With the development that LNWR seem to have revoked their licence and asked DTG no to include any LNWR trademarks at all, I ended up wondering what part of routes need licencing, and what doesn't (don't ask how I got there - I overthink a lot). 1) I understand that to use LNWR logos, you'll need an LNWR licence, but it you use a livery that looks similar to LNWR's, you won't need their permission. Have I understood this correctly? 2) Also, to use station names, do you need licencing? If so, who do you ask? 3) I don't think recreating stations themselves would require a licence, but given that Deustche Bank is omitted from Frankfurt, do you need a licence to recreate a station? 4) What about the trains? To create a Class 350, do you need a licence from Siemens? Who else would you need a licence from to recreate a class 350? EDIT: Whatever gets put below this post is not legal advice (I realise now that I am basically asking for legal advice. I don't know anymore. I'm going mad). Don't trust strangers on the internet. If you need legal advice, get a certified lawyer that you have seen in person. If you couldn't tell by now, I'm not a lawyer.
3 is an interesting question, and the armchair lawyer in me says that in general you wouldn't need to license a "public" building design, so for example a town hall, a listed building (UK), and similar things, so one would think that would apply to stations built 100+ years ago. Perhaps it would be different for a brand new station built in say the last few years, that had its architecture designed by some high flying London consultancy? It may be that you could replicate the track layout with zero issues, but you may need to use generic platforms and accompanying building(s)
Interesting! Your view does make sense. I wonder how stations that no longer exist would be viewed. It does remind me to put in a disclaimer about legal advice.
From my understanding from community discussions/DTG staff posting/history: 1. I don't think so. AP get away with selling debranded liveries then adding the branding as a 'free' product. 2. No. You can't license the word "Doncaster" as it's the name of the city and most of it's major locations/institutions (Doncaster Works, Doncaster City FC, etc.) 3. Also no, I wouldn't think they could trademark a station. The Deutsche Bank would be omitted because there is no real need to go ask them for a license to put their logo. (Unless you mean the building/Bank section isn't there, in which case it's probably an error.) 4. Yes. (There isn't one in the game that doesn't, at the very minimum, reference the original - which I would imagine means there is a license.) - in the instance of the 350, it would be solely Siemens as it's their train. Same for the 700, 380, Vectron and whatever else.
1) Do you mean I have misunderstood? Also why is 'free' in quotation marks? 2) Interesting. Is there no protection over city names at all? 3) No I am fairly certain I saw somewhere that the Deustche Bank building was omitted for licencing reasons. I'll find it somewhere. 4) I see, thank you! Very insightful. What about historical trains built by the likes of BREL?
Found it! Post 43 https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/lukas-interviewed-at-gamescom-2024-aka-lukasleaks.83947/
for 4, that makes sense. I wonder if we are more likely to get a train if DTG (or whichever developer) have worked with a certain manufacturer before? also makes me wonder if DTG would have a license from siemens to be able to do any of their trains (TOC compliance obvs) or would need to fetch a new license for every one they wish to make.
No - I think you're right. It's the logos that are trademarked so DTG can get away with it. As for the AP thing, "free" has the '.' because it's not really free. It requires the payed product - like when you buy Call of Duty and have to download the Multiplayer separately from the Campaign, or whatever - it's one product, really, but on paper they are seperate downloads. In this case, AP aren't using any brands for profit because, well, the brands are added for free. I'm sure if Dovetail added a sign at Milton Keynes Central that reads: "Milton Keynes: S***hole" then there would be a good number of complaints but ultimately there wouldn't be any legal/licensing thing to stop it. Fair enough. BREL is defunct so I'd think it's much the same as old operators - ask the DfT. Obviously with most of the British Rail stock, the 150, 158, 313, 314, HST, etc - it's not a problem. There may not even be need for a license. The rolling stock side of things isn't what I'm best at. I'm sure someone will have an idea.
I don't think there is anything stopping you from making the route and rolling stock so long as you don't do any branding. Colour schemes might have to differ slightly from the original. Problem is a lot of users on the forum go into one and threaten to boycott dtg if they do unbranded routes. Also it will make getting a licence from operators in the future almost impossible.
I don't know what the expiry is on registered trade marks. I would hazard a guess that there is companies that don't exist anymore yet if you started using there trade mark or branding. A lawyer would pop up out of nowhere with some kind of lawsuit.
Sure. Island Line was an example. The cities and tracks aren't trademarked. Just the names and logos of specific companies, so the TOC and the manufacturer of the train being the main examples. Most of the trains in game are already technically unbranded (you don't see the manufacturer logo on most, outside of the Siemens Vectron). The issue is, in a simulation, a LOT of people won't like that so right out of the gate you are alienating a lot of the potential customer base. Especially when something as big/important as the operating company and their livery.
In terms of train franchising when companies end licences revert to the department for transport that’s how DTG got rights to use East Midlands trains and regional railways in west Cornwall local
I dont think any sort of licensing is required if you are willing to omit official logos or anything else that is copyrighted/trademarked. DTG went unbranded for TSC: Washington to Baltimore. The MARC trains had no branding and there wasn't any proprietary signage, but everything else in the route was there.
It's also how West Midlands Railway (part of the exact same franchise as LNWR) is fully licensed on Birmingham Cross-City; while this WCML route won't be. WMR uses the Transport for West Midlands branding (despite being part of WMT, along with LNWR) - while LNWR's brand is entirely owned by WMT. Basically, it's a state-owned licence for WMR, private for WMT, which is where the two routes will differ.
What would be more of a problem would be if Network Rail turned round and withdrew consent to accurately signal a route, or similar. But even then, on some routes the signalling is still as it was in BR days or maybe even earlier - how much can you "protect" a track layout or technical details such as speed restrictions. Then we have sen the hoops DTG had to jump through with LIRR, the SBB situation and of course the ongoing withdrawal of co-operation by US Freight - though not to the exent of withdrawing licences (yet). However that latter is being used as a reason by DTG why they can't get in and research or build any more NA freight routes. Ironically then, it would actually been better if WCML South had been made in the BR era which would have avoided this nonsense!
thats good until you/ DTG conisder most of the player base play on an unmoddable version being either on console or playing throughj microsoft on PC
You can make a route with out a licences in old era like for the Great Eastern Mainline It would have to be set in ONE Blue era for a Route out of Waterloo it how to be South West trains
This concept is known as "freedom of panorama". Actually, a lot of locos in the game do not have manufacturer licenses, as evidenced by them lacking logos etc. Firstly, just being non-profit is not an exemption from trademark infringement. Secondly, any lawyer worth their salt would easily be able to make a case that AP are using brands without permission for profit.
I get what you are saying however surely it could be argued that not everyone downloading a particular AP product is even going to download the branding patch - for example, I have their HST pack but am not interested in anything other than the BR liveries so Virgin/GNER/EMT etc are not missing out from me (I know the HST packs are split by engine but it was just an example). It's a weak argument granted however it could be enough to sway things in their favour. I find it painfully ironic that I was studying to become a lawyer specialising in copyright and trademark law and jacked it in to go and work on aeroplanes, it'd have come in handy today haha
Here’s a fact about something that you may find interesting. It may relate to modelling landmarks. The National Trust own a lot of land and buildings in the UK. You are not allowed to take a photograph, video or film of a building or even a single tree (or anything else, even if it’s just in the background) on National Trust land and use that photograph, video or film commercially without a written contract from the National Trust. You may think they can’t protect a tree from your camera lens but they can and they will. There are no such restrictions on drawing or painting the building or tree and using the drawing or painting commercially as far as I can tell. So you would likely be fine making models of their property (physical or digital) but not using photographs or videos you’ve taken of the actual property. Not legal advice. Similarly in Paris, you can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower during daylight and use it commercially but the lights on it at night are protected and you can’t use a picture or video of the tower lit up at night commercially without specific permission. This surprises a lot of people but it is true. How you would get on with modelling it, I suspect you couldn’t recreate the lights how they are in reality without permission but I don’t know that for certain. It depends on whether a digital representation of the lights falls under the specific protections they have. You would have to check. There are likely many other places that have similar rules and protections and they may extend into making digital models of protected property in some extreme cases. So you would have to check for anything that looks like it could be protected before proceeding when you want to use something commercially. For personal use only, you can do whatever you like but you might have to be careful when sharing it. Not legal advice. This is why DTG have a whole department dedicated to this kind of work. They need to check these things and probably have a better understanding of how modelling something digitally sits within most applicable laws and such like.
There is a difference between what the National Trust claims and what they can actually enforce under the law.
I beleive you would still need at least some form of permissiom from either the parent company (Stagecoach) or the DFT
The moment you take this approach you need to be content with the prospect of not getting any licence, from any licence holder at all. If you companies see you do not respect other licences, then they will more likely not even engage in conversation with you, because what assurances they really have their license is the one you will respect? Pavel Sebor, ceo of SCS (Euro truck sim) talked about this a lot. How them doing 'fake' trucks hurt them a lot when they eventually tried to acquire proper licensed trucks.
The SCS situation is somewhat different however; they were making "inspired by" truck models, whereas the LNWR is entirely about branding only - they don't own any trademarks, IP or anything else on the trains themselves, that's down to (in the modern era) the likes of Hitachi, Stadler etc etc
Well, considering Dovetail is very unlikely to enter a relationship with the National Trust... Dovetail have now proven themselves on multiple occasions to be perfectly happy with unbranded content.
Never say never... https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/vi...e-and-garden/railway-museum-at-penrhyn-castle
Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to any of the above, but the bigger problem from my understanding is Microsoft and Sony. There are some fair use ways of using real world brands (with rules and restrictions), but my understanding of Microsoft and Sony's terms of service is that they requires a licence for any brand to be included in a product on their platforms. Hence why it is less of an issue in PC only games. Farming Simulator, for example, often have two versions of mods in their game: A branded one for PC only, and an unbranded one for Playstation and XBox.
The livery of the train is part of the company branding. There are few things companies protect more than their branding. If you start to do 'inspired by' company liveries, then other brands will just not engange with you, even though legaly you have done nothing wrong, as your creation are not 100% the other companies liveries. You have shown, that you do not respect the branding, and if the deal doesn't suits you, you go your way. They are in no way obliged to engange with you. LNWR situation is different, as it looks like DTG had believed they have the license, but for some reason they either had not, or was pulled. But they enganged in good faith and have history of respecting license holders. Companies are not stupid, and they understand that stuff happen, and DTG needs a way how to recuperate the investment. They may be difficult questions asked, but DTG imho has good records of respecting license holders even when it went againts them (i.e. LIRR 2.0, or making ridiculous airplanes, just so it doesn't resemble any manufacturer). And licenses are not just about the logos... having good realitionship with operators means access to resources, like the Metrolink non-revenue service DTG was able to use for recording sounds, reference picture and ton of knowledge from people work with the machine daily.
Where? The only thing I know of is DTG removing logos from WCML TSW 5 route because of some misunderstanding with license holder. It's obviously exceptionally case and me, neither you do not know what is actually going on. And I can bet you there were some difficult discussion on what to do. But there is quite a bit a difference between the current situation, and purposely ignoring all licensed and doing just look-alikes. I mean, you might not get the difference, but thankfully the likes of DB, or Metrolink do...
To be fair, it is another route where they had a licence and don't anymore. It isn't like they are purposely building things without licences..
It makes a massive difference. They're doing their best to honour the wishes of the trademark holder, on a product they invested in while they had a licence. Context is important, and removing the trademarks that they used legitimately once they nolonger have a licence is a bonus.
How is making unbranded liveries - including for licenses they used only a few months ago - "honouring the wishes of the trademark holder"?
It probably is but I saw on a post here can’t really remember which one where it was said by one of the DTG staff that it could happen but it wouldn’t be at the quality they’d want it at. Especially with the trains since they need permission from the TOC aswell to access the trains to get enough reference material as possible including sounds.
If you need this explaining further, either you're being deliberately argumentative, or you are just aren't capable of understanding. Good night.
