Island of Sodor

[kevmt]

I've noticed Skarloey mentioned.

Can I just say that I will not allow any reskins of my NG stock into Thomas guise. The same goes for showing screenshots of reskins. There are serious copyright restrictions on Thomas characters.

The UK trainz site that hosted a lot of the Thomas models had to withdraw these models due to legal pressure.

Cheers,
Kevin

[bigvern]

I suspect the only way it is even remotely likely to happen is an official licensing deal between RSC and the owners of the brandmark.

[andynwt]

this whole thread just makes me sad about copyright. people making things for fun and free, being intimidated by people with deep pockets and no heart.

[bdy26]

It is sad, I'm sure it's not what the Reverend Awdry would have wanted. I'm not sure who owns the brand now, but it was owned by a Japanese investment bank at some point - but it's big business.

I only pray the faces are child objects so we can reskin them

B

[railermad]

I'm not entierly sure on this subject myself, whilst I would agree with you all about the actual legal stuff. The Trainz lot don't have a problem with it, in fact, it thrives.

For example: http://si3d2009.jimdo.com/

I know the creators of this site personally, and work with them often, and I therefore know for a fact that the owners of the brand have not had contact with them about what they do. They simply stress that it is all 'fan' created and do not earn money from it. Which leads me onto to say this makes sense, what's wrong with making a route of a brand, if A. you make no money from it and B.it's all for fun and done as a fan. Otherwise they'd have to go around banning drawings of the brand really, you're still creating something in a drawing just like you would in RW, so what's the difference?

Regarding UKBL they did have contact from HIT, but that was not the sole cause of removal, it was also because of a very pressurising fanbase. They kept reskinning the original creators work without his permission so he opted for his work to be removed. Then the fan base became overly demanding and got out of hand, so resulted in all the other creators on the site removing their models. The actual company contact didn't have much of a role I believe. But don't hold me to the role bit, I joined that community just after it happened, and olny know what I've been told by others

The current owners are Mattel, the toy company.

Just thought I'd add to this, knowing the group that are currently doing it for Trainz.

[FoggyMorning]

It is sad, I'm sure it's not what the Reverend Awdry would have wanted. I'm not sure who owns the brand now, but it was owned by a Japanese investment bank at some point - but it's big business.

I only pray the faces are child objects so we can reskin them

B

The NSPCC might have something to say about people reskinning children's faces!

[rivimey]

I know the creators of this site personally, and work with them often, and I therefore know for a fact that the owners of the brand have not had contact with them about what they do. They simply stress that it is all 'fan' created and do not earn money from it. Which leads me onto to say this makes sense, what's wrong with making a route of a brand, if A. you make no money from it and B.it's all for fun and done as a fan. Otherwise they'd have to go around banning drawings of the brand really, you're still creating something in a drawing just like you would in RW, so what's the difference?

Can I just say - everyone's work is protected by copyright and the protection is provided irrespective of whether people are making money from it or not.

The fact that in many cases copyright holders don't pursue copyright claims against "fan" creations neither makes such creations legal nor morally right - it is just often not expedient for copyright owners to challenge.

It doesn't even matter whether you are distributing the work or not, though of course the copyright owner can only do something if they knew it existed. But, say you posted a screenshot of your route on a website: it wouldn't be a defence to say you hadn't distributed it, although the punishment would probably be reduced.

In this case, and with the issues surrounding HIT, I would personally only work on a route if I knew they were ok with it in advance: i.e. I'd asked them.

Regarding UKBL they did have contact from HIT, but that was not the sole cause of removal, it was also because of a very pressurising fanbase. They kept reskinning the original creators work without his permission so he opted for his work to be removed. Then the fan base became overly demanding and got out of hand, so resulted in all the other creators on the site removing their models. The actual company contact didn't have much of a role I believe. But don't hold me to the role bit, I joined that community just after it happened, and olny know what I've been told by others

In this case, you have a copyright owner (the author) having trouble exercising his legal rights over his creation and consequently removing them from distribution as his only effective remedy.

It is all down to respect, and to my mind it is sorely lacking in some situations.

Regards
Ruth

[railermad]

I completely understand the copyright stuff, sorry if I came off as not doing so. I know that this all breaks several copyright laws. I was merely pondering, not saying this is the definitive answer, just showing an example of things that are happening. Regarding UKBL, you are correct, it is a perfect example of copyright breach. In more ways than one. In the instance of the first user aforementioned it was all, as you say showing a lack of respect. And to be honest the 'Thomas' trainz community still does. It's an utter disgrace of a community and really worries me. There is a complete lack of respect.

I notice now I never got around to noting my view on this subject, in my eyes it would probably be best left untouched. As clearly marked out there are copyright laws for one. But speaking with experience here, I think the 'Thomas Simulator' community would be best left no where near RailWorks. As previously mentioned I know the site I posted a link to rather well, and there are quite a few decent users around there, but the current 'group' of new users that have found there way there are atrocious. There lack of concept of realism is what worries me most. Just the idea of them trying to play RW scares me, whilst yes this could be argued to be biased, some of the things they come out with really is worrying. And I will agree TTTE is a childs brand currently, which reflects greatly in the users of the Trainz stuff. But I for one am a fan of the RWS, the more grown up works of the Rev, and it's just a true shame that more of the TTTE followers are only ever seeing the TV stuff and not reading the books, but that's slightly off topic. In short the idea regarding building a route is nice, but as others have said, not likely and perhaps for the best...

[BenBlairL]

Funny, I just started working on a little narrow gauge railway based off of the Skarloey Railway (Hence my post about the issues I had with the 2'3'' stock). It's not exactly Sodor, but it's heavily inspired by it.

Shame about the copyright laws. Considering the capabilities of Railworks some decent quality Thomas models would turn out nice, if they were done by the right people.

[faedundee2]

How about taking a leaf from preserved railways books, create a flat object that can be fixed to the front of a loco then reskin a silly face onto said flat plane, preserved railways usually just paint a face on a sheet of wood and attach it to the front using cable ties or rope. Then they just name the event what ever they can think of, the ELR went with "jimmy the jinty" which bypassed HiTs copyright stuff due to a volunteer actually writing some stories as a short series for the events but then they have gone back to Thomas following a few converstations with HiT and the other copyright holders...

[asfinmja]

Regarding UKBL they did have contact from HIT, but that was not the sole cause of removal, it was also because of a very pressurising fanbase. They kept reskinning the original creators work without his permission so he opted for his work to be removed.

Oh the irony. The model made without permission was reskinned without permission.

[Wikkus]

Regarding UKBL they did have contact from HIT, but that was not the sole cause of removal, it was also because of a very pressurising fanbase. They kept reskinning the original creators work without his permission so he opted for his work to be removed.

Oh the irony. The model made without permission was reskinned without permission.

{grin}

Rik.

[Wikkus]

I often wonder how we would stand if someone attempted to make a route based on Middle Earth, as not only do you have the original author/publisher rights you now have the additional rights granted to Peter Jackson (no relation to Paul?) for the movies. A Class 40 heading out of Rivendell over the Misty Mountains would be a stirring sight, as would arriving in Minas Tirith off the overnight from Isengard.

"Middle Earth Rail would like to apologise to passengers awaiting the 1122 First Hobbit Connect service to The Shire. This service has been cancelled due to the wrong type of Orcs on the line in the Helms Deep area."

Rik.

[paulz6]

"Middle Earth Rail would like to apologise to passengers awaiting the 1122 First Hobbit Connect service to The Shire. This service has been cancelled due to the wrong type of Orcs on the line in the Helms Deep area."

Nice cosy hobbit class is located towards the rear of the train. (the carriages that look like tank wagons )

[SHEEP]

I'm so happy that the builder didn't copyright the toilet when he built our house.