Steam & Excursion > Paintings copywrite and 611? What's the real law?

I am an artist, and my main medium is oil paint. I have been painting trains for years and my most beloved subject is of course, the steam locomotive. Of all the locomotives past and present, I have painted the N&W class J more than any of them. Second on the list is probably the NYC hudson and third would be the NKP berkshire.
After 611's rebuilding, they have a clause on their website that states: "The guidelines for using our logos and the likeness and image of the Norfolk & Western Class J 611 can be used to determine if you should gain permission from the Museum before using a Museum-owned logo or the image of the Class J or Class J 611 locomotive in any medium or form."

Does this mean, I can't paint the class J any more, or sell any more prints of the class J without basically paying the Museum? What if the image LOOKS like a J but has no identifiable markings such as name or number by which to identify it as being specifically an N&W class J? I'm trying to make a go as a "starving artist" and I could certainly do without any lawsuits that might result from me painting steam engines that resemble the J. Can someone really copyright the look of an object? If that's the case, what's to keep people from copyrighting every steam engine out there to the point that only made up steam engines can be the subject of art?

I've done a painting which I will post below. While it is clearly a painting of N&W steam power, there are no identifiable markings as such... Am I legally not allowed to sell this painting?

---

Would make an interesting court case ---- like "you can't make pictures of my stuf, without paying me".
VMT would surely loose that one, if it was examined, in a public court under the law..

I suspect that you have NO worries about bluster from the museum crowd
You can sell your, paintings, make and sell your prints and tell the VMT where to stuff their whack-oh legal claims --- where the sun don't shine!

By the way, I love your rendition of the beautiful machines, you've captured the atmosphere terrifically.

Wes C.

[The VMT might have better luck trying to license the rights to the sunshine that reflects off their stuff!!!  
After all, without sunlight, what would they have?
HA!  ]

The "real law" is a written opinion from a copyright attorney.  My opinion is worth what you paid for it.

I think the real law is written by the legislature, passed onto the Executive for approval, or veto and then becomes the Law,
The attorneys then argue about what are the limits of the the law and how  their view favors their interpretation, when argued iin a public court of law....


Wes C.

 

The VMT filed a Trademark. You and you alone own the copyright of the paintings and art and photographs you make unless you explicitly give that to someone else (like a work for hire). The area to look at is trademark law which is different than a copyright.

I have been a practicing artist for over 50 years. Primarily a graphic designer. We used to be called "Commercial Artists" before the days of title inflation. I have seen this kind of thing before. For example, about 20 years ago the Chamber of Commerce in Morro Bay, California claimed that no one could use the image of Morro Rock (which is public property) without their permission. Everyone just ignored them and nothing ever came of it. Just to be on the safe side, I carry a blanket liability insurance policy for $1M that costs me $80 per year. I've never had to use it.
Bill Pyper
Salem, Oregon

 

Your are probably asking the wrong crowd.  Get in touch with VMT.  Usually the issue is with selling items that are trademarked, not items for your own use. On one hand you want to make money but on the other "they" want to make money to stay in business. Who doesn't want a museum to stay open?  A few years ago didn't some calendar publisher get in trouble for selling UP calendars and other trademarked items like cups and hats? We all know the issues with model makers using trademarks.
Roger Beckett

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The VMT filed a Trademark. You and you alone own
> the copyright of the paintings and art and
> photographs you make unless you explicitly give
> that to someone else (like a work for hire). The
> area to look at is trademark law which is
> different than a copyright.

The great and powerful Union Pacific Railroad tried the same thing. They lost, in court, BIG TIME, with an undisclosed, massive settlement, with famous photographer Nils Huxtable.

Why not paint the streamlined K2s.  They look almost like the Js.
ALLEN

steam290 --
Man, that is a gorgeous and very impressive painting!   I wish
you all the luck in the world in selling your beautiful paintings
for a good price.

Note: IANAL or a trademark expert, so ---
FWIW, and iMO  -- VMT is quite wrong in thinking they can make
money by being the only people who can legally sell images of the
J class or the  611.  Don't they know what happened to the UP when
it tried to do the same thing?  (See HotWater's comment.)  And the UP
is a huge, multi-billion-dollar corporation, with gazillion-dollar-an-hour
lawyers on staff full-time, while the VMT, in comparoison, is tiny. 

I do hope that someone will manage to convince the VMT to drop this
silly and cruel requirement -- and that they will apologize publicly for
having had that requirement.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/16 23:21 by Margaret_SP_fan.

Margaret_SP_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steam290 --
> Man, that is a gorgeous and very impressive
> painting!   I wish
> you all the luck in the world in selling your
> beautiful paintings
> for a good price.
>
> Note: IANAL or a trademark expert, so ---
> FWIW, and iMO  -- VMT is quite wrong in thinking
> they can make
> money by being the only people who can legally
> sell images of the
> J class or the  611.  Don't they know what
> happened to the UP when
> it tried to do the same thing?  (See HotWater's
> comment.)  And the UP
> is a huge, multi-billion-dollar corporation, with
> gazillion-dollar-an-hour
> lawyers on staff full-time, while the VMT, in
> comparoison, is tiny. 
>
> I do hope that someone will manage to convince the
> VMT to drop this
> silly and cruel requirement -- and that they will
> apologize publicly for
> having had that requirement.

Thank you for your complements on the painting. I try to keep things basic enough. I avoid the names and numbers that would identify the exact locomotives and class of locomotives. This could indeed be a K2a... Hadn't thought of that. I guess that's what I'll tell a judge if I ever have to.

I don't actually know what happened to the UP exactly. I'm trying to make a simple living as an artist among other things, and the last thing I need is the VMT basically telling me I can't paint a Class J... When I've already done just that and sold several I might add. Does this mean someone could copyright the Greek Parthenon or the Eiffel Tower? Could we actually be entering an era where freedom of artistic expression is controlled by lawyers? Is it not enough that vestibule windows stay closed?? I swear, this all feels so sterile and corporate it makes me sick. On their web site, it even shows graphic images of 611 from various angles depicting what you are NOT allowed to show. It says no use of a Class J or defining features or colors is allowed. So I guess I have to toss my red and black paint... Those colors belong to the VMT now.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/16 00:41 by steam290.

wjpyper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been a practicing artist for over 50 years.
> Primarily a graphic designer. We used to be called
> "Commercial Artists" before the days of title
> inflation. I have seen this kind of thing before.
> For example, about 20 years ago the Chamber of
> Commerce in Morro Bay, California claimed that no
> one could use the image of Morro Rock (which is
> public property) without their permission.
> Everyone just ignored them and nothing ever came
> of it. Just to be on the safe side, I carry a
> blanket liability insurance policy for $1M that
> costs me $80 per year. I've never had to use it.
> Bill Pyper
> Salem, Oregon
>
>  

That's a great idea!!! Thanks for that!

Posted from iPhone

I had a similar question about photos / videos that I took, published, and received compensation for. The language VMT released involving their tradmarks seemed overreaching so I wanted clarification from them. I sent two emails (both to trademark@vmt.org & info@vmt.org) back in April of last year inquiring about the situation. Unfortunately both my original email and my follow up went unanswered. To date it has been a moot point as I've not published anything of the 611, but I was dissapointed that VMT failed to even respond to my inquiry.  

-Brian

K8CNW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had a similar question about photos / videos
> that I took, published, and received compensation
> for. The language VMT released involving their
> tradmarks seemed overreaching so I wanted
> clarification from them. I sent two emails (both
> to trademark@vmt.org & info@vmt.org) back in
> April of last year inquiring about the situation.
> Unfortunately both my original email and my follow
> up went unanswered. To date it has been a moot
> point as I've not published anything of the 611,
> but I was dissapointed that VMT failed to even
> respond to my inquiry.  
>
> -Brian

Yes, I tried that as well. I never heard anything back, and I have written twice. I'm not sure they actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to a painting. Maybe it makes more sense with photography or the N&W logo, but what I have on canvas is NOT the precious 611... It is in fact, paint on a 2D surface that abstractly represents a locomotive that might appear to some to be a class J, (not 611).

Posted from iPhone

Didn't the courts rule that the Union Pacific logo was Public Domain....do a degree, models, etc.?

HardYellow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't the courts rule that the Union Pacific logo
> was Public Domain....do a degree, models, etc.?

Essentially yes. The UP lost twice in courts over their licensing policy. Once against a restaurant in New York state (named Union Pacific), that subsequently closed after winning the case that UP RR brought against them. A second case, against photographer Nils Nuxtible (sp) over his various railroad calenders (Steamscenes?), and Nils walked away with a substantial undisclosed sum of money. The third case, UP vs. MTH Electric Trains, probably would have been another disaster, had it not been for the UP's new CEO at the time, the late Jim Young, quickly put a stop to the UP's hardball licensing BS against the model train industry.

I agree with what has been said. IMO, the only way VMT might have a case is if someone sold 611 trinkets and T-shirts-...perhaps like a sports team or university protecting its lucrative trademark. But what do I know. Perhaps VMT wasn't being greedy, but someone thought it might be a way to get more income to fund the restoration and operation of the engine.  I would say photographs and paintings would be way out of bounds. But I suppose I wouldn't be allowed to sell photographs and paintings of football players would I? Or would I?

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/16 10:30 by wabash2800.

Photos are published all the time of the J on its various excursions. I never saw credit to VTM.

(I had a similar question about photos / videos that I took, published, and received compensation for. The language VMT released involving their tradmarks seemed overreaching so I wanted clarification from them. I sent two emails (both to trademark@vmt.org & info@vmt.org) back in April of last year inquiring about the situation. Unfortunately both my original email and my follow up went unanswered. To date it has been a moot point as I've not published anything of the 611, but I was disappointed that VMT failed to even respond to my inquiry. )


Disappointed you should not be this is how VMT operates . I would bet they forgot all about trademarks and copyrights after the person who came up with this idea left. they probably don't know that its still on there web site.


Larry

In the Summer of 1958, I was at Williamson with relatives, and I shot quite a few slides. For being 16 years old some of them turned out pretty well--all were Kodachromes. I got there before steam was removed from the passenger trains in late July, so I managed to shoot several of the 600's, both being serviced and on trains. 611 was one of the engines I photographed, and on several occasions. Those are my images to do with whatever I choose. No one can come along and take them or prevent me from using them however I wish. The same goes for artwork. 

 Hermosa45