VRC GP40 Repaint

[PapaXpress]

Try CS2:
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/3689- ... p-cs2.html

[jesseg199]

well i did a repaint of this unit in CR paint but VRC said i cant release anything under CSX, NS, and BNSF because its in their license so i guess its just gonna be a useless repaint i did for my self sorry guys!

[JohnTrainHead]

well i did a repaint of this unit in CR paint but VRC said i cant release anything under CSX, NS, and BNSF because its in there license so i guess its just gonna be a useless repaint i did for my self sorry guys!

Why not? The repaint would technically be freeware.

[PapaXpress]

Because that is how the license from the rail road company spells it out.

[buzz456]

Because that is how the license from the rail road company spells it out.

It spells out that someone totally un-connected to VRC can not offer a piece of artwork free to the public? The lawyer in me tells me that this is unenforceable and preposterous. That's like saying you can only paint a Chevy in factory offered colors.

[DrewG]

Plus didn't you say CSX wouldn't allow you to make a CR version?

[PapaXpress]

NS will allow us, and we are.

Buzz please direct your inner lawyer to this:
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/ ... licensing/

Let me quote the relevant part in case your inner lawyer is asking for a retainer:

No CSX marks may be used by third parties without express permission of the company that owns the mark, generally expressed in the form of a written permission or license.

So can we please put this to rest now?

[buzz456]

"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work."

Fair use is a fairly complicated subject but one would think that putting a name and a logo on a piece of art (the re-paint) for non-commercial purposes surly has a strong case that said material falls under the fair use rules. It in no way diminishes the value of the copyright or the brand and in fact it might well be argued that it enhances it. If one were to argue that the company name and/or logo is not allowed on a piece of art then one would then be free to argue that ALL of the pictures on RailPictures.net or any other fan page are illegal and should be removed.

I can buy the argument in a limited way if there is gain involved but free art just doesn't seem a reasonable argument, corporate statements not withstanding.

[plovdiv21]

He is only repainting your model,he's not using any "marks" of CSX.If he repaints your model as a Conrail then CSX has nothing to say about it unless they(CSX) own the Conrail name.

[Chacal]

Thread derailment in progress...

[dejoh]

Thread derailment in progress...

This is an interesting thread. As the outcome can determine what can and can't be used in re-paints of RailWorks rolling stock.
Its a discussion, not an argument.

By the way, the Conrail loco looks sharp.

[PapaXpress]

This is an interesting thread. As the outcome can determine what can and can't be used in re-paints of RailWorks rolling stock.
Its a discussion, not an argument.

The outcome will determine.... No it won't. No one here has the authority to rule if an act is legal or not, or of CSX or any other corporation has the right to protect there trademarks. As it turns out in this country's they can protect their brand and interests in it.

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschoo ... ain/tm.htm

[NYWhiskey]

Does that mean Campbell soup gets a cut of Andy Warhol prints?

[PapaXpress]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzf ... nt-rights/

[buzz456]

" In addressing such claim, the court followed prior rulings of other federal circuits in applying a balancing test where the U.S. Trademark Act is narrowly “construed to apply to artistic works only where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression.” In applying the test, the court concluded that Moore’s realistic paintings of historical Crimson Tide football scenes are embodiments of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment that do not violate the University’s trademark rights."

One needs to keep in mind that in the case of free offerings to the community there is no monetary gain by the creator of the work and it would be a real stretch to find a way to say that the trademark holder or whatever was damaged in any way.