So speaking as a Lawyer, Yes I am one who practices in intellectual property law as well as other areas.
I too would like to hear from Lionel and MTH regarding freely printing their designs that are either not made or not well-stocked. But I will tell you their answer before they do. It is:
Cease and Desist making our copyrighted and design patented materials. if you do not stop a lawsuit will soon follow.
There, I saved them some legal fees.
What would be the consequences be if you marketed an unobtainium 3D printed part as a “non-factory replacement part” for an MTH or Lionel design. Clearly stipulating that the part may not work the same as an injection molded part from the oem.
@AlanRail posted:So speaking as a Lawyer, Yes I am one who practices in intellectual property law as well as other areas.
I too would like to hear from Lionel and MTH regarding freely printing their designs that are either not made or not well-stocked. But I will tell you their answer before they do. It is:
Cease and Desist making our copyrighted and design patented materials. if you do not stop a lawsuit will soon follow.
There, I saved them some legal fees.
For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you seem to have a rather flimsy grasp on the actual law. Lionel doesn't have "design patents" on any of their items (as far as I know. If I'm wrong, please list them). Their "designs" also aren't copyrighted (as that's not what copyright is). Anyone can send a "cease and desist" letter. That doesn't make it legal. In fact, it's the first step many shysters undertake when attempting to stop production of something they know they can't legally stop. Filing a lawsuit actually costs money, and will rarely be done when losing money isn't involved. However, some companies with deep pockets will still follow this route, knowing not that they are legally correct, but that they can financially beat their opponent into submission before any actual legal ruling is issued.
@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.
Logos are completely different. They are trademarked.
Trademarks != Copyright
I 3D printed a couple replacement ashpan vents for my Lionel S1 and even gave a couple away to someone in need. These are unavailable from Lionel and I really doubt Lionel’s going to give a rip.
@Magicland posted:For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you seem to have a rather flimsy grasp on the actual law. Lionel doesn't have "design patents" on any of their items (as far as I know. If I'm wrong, please list them). Their "designs" also aren't copyrighted (as that's not what copyright is). Anyone can send a "cease and desist" letter. That doesn't make it legal. In fact, it's the first step many shysters undertake when attempting to stop production of something they know they can't legally stop. Filing a lawsuit actually costs money, and will rarely be done when losing money isn't involved. However, some companies with deep pockets will still follow this route, knowing not that they are legally correct, but that they can financially beat their opponent into submission before any actual legal ruling is issued.
Obviously in your eyes @AlanRail is a lousy attorney. Based on your comments however I assume that you are both an attorney, and a very good one at that.
From my experience over many years with intellectual property, it's best to ignore everything in this thread because there's too much hearsay coming from too many third parties.
I would trust only a practicing attorney, one who has demonstrated valid experience in this area. In my business, just to be safe, and because they cover different but overlapping areas, I regularly use two of them.
In this regard I wouldn't dismiss @AlanRail's comments so prematurely, because you know very little about his expertise and career from reading only a few paragraphs.
On the other hand I would also get a second opinion.
Stick with professional guidance. Especially when it comes to the law.
Mike
Hear, Hear Mike! Everyone... breath deep ...and, go run your trains.
@AlanRail posted:I too would like to hear from Lionel and MTH regarding freely printing their designs that are either not made or not well-stocked. But I will tell you their answer before they do. It is:
Cease and Desist making our copyrighted and design patented materials. if you do not stop a lawsuit will soon follow.
There, I saved them some legal fees.
Wouldn't this line of thought prevent third parties from making non-OEM replacement parts for your car?
Fenders, brake shoes, wiring harnesses, windshield wiper motors. There a literally millions of such replacement part designs presently available for auto parts. Licensing in order to produce such replacements would seem to be very unusual.
Mike
I’d agree with Norm, if they ain’t bothering to spend the money to make the part, to be sure they’re not going to spend the money chasing copyright infringements…I’d think their big stink would be if you sold it under a Lionel name,…..I’d also think if they did chase down folks for making parts, they’d probably have a bunch of stuff chunked at their plate glass windows, ….how maddening would that be??….you need a part to fix a locomotive, or whatever ,and the part is NLA, and nobody is allowed to make the part??….again, I’d like to hear it out of the horse’s mouth, but still I think they’d welcome it ….good golly, a thousand dollar plus model parked because a part is NLA, ……and that’s that?..
Pat
@harmonyards posted:I’d think their big stink would be if you sold it under a Lionel name,….
Hudson Products, rings a bell... and, MTH's issues with certain manufacturer(s).
I'll drop this here...
"Right to repair." It's a thing.
Fight for it.
@Dennis-LaRock posted:Hudson Products, rings a bell... and, MTH's issues with certain manufacturer(s).
And this is where I can see Alan’s plight,…so until it’s crystal clear, I can certainly understand and appreciate his reluctance, …I mean goodness, Alan had made parts for me, and when you receive them, your jaw hits the floor,….I sure hope the big L sees this thread and at least weighs in, cause guys like Alan might stop cold turkey otherwise,…..
@rplst8 posted:I'll drop this here...
"Right to repair." It's a thing.
Fight for it.
Big difference with right to repair, and mass production, ….mass production could raise an eyebrow …that ceases to be right to repair and turns into repair for profit ….not that Alan does it for a profit, but that’s how it could be considered…..something as simple as “ if we don’t make it anymore, have a ball “ would suffice I’d think….
Pat
I’m an intellectual property lawyer. I’ve practiced for 27 years in one of the largest general practice firms in the country and chaired our national IP practice for a decade (150+ IP lawyers). Here are few random thoughts (that are not intended as legal advice to, or criticism of, anyone!):
Design patents have a term of 14 years (15 years for applications filed in 2015 or later). Like all patents, design applications must be filed within one year of public disclosure of the design. Design cases tend to move through the patent office fairly quickly, routinely within 12-18 months. So, some simple math suggests that any design patent filed on something that was publicly released for the first time (e.g., sold, displayed, etc) more than, say, 16 or 17 years ago is probably expired. It seems like that would cover an awful lot of the stuff being produced in the model train world. It seems like most of the stuff being made is a reissue of a design that has been out there a long time, including the scale stuff. If you’re still in doubt, searching for design patents at the USPTO website is free and easy.
Protecting mechanical designs with copyrights is tenuous at best.
The guy pouring beer in his bio pic (love it!) has perhaps the most practical thought of all: they likely don’t give a rip.
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:
Your words, not mine. I simply said it seems like he has a flimsy grasp on the law (based on his comments in this thread, and relating to the permissibility of people to legally make their own copies of model train parts). Interchanging widely separate concepts such as copyright, trademark and patents in an attempt to promote his points only serves to confuse people, not enlighten them. That doesn't prevent him from being an effective lawyer. As I've mentioned, you don't need to be correct to send out a cease and desist letter, or even file a suit. A lawyer can make a nice chunk of change without ever entering a courtroom or appearing before a judge. And Lord knows the USPTO has issued tons of junk patents and trademark rulings which have been set aside on appeal.
Alan has every right to not print something he feels may be problematic. This should have no bearing on whether anyone else can or should.
Speaking from working in the automotive aftermarket industry for almost 40 years most vehicle parts are not copyrighted or patented. The overall design often is but the individual service parts are usually pulled more the manufacturers supply of parts they use to create the vehicle. The automotive aftermarket often bypasses any copyright by re-engineering the part to overcome design flaws of the original equipment unit and most manufacturers do not want their vehicles to last more than about 7 years so manufacturer support for parts disappears. Remember vehicle manufacturers make money by making and selling new vehicles, not service parts.
Lionel and other companies fall into this category. Frankly they would rather sell you new trains versus the user repairing older trains so controlling the supply of parts helps meet this goal. It is their product and that is how they make money. Most manufacturers have forgotten to make things that last and have a parts and service side of the business since it does not generate large profit dollars for investors.
Harley Davidson made it through the Great Depression by selling parts and keeping the already sold vehicles running since new vehicle sales were drastically reduced during those tough times.
Copyright laws are only noticed when the owner decides to enforce them. Disney is a perfect example.
Agree wholeheartedly with Rider Sandman, especially his last sentence. My question in this whole thread is how would copyright laws apply to toy train parts. If there was a concern, it should be under patent laws, to my way of thinking.
We live in a litigious world where many people think they have a right to an “idea” in perpetuity and to derive some income from it and will file suit against your 90 year old grandmother without a second thought.
It’s an interesting concept, patents, trademarks, and copyrights… especially in a country that threw off the chains of tyranny by a king… for it is the the king that used to grant “letters patent” which basically allowed a private entity sole control over some profit stream.
What I do know is there is a “right to repair” and if some corporations had their way, we wouldn’t have that right, nor would other companies have the right to sell parts to repair our cheaply made broken junk. But rather have us buy another piece of cheaply made junk and throw the old one away. THAT is the consumerism that threatens us all, beholden to those with a piece of paper from the king saying they have dominion over the thing we bought with our own hard earned money.
I’m not saying that we should steal music or movies or books and reprint them everywhere.
However, making parts to repair physical, mechanical things, has never, is not, and will likely never be, illegal. Could someone claim you “copied a design”, possibly. But someone could also bring suit for tripping over their own two feet on your property.
Neither are crimes - they are torts - and are not cut and dried one way or the other.
All that said, there are people lobbying for control over this sort of thing, and if they have their druthers, it would/could become criminal. Hence, the right to repair movement. Fight for your right, or lose it. Same as all the other rights we have.
Curiosity got the best of me, so I did a quick search of the USPTO for patents assigned to Lionel. Not surprisingly, they are not a prolific user of the patent system. They have a handful of utility patents related to product features such as control systems, whistle steam, disappearing coal, Fastrack connectors, etc.
My quick search only pulled up two design patents: one for the Fastrack switch controller (expired) and another for the design of the ZW-L (soon to expire). There are definitely not mounds and mounds of design patents covering individual parts of locomotives or accessories or rolling stock, which isn’t surprising since to do so would be ungodly expensive (to the extent it would even be possible given the model is a scaled down version of the prototype design).
So, I don’t think running afoul of design patents is an issue, and as Chaos eloquently described upthread, copyright law has little to no bearing on the issues at hand.
There is a lot of confusion around patents and copyrights, and I tend to believe what the professionals have said. Copyright generally is on visual works, things like writing and visual design for example. Computer code is copyrighted, and there was a big tsimmis years ago when they tried patenting it ( I believe the courts sorted that out). With music, the written music itself has a copyright but so does recorded music.
I know with the auto industry parts are generally OEM only for major parts excluding things like oil filters and the like ( in part because they get used for more than one year and often are shared across platforms),usually for x years, then third party firms jump in.
I doubt that the parts on the trains are copyrighted, the original plans could be ( in fact technically they automatically are), but the part itself is not ( again from what I know,). Recreating it yourself then printing it likely is but violating anything I believe.
The real reality there is little reason to believe anyone would bother even if they had grounds. Financially would cost them more than that could get, plus it would look very bad if Lionel went after someone printing 3d copies of parts they don't even offer. Given that Lionel barely supports their products these days, no non warranty work, limited parts, and how small it is, doubt they would have the resources
This isn't the MTH lawsuit, about as far from it as you can get. Can I blame someone for being reluctant to print parts? Nope. Do I think 3d printing parts for friends or whatever will get you in trouble? No. Same way I doubt scaling up an HO scale kit to O gauge and printing the parts would bring trouble( trying to sell said kit would be problematic, though would be hard to prove infringement).
@Norm Charbonneau posted:I 3D printed a couple replacement ashpan vents for my Lionel S1 and even gave a couple away to someone in need. These are unavailable from Lionel and I really doubt Lionel’s going to give a rip.
I think you are absolutely correct, Norm! I can't and don't speak for Lionel, but I believe I can safely assume that they have far bigger fish to fry than to go after devoted individual hobbyists who are making replacements for items they (Lionel or others) no longer stock or intend to stock. I imagine loyalty to their products in the first place is far more meaningful and important to them. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure someone from Lionel HQ will let me know. They know where I live 
This is a very interesting topic and quite timely. Many manufacturers have very limited or no parts available for some items. The disposable concept is becoming more prevalent these days. Model trains are just another area where we are paying lots of money for things that last a few years then have to be thrown away and replaced. I think we are entering an era where folks with 3D printers are going to be providing a lot of detail parts. I hope I'm wrong, but this is how I see it trending.
Sounds like some folks in this thread missed their regular Metamucil dosing.
Common sense typically prevails at the end of the day, and those without common sense or good judgment are usually the ones most in need of attorneys.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
