Except that's not a solution, but DTG already have a relationship with those who hold those licenses, I presume they would still have to go through that process again to get other "BR era licenses" as applicable
But there's a difference between "slightly the wrong shade of blue but otherwise similar" and "made up liveries to bypass IP laws"
Also, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but a decent artist can knock up an external repaint in a few working hours (maybe a couple of days), but the main issue with train variety is classes, subclasses, physics, cab changes after upgrades etc etc DTG have said as much in that if they wanted to make a valenta HST it would need different simugraph physics, different interiors to the carriages, a different control desk in the cab etc etc So those changes are more substantial than a lick of pain on the exterior So yes, the visuals are important but that would only increase some visual variety which people can get from creators club but for me I prefer reality over creativity in this instance
It may only be slightly the wrong shade with a completely different coloured roof but it stands right out, more so than a southern train infact, because too the human mind the southern train looks as it remembers but the southeastern one doesn't. If dtg bypass the licencing as rivet games did to bring me a bigger variety of content then I'm all for it. But clearly most members don't care about anything more than a logo. That's the way people are I guess. Won't buy a pair of hightech trainers because they are shite. Will buy a fake pair of Chinese trainers though, no problem because they still got Nike written on them.
There don't seem to be any issues with putting BR blue on anything, and as everything in the UK was (variants of) BR blue for many years, then that's the entire network solved - so it's absolutely a solution. I accept, of course, that some people prefer more modern trains (and some people prefer older trains), so in reality DTG are not going to just start making routes only in the BR blue era, but it's certainly another good reason for making some routes in that era.
What about so old that there's no way it could be accurate? Like the Liverpool Overhead Electric Railway? or Underground Electric Railways of London (UERL). Where DTG or 3rd Parties would have to have some form of creative licence? How would people feel to these?
Not sure what you mean here - you should consider that all licenses exist forever. Even the old original brandings for early US railroads still exist and need licensing even if the "organisation" they represent no longer exists, they will be sitting in a lawyers office somewhere. Peninsula Railroad and New York Central, for example, are both literally just in a lawyers cabinet and need licensing to be used. In the UK, an example would be the old GNER license - I think both it and the Pullman license were at one point held by the Sea Containers shipping company but not sure what their status is these days. Matt.
I think what Bravo is saying is that some brands/logos/liveries are so ancient that it would be impossible to research them accurately enough to reproduce. But I don't think that's the case; railroads and photography are almost exactly the same age.
Personally I think unbranded content is acceptable if for some reason they cannot get proper licences. Like I could see some GO Transit trains for Oakville, or a Metra racetrack route or japanese trains running unbranded, as getting those licences seem to be problematic (if not impossible). In cases like this, I would prefer unbranded over not exsisting at all. But, unbranded should not be overused and as an excuse to not even try to get licence. It should only be a last resort.
i was hoping that livery editor would solve some problems for DTG for future routes. for CP Rail they could ask to make route but no logos like what Mapleaftracks did in MSTS for one route. and let the community make logos to download or what ever.
So long as every unit was blue on every line at one time maybe, but I'm sure there were times where multiple trains had multiple liveries even in the midst of "BR blue" Either way, the DfT or NRM hold those licenses I believe and DTG have them in good standing
This isn't the issue. The case of the SE 377s is a real life one and isn't the issue here (in fact the inclusion of these variants would be a benefit!), the issue is fake liveries or not having branding where there should be. In fact it was the entire Pendolino fleet plus one Voyager which were in the blank livery. Although amusingly quite a few people including myself preferred this livery to the real Avanti livery. I'm not sure if it's still the case but Arriva proposed a revived GNER brand for a failed open access operator; perhaps they hold the license? Just a thought.
From Cambridge English Dictionary... "simulator noun [ C ] UK - piece of equipment that is designed to represent real conditions, for example in an aircraft or spacecraft:" ... or in this case - trains So where does fictional or unbranded come into play? With realism removed it is not longer a "simulator". People buy this game for the reality of it, not the fantasy of it. There's other games for that. Stay with the original intent. Work harder on licenses. This is not a license problem it is a negotiations problem. Where there is a will - there is a way. Where there is no will - there is excuses.
That's an extremely oversimplified view that completely ignores the amount of work that is spent on getting licenses. It's nothing like this simple. Some brands flat out refuse for various reasons, which is entirely their right. There's no further negotiation to be had. It doesn't matter what the reasons are. Our team spends time showing and explaining the product, what it means to be included, what kinds of things we'd like help with if possible to make it better (such as access for reference etc) but that it isn't essential (some operators are happy to agree to us using their brands on the trains, but will not provide any access for reference - again, it doesn't matter what the reason is, that's entirely up to them and we can work with it). Our licensing team work extremely hard and are very good at what they do, sometimes they've spent multiple *years* working to get a licensing agreement - but in the end not all licenses pan out. From us. there is always not just a will for licenses, but a strong and deep desire for them. But, no is no. The question about licensing therefore is - if all else fails, and the license can't be obtained, do you not want the content at all? ... and if anyone is sitting here thinking "but free advertising? why wouldnt they do it?" etc etc... that's not what the railway companies are thinking. They're concerned about damage before benefits - and every time you see a crash video or a crash screenshot, or anything that could remotely put that brand in a bad light, you need to recognise this is one of those things that makes it harder for the team to get licenses, not the only by any means, but this is where the community actively makes it harder for us. The other thing that tends to make it more difficult, believe it or not, is how realistic the trains are. Some of you may scoff, but I am completely serious, it's come up in numerous conversations and i've personally spent time working with the licensing team to try and make everyone comfortable while still preserving the realism of the simulations. Licensing is hard and we're very fortunate to have a team who are brilliant at it. Matt.
If all else fails fictional is fine. I'm glad I've never uploaded a massive train crash on ts to youtube! And the way I understand it these days is that film producers have to pay a company for a licence to show or basically advertise a trademarked product on a film or TV show. And agree not to damage the reputation of a company in anyway.
Given the 2 major crashes that Metrolink had in the 2000s (Especially the reason for 1 of them) you can see why they don't want any part due to some part of the community.
I don’t get it TBH. Is the rail industry a special case when it comes to branding & licensing? I’m genuinely interested as to how other developers, big and small, are able to use real world branding etc when they very obviously haven’t got ‘licences’ to do so? I can only assume they do it under the ‘parody’ part of copyright law, but it’s always baffled me as to why this is such a big issue with TSW. Surely the rules are the same for everyone, so what’s the deal? That aside, why are TOCs seemingly so precious about their brand(s) being used in a computer game? Seems like an odd thing to get bent out of shape over.
The actual situation is quite a bit more complex and depends on the status of the "brand". Brands are not automatically protected.
I guess it depends on the company, a 2 million pound court case to sue a company worth a million isn't that tempting but a company worth 20 million is.
Thanks Matt. Yes over simplified and said out of frustration. I stand redressed. I certainly do appreciate all you and your team do to supply us with a great sim game that keeps us occupied for hours on end. Very much so in fact or I wouldn't be involved in it. Please don't take my comments as unappreciative by any means but rather uninformed and ill experienced in the process' you endure on our behalf. As you have stated, "no is no" sometimes and that's just the way it is. I get that. But by the same token, a "no" right now might be a yes later if persistent enough in re-enquiring. Of course all of this is speculative on my part as I do not nor have any idea of the daily workings of your staff in this regard. We have no way of knowing any of this inside functionality or motivation. We only see what isn't happening. Though by your reply it does sound as if they are diligently working away at the best case scenario and sometimes that just takes more time and convincing. I meant no ill or disrespect in my comments that looking back were somewhat out of line to the extent of actuality on your end, however they were intended more as motivation for action or response rather than attack. I apologize if seeming or taken negatively. I do stand by my original view of rather having authentic sim than faked up sim just to fill a void that can't be met through licensing. It is my belief that the realism becomes diluted and/or lost when faked in certain ways. You guys have been on a good run with your authenticity so far and to water it down now would IMO be and cause some loss in the community, as well as in sales, as those who are here for the realism / authenticity decide to separate from the off track (pun intended) focus of fictional representation that in their (our) minds defeats the purpose, original spirit, and intent. There is so much variety that can be added based on current licensing that side stepping realism for the sake of filling a void prevented by realism through using fiction to compensate, that it would be a shame not to explore the existing realism and expand that given it be the only option without certain additional licensing. Again, back to frustration. But still thankful that we have what we have and all the efforts put into it thus far. In answer to your question: "if all else fails, and the license can't be obtained, do you not want the content at all?" This is tricky because in some cases I would, but without the authenticity I would always be left feeling jilted (?) or something. Like buying that item you've always wanted and then finding out it is a fake or not quite right. It just isn't the same!. Like improper logos to get around license, or improper trains on a route that never had them, &c &c. My best example would be a Cal Train service in Oakville just to "get the passenger trains in it". That kind of stuff is too far out of reality for me (and others) to accept. So, your question is not as simple as it may appear. There are a lot of factors to be considered. In some cases filling the void with pretend stuff "might" be acceptable if done gently and with consideration given to true aspects of reality, but in other cases it would be absolutely and completely unacceptable. I am sure you know this already though as a long time enthusiast and railfan. We are not so different the world over and one of our commonalities is the desire for realism and authenticity. Without which, nothing is worthy of our complete attention. Thanks for your response, it was educational. All the best for you and DTG going into the New Year.
AP doesn't actually include branded content in paid content, it is a separate download which is a patch for their packs, which gets them around the rule. That said, it is technically possible for DTG to not need a license, but it is tricky and risky. Activison had legal issues a few years ago when they called off-road cars in Call Of Duty 'Jeeps', which is what they were. Activision countered by roughly saying that as Call Of Duty is a representation of conflict and conflicts often use the Jeeps included in the game, having them in COD is simply part of the artistic interpretation of war and not about the Jeeps themselves. They won. However, DTG using this method will be hit or miss - Activision has far larger pockets than Dovetail Games.
Tocs can simply say no without needing to explain and if you breach that trust, then there's going to be legal consequences. Matt has already explained that one of the reasons is the bad rep tocs might get if people start fooling around with the trains, post crash videos on social media and YouTube, giving a bad reputation to the tocs. Another possible reason, even if it sounds ridiculous, could be safety reasons if someone were to hijack the train from learning it in the simulator. Dtg can't just do whatever they want. Other small dev teams making branded content without a license can still face legal issues. The tocs will eventually find out. An example being metro simulator 2 by kishmish. They used the actual train and branding without the license I'm assuming and the toc found out and pursued legal action or made them pay a fine or whatever, I'm not sure. So the devs couldn't use the train model or the livery or sounds at all, so they had to create something original that doesn't resemble the train.
There have been other legal cases with similar rulings - IIRC there was one in Germany involving toy cars where the toy manufacturer was permitted to place the car manufacturer's logo on its toy cars despite lacking permission to use the trademark. DTG would probably be on fairly strong legal ground if they did use trademarks without permission - and on very strong legal ground if they were historical ones rather than ones currently in use (and remember that many historical "brands" are not protected as trademarks) - but that is the sort of thing that makes it hard to get permission to use trademarks should you be in a situation where you actually have to use As for questions about why TOCs would refuse permission, never forget that they are for-profit businesses who will want to see something in return from DTG. I strongly suspect this is a greater factor than concerns about crash videos etc., which Matt has long had a bee in his bonnet about.
I think I'm answering a side (or even my own) question of opinions on routes/ companies that no longer exist physically and have no follow on companies, like the LOER as a concept for a dlc route. As in, they are historical, but a certain level of creative licensing would be needed to achieve the end result (sounds/ scenery/ scheduling) e.t.c.
Money is very rarely rarely a factor in getting licenses tbh. I "have a bee in my bonnet" about crash videos because they have specifically been cited by multiple ToC's in multiple countries as a dissuading factor. No personal bias here, i'm telling it how it is. I can't comment on whether other developers (both in TS or outside of it) have the appropriate licenses or have concluded they don't need them after appropriate consultations. Our approach is, as outlined, that if we cannot obtain permission from a partner then they are not included in the game. It's their brand, they are have the right to say what happens to it. Yep, we will respectfully return to a ToC and see if their views have changed periodically while not wanting to be seen as badgering them. For one license I needed for a third party project many years ago when I was head of 3rd party for TS Classic, it took me about 2 years to get the license. When I said above it can take years to get a license, that isn't normally years of constant work, it's going back periodically, building the relationship, re-presenting how things look now and so forth. Going onto consoles was a big help, some operators who weren't interested become more interested in discussing things. Time moves on, people move on, companies move on, priorities change, and sometimes, you just caught someone in a busy time and need to wait and come back later. In my experience, no brand ever dies, so we start by assuming it requires permission and then proceed on that basis. If after investigation we're unable to find evidence of it existing anymore then we'd of course leave it on the table to consider to be used, the licensing team have access to all the necessary resources to do searches etc. It's not uncommon to find old UK transport companies being covered by the Department for Transport in their archive for example. US Railroads are usually somewhere in their successor family tree. Also, if a train literally does not have branding on it in real life, then that's still considered and generally wouldn't need a specific license to cover it either. This is a process that is generally common sense and is mostly about recognising the rights of license and copyright holders first and foremost, and then working from there. Matt.
However, that does not mean that the holder is interested in protecting their old trademarks, or that the holder would actually have a case in court. Trademarks are not copyrights - they do not last until a designated expiration date. Of course, I can't tell companies how they should conduct their business around trademarks. This is for the benefit of those who may not be able to tell the difference between "we won't" and "we can't".
Which may underlie the US railroads' periodically painting an engine in a "heritage" livery- if need be, they can claim "but we're still using that trademark, so it hasn't lapsed."
Thanks Matt. I am not quite sure I understand this concept. Can you give an example or clarify your meaning?
I think he means what it means. If the train has no branding at all, such as no logo or maybe even colors, etc then it's possible to come at dlc. He's saying generally won't require a license but in other cases, it might actually be licensed by a toc even without anything on the train
IIRC, that was the rumor on why BNSF did their 25th anniversary units. And why they didn't do full on Heritage Units.
Yes but: ..."does not have branding on it in real life" is where this makes no sense to me. I read this as unmarked trains actually operating for real. I have not seen any train in real life that is not marked in some fashion. There are no "blank" trains running around out there that I am aware of. If that's what is supposed to mean, it is questionable in its correctness. However, if he means to install "blank/unmarked/unbranded" trains into the game (that can then be customized by the user to suit something branded without license) that is a whole different thing. This is why I asked for clarification.
This Class 90 for example, has no branding. This would have probably just come from the West Coast Mainline and at this point would be operated by Anglia Railways - but they have merely stripped all the Virgin branding off and it hasn't made it to the paint shed yet. Another similar example: Or this, unbranded Trainload Class 47: Unbranded AWC Pendolino: There are countless examples where a train goes for a period without branding because it's during a changeover period. Now - just because it doesn't have a brand doesn't mean it's necessarily a free-for-all, but my point was simply to say - if there are real world examples of unbranded trains such as the ones above, they are firmly on the table. But, it's the kind of thing you have to do carefully and again i'd run it by licensing for any concerns they'd have as well. Bottom line, if our licensing team aren't 100% happy, we don't do it. Yes, you could do something "wrong" by using a brand without permission and find the owner isn't interested in it anyway, or that you're not worth pursuing legally. What a terrible way to act though, in my opinion, assuming you can just take whatever you want and say sorry later if someone complains and hope to heck the complaint doesn't wipe you out? The law says you can't. You might well get away with it, but you are never-the-less "getting away with it". Matt.
It's a bit different here in North America where units between owners generally do not go long without some kind of rebrand even if it is not official paint or logos they are more than likely patched to display the new owners Reporting Marks (which is a railroading law type thing as laid out by the AAR 'American Association of Railroads' - which includes Canada) and a unit number at minimum. Many examples of this exist also. So in our case in this part of the world unbranded stuff isn't truly unbranded. The only place you would find a completely unmarked or unbranded unit here is at the paint shop being prepped for paint or the rebuild yard awaiting treatment in which cases they would not be on the road and typically retaining their numbers if nothing else.
I have even done a few in Livery Designer... Ex NAR... Ex BCR... These are based on true practices and as can be seen in comparison to the real world photos previous where the brand is still recognizable regardless of official identifying marks. This has to do with the AAR rules that all equipment (whether in service or otherwise) must be marked and identifiable as to the ownership. I assume for liability issues. So not sure the whole unbranded thing would work for routes intended for this part of the world. However perhaps it is the best answer for your other routes.
For the record, I’m not talking about AP. I’m talking specifically about MSFS, where every single product that is released for that game uses real world branding and trademarks that the developer cannot possibly have. Numerous payware packages have come out that contain the real world liveries of pretty much every single airline / company in the world. Airports that not only have the Airport’s branding all over them but contain interiors that display almost every company you can think of. This stuff is sold, and if the cry is ‘ah, but they’re small developers so not worth pursuing’, then remember that MS sells these products through their in-game Marketplace. Some of these developers are also big in their own right. I’m understand this is legitimate as this is a ‘parody’ of the real world. I think given world events over the last 20 years though airlines would have more issue (if there were any to have) with YouTube videos depicting crashes. Airlines also tend to be quite protective of their image too, and airline security is of magnitudes more importance than the railway. Maybe airlines are just more grown up about these things, I don’t know. It’s funny how TOC’s are happy to run late, dirty, over-crowded trains (as if that isn’t a drag on their brand image) but God forbid someone might derail a train in a computer game (which, as we know, can’t be done in TSW anyway).
One thing to remember in the UK, a lot of trains are not owned by the companies that run them... There are train leasing companies which own the majority of UK trains, and these are then operated under lease by the train operating companies, and when one company's lease ends, it's not always the case that the train hits the paint shop before going out elsewhere. As Matt has posted there are several notable "mid transfer" liveries, and a lot of these are what train spotters and the like love, because they're often quite rare A big example of this is the Virgin loco hauled fleet, where when Virgin lost the West Coast license they were basically stripped of the Virgin logo (which isn't just tied to trains after all) but then those units ran around in red and black for quite a while, if not to this day in some cases
To be honest I would much rather have unbranded content if it means we can have content from Japan. Frequent stopping Odakyu line is where its at! And the trains often stop and cross each other as expresses and Romance cars etc have priority. Same for many lines in Tokyo actually. And then they can use the content from it to make a JR line such as the Yamanote line.... one of Tokyo's most important lines, the loop. What is so good about Tokyo is that it really is rush hour at peak times. You need full concentration and awareness to drive. I like the safety aspect where drivers need to constantly point and speak as to the signals etc. You don't need logos..... it is .2% and I mean POINT two percent necessary. With TSW3 they now have a platform where they can take it to Mach 1 and really go places!! No one can compete with TSW3. There might be some new competitors around but unless they have the Saudis funding them I doubt they will catch up very much to the level of TSW3. I do like the German routes but would much prefer to see 2 years spent on making several Japanese routes in full. Nethertheless 3rd party devs can do German lines anyway. The great thing about the Odakyu and JR lines are they have all stop trains unlike the Brighton Line. I want the challenge of frequent stopping and managing your train. Different aspects is opening the doors and waiting conductors etc etc. Yes they have conductors still in Japan and they make manual announcements. If you have weather around it can cause problems and this can impact what announcements are made. Such as they will make an announcement on the weather and that trains are delayed etc etc.,...
We are definitely seeing a clear division of the two schools of thought and acceptable practices in this conversation. The realism diehards who staunchly protect the whole concept of Sim and everything that goes with it by desiring to 'colour within the lines' so-to-speak.... vs the "whatever, I don't care, as long as I get to run a train" folks. Both are ok, but generally can (should?) not be combined without some kind of disparagement affecting the whole. Thanks for this explanation, it is helpful to my understanding from our side of the world. This type of thing does not happen here. Not to this implied extent. We do have leasing companies but they tend to provide the equipment (marked in some way) rather than operate specific lines - though we do have cases of those too, mostly in the short line and industrial world. Cando (Home - Cando Rail & Terminals) is one of our biggest lease operators in Canada. So again this shows that unbranded trains are not an appropriate thing for North American routes in TSW. Having said that, if license could be had for Cando (branded but fairly rampant around the country) then their units could essentially be used in any aspect of any Canadian route doing many different jobs in many different places - perhaps even (yes I will say it) fictitiously. As for the concept of "unbranded trains" as it relates to UK knowledge and experience, that remains anomalistic with relation to North America. Cheers.
That would be one way of doing it Similar was done in the "post connex era" of Chatham Mainline in TSC where you had yellow and white slam door units running around without logos. Absolutely specific to a couple of years but realistic enough for many (who of course then got reskins and made them look however they wished)
The law says you can, in a great many circumstances, whether this is because your use of the trademark is justifiable in some way (a clear example would be a news report on a company) or because the trademark is no longer valid, or for several other reasons. Using "brands" (which, by the way, is not a legal term) without permission is absolutely not necessarily a case of breaking the law and hoping to dodge the consequences.
While that is true, DTG (a) don't want litigation, which is so costly that often the only winners are the lawyers; and (b) they certainly don't want to offend TOCs whose trademarks and liveries they use or might want to use.
And I'm not saying what you're saying isn't true as well. I am just trying to make it clear that just because DTG does not do something does not make it illegal.
For me I prefer TSW to have real trains on real routes but if they allowed modders to make unbranded stuff branded then yeah, I'm all for that. I remember a game called 'PES' that was sold totally unbranded and modders were let loose on that and turned it into an awesome game to look at. If modders did it off site and allowed the branded stuff to be shared the player base would expand for DTG imo and of course they can still bring out licensed stuff of their own. The trick is sorting the crap from the good stuff which is why I do not mind paying for mods and that is not to say they're aren't good free mods cause there are and some of them are better than the actual game.
Good you mention that specific question. I wasn't able to give the answer I was looking for. Although I don't like purely fictional routes, I quite liked TSC North Somerset Railway route, which, if I understand correctly, was based on a route proposal for a future route. Same with Corris Railway DLC including a proposed extension of the route. While these routes may not be there in real life, they are realistic, and at least based on real proposals. I think those kind of routes deserve it's own place in between the "real route" and "fictional route". I'd be totally fine with routes based on real route proposals, even if they were never actually built.
I wouldnt mind fictional, but still plausible routes, so nothing like holiday Express for example. But especially for German TSC content, there are quite a lot of superb fictional routes in pay and Freeware that arent real, but inspired by real locations and are still logical routes that could exist, (so no trains running around in circles round a tree) Köblitzer Bergland, Nachteburg Rannstadt, Kerbestrecke, Brennitzer Linienstern or S Bahn Bad Altburg, are some of the best German routes in TSC including real ones out there, just to name a few. But for TSW, i'd say a lot more important real routes need to be done before doing something fictional. If we were at the content levels of TSC, a few fictional routes for the sake of it wouldnt harm
I think accurate branding should be pursued wherever possible, even if it takes years (e.g. BNSF worldwide license). However, in a case where it's a "hard no" from a ToC, and i'm confident DTG's licensing team knows which ones are truly dead-ends, then i think unbranded is an avenue to be explored on a case-by-case basis. One place i think would really benefit from unbranded would be the US freight rolling stock, espcially things like tank cars, grain hoppers, etc, which are often leased- even just a greater variety of colors/dirt/wear in the DTGX reporting mark (or bonus points for some new fictional marks). Totally fictional route is a really hard sell for me- it would need to greatly outstrip current offerings in terms of gameplay, scenery, and included rolling stock (1 or 2 locos isn't enough).
As long as DTG or SHG doesn't gets lazy and uses only these for rolling stock. An example is the covered hopper cars for Sherman Hill, which use the generic DTGX markings, instead of proper branded UP Hopper cars. However DTG has been killing it with the TTX inspired cars though.
Again, I think this isn't a question for the community, but rather the income / expenses on such a route. Just like with steam content: I'd like more, but where is the point in getting more if it doesn't sell? That wouldn't help anyone except me, and that would be quite selfish in my eyes. If unbranded and fictional stuff like the christmas route sells; go for it! If it doesn't, don't do it, but they don't need us to tell them that, they'll see it by their bank accounts. All of these arguments in the forum rise the same questions in me again and again; what are the actual numbers and facts, how much impact do we even have? I for sure would like it if our words would have a big impact on the decisions of the company, but, then again; the community wants so many, so different things.
Or rerun laziness, like just using the Sherman Hill UP autoracks for Cajon Pass (when BNSF autoracks would have been really easy to do)
