself some plans and make generous use of large Plastruct tubes, you may have a path forward.  Alternatively, I'm thinking that 3D printing a specific downcomer assembly that you have drawn doesn't violate anyone's copyright.  If my thinking is wrong, it doesn't seem practical for someone to legally pursue a modeler for a single, personal use, does it?

To be clear - I am NOT telling you to violate copyright law.

George

No. Unless the manufacturer or copyright owners specifically gives up their rights, they haven't!

The strained arguments that: 1) "I contacted them and they did not reply" is not evidence that those rights were given up. Also, that 2) I print just the the copyrighted items they no longer produce for FREE does not excuse my infringement.

There may be a latches argument I could make should Lionel or MTH for example just sit on their rights for a bit of time and do nothing. Still that would be a very risky way to go, especially after the summons appears at my door!.

The only way I would be comfortable 3D printing their copyrighted items is when they send me a letter that says: Hey Alan we are putting THESE copyrighted item in the public domain. So feel free to print them. And /Or here are the .STL files go forth and print.

None of the above has any likelihood of occurring. 

Another innocuous note - I merely plead... in writing ...to being guilty   I think there may be a little to much reading (or, not reading) between the lines here.  I don't recall anybody saying anybody gave up any rights... if, said rights even exist.  I just let them know that I was going to fix my trains come **** or high-water before I'm dead.

I promise you Dennis I WILL NOT contact the Lionel Copyright Police!

Thank you, Alan!!!!   I will definitely sleep a little better tonight!

This just reminded me that I'm missing a tool-box on the vandy tender (which, is unobtainable) Lord knows where I put it... firing up the printer.

@Dennis-LaRock,  if I may be allowed a slight thread hijack...Have you ever considered printing the handrail stanchions for the Vandy tender? These are made from unobtainium as well... I need some...

John

Why would the toy train industry be any different than the automotive industry?

If your car breaks down there are thousands of stores nationwide that supply aftermarket replacements, whether cosmetic or functional, under many brand names to replace worn or damaged parts. Windshields, fan belts, bearings, water and fuel pumps, exhaust parts, AC parts, suspension and steering, alternators, starters, etc. I don't recall any of those suppliers being sued by the automotive manufacturers.

By the way, you don't copyright a part. You may be able to patent it, however, if it meets the criteria: What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office  Having a machine that stamps out toy train wheels does not prevent someone else from having a machine to stamp out toy train wheels. You could patent your method for doing it, though, if it would meet the patent criteria.

No one said you were wrong, Allan, for not wanting to print stuff that may or not be actionable. It would be highly unlikely for anyone to go after you for doing this, since it is small scale and likely for free or cost of materials, but that is up to you, or if for example you felt like it was wrong.

Generally the copyright or patent holder only acts if there is real financial loss there. Someone 3d printing a part they don't even sell any more would make no sense. If there was money to be made there Lionel would make the part, but especially given how cheap the part is, they won't bother.

In terms of copying a Walther's HO kit and making it O scale using printing, would be an impossible case. First of all, they don't make an O version. Secondly,if it was a generic station kit, would be really hard to prove someone's version copied it; if it was prototype then even less so. Unless there was something unique in the kit ( doubtful), really hard to prove,they literally would have to prove that every piece in your model was identical to the kit, and for what?

Where it would be different is something unique. If someone did a 3d print model that copied something like Menard's UFO scene, then I could see it. Even then, if someone built it for themselves, and was not making a bunch of them,especially selling them, then maybe. 1 for their own use? Doubtful they would bother.

In the end copyright or patent holders protect them when there is financial reason to do so,where they can make money through licensing or whether they could lose money from knockoffs. If someone produced a lot of knockoffs of the Menard's UFO scene, even if they gave them away or at cost, it would deny Menards revenue on a significant scale.

As far as whether something is copyrightable or patentable, that is another kettle of fish, like Apple trying to patent the GUI they had on the MAC, all kinds of things around originality or that they even created it ( they didn't, Apple stole it from Xerox).

Yes, we have discussed that.  The consensus was that they are just to small to print a functional stanchion using filament printers.   Alan has a resin printer which may work.  I think he needed the specific dimensions (there are two (2) different sized stanchions for the Vandy).  Check this thread...

Hand Rail Stanchions... A Suitable Candidate for 3D printing?

Update: I bought some replacement stanchions many years ago to replace the broken ones on the Vandy.  Before they got here I used Black Jack Neoprene (roofing cement) and a toothpick to dab/repair the broken stanchions... those Neoprene'd stanchions are still in service today.  It worked very well.

Patents “In order to infringe on a claim, your device must include each and every element of A  claim. however, without reading all of the claims approved by the Patent Office, I dont know if there is an infringement of one of them.

Copyrights are different and can last 125 years. AGAIN a copyright is a unique interpretation of an idea fixed in a  medium. A copyright need not be registered with the Copyright Office to be protected.

HE SAID "Alan has a resin printer which may work.  I think he needed the specific dimensions (there are two (2) different sized stanchions for the Vandy)." See thread.

No one gave me those dimensions, so I never made any!!

Thanks Dennis and Alan, I'll see about getting that info to you.

John

Would someone explain how can all the car parts that are duplicated and sold be legal?

A 'little' off the subject of trains but still seems related as how can car parts be duplicated but not train parts?

Patents of Auto parts are covered under the exhaustion doctrine. So some NOT ALL can be made for repair. Not true with toys because the insurance industry is involved with auto repairs and has a big lobby.

However, aside from utility patents there are design patents too.  Many auto parts fall under a design patent and are claimed by GM or say Ford cannot be made by third parties.

GM and Ford do license to third parties to make certain parts you see on shelves as non-OEM parts.

The patent court in DC does not see TOYs the same as auto parts used for repair..

@ThatGuy posted:

Next time read what I say not what you think I say, in the end I said when in doubt ask the TA has trademarked and copyrighted the older TA logo. While you reply is technically correct, you miss the whole point.

You're still wrong. You didn't mention trademarks at all, read what you wrote. And again, as a government agency, they're prohibited from trademarking their logos, old or new. If, by some chance the USTPO assigned them ones, they're invalid. Many people think they hold rights to things and can prevent you from using them, when in fact they can't. Doesn't mean they won't try.

@Magicland posted:

You're still wrong. You didn't mention trademarks at all, read what you wrote. And again, as a government agency, they're prohibited from trademarking their logos, old or new. If, by some chance the USTPO assigned them ones, they're invalid. Many people think they hold rights to things and can prevent you from using them, when in fact they can't. Doesn't mean they won't try.

You must be a real joy, since you do not read and must be correct......have a great day." melius est nihil dicere quam stultum probare et corrigere."

@AlanRail posted:

Patents of Auto parts are covered under the exhaustion doctrine. So some NOT ALL can be made for repair. Not true with toys because the insurance industry is involved with auto repairs and has a big lobby.

However, aside from utility patents there are design patents too.  Many auto parts fall under a design patent and are claimed by GM or say Ford cannot be made by third parties.

GM and Ford do license to third parties to make certain parts you see on shelves as non-OEM parts.

The patent court in DC does not see TOYs the same as auto parts used for repair..

Alan, no offense but your information does not seem entirely correct.

While one can repair a patented item without liability, the exhaustion doctrine would not allow you to make a new patented part if the part itself is the subject of the patent claim.

It is true that auto parts may be covered by design patents. But there is no doctrine that I know of that would distinguish toy parts from auto parts in utility or design patent law. If by the "patent court in DC does not see TOYs the same" you mean there is a particular decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that gives you that impression, I would welcome you to direct me to it so that I can take a look.

However, a design patent could never issue for a scale model or part of a scale model, because the design would not be original. So I am not sure why you are comparing auto parts and model parts.

As for the earlier discussion on copyright in parts, for the reasons I explained upthread, it is very unlikely that any part of a model could be copyrighted, and even if so fair use would likely permit small-scale reproduction of such parts.

"As for the earlier discussion on copyright in parts, for the reasons I explained upthread, it is very unlikely that any part of a model could be copyrighted, and even if so fair use would likely permit small-scale reproduction of such parts."

What this fellow said .  Not to mention that no one is going to spend expensive legal expertise on pursuing someone for making a replacement part that is worth a few cents or dollars.

Copyright law is quite clear with published material, for example,  that making a copy of something for personal use (e.g., a scientific paper or textbook figure) is not copyright infringement.  It's fair use.   All the world's scientists do this all the time and no one much cares in any case.

Making a replacement part,  using any method you like,  to repair something you own personally, would almost never be considered a patent infringement, trademark violation or copyright violation.  As long as you do not provide it to others and do not economically benefit, there would be no basis for making a claim.  Particularly if the item isn't available from the holder of the patent, etc.

Not a lawyer, but have listened to them carefully over a career in science/medicine.   In general, except for malice, people do not sue other people unless there is significant injury (i.e., loss of money).

If the part is NLA, and has no hopes of being rerun by the mfr., one would think the mfr. would welcome aftermarket options for products they will never produce again…….in the case of our models, ( toys or whatever you want to call them) if there’s an aftermarket solution, folks will have that particular mfr. on their mind while enjoying their product ……on the flip side, given the current status of one mfr’s  parts with many NLA parts, and if they were tight lipped about aftermarket parts, the end user ( consumer ) would think twice about buying a new product from that mfr. based on the fact that if a part fails, they’re SOL, ….so rather than speculate and throw around law theories and practices ( many of which are founded BTW) , let’s ask the powers to be right here on this thread…..the question is quite simple. How can we get parts to fix and repair our models when the parts are NLA, and might not ever be available?……

Pat

Exactly Pat     Now, everyone start making NLA parts and keep Lionel (and, the others) HAPPY!