Railworks America

I was berated privately for what was viewed to be intemperate remarks about BNSF attitude towards allowing their name to be used outside of the USA. Does anyone on here know why they are the only major railroad that does not allow this? What is different as opposed to everyone else?

I don't know really why...but consider this:

BNSF
SCNF

buzz456 wrote:I was berated privately for what was viewed to be intemperate remarks about BNSF attitude towards allowing their name to be used outside of the USA. Does anyone on here know why they are the only major railroad that does not allow this? What is different as opposed to everyone else?

NAL, but company's can generally do what they see fit with their trademarks and brand, even not allowing for its use outside a certain region. As arbitrary as their decision may be, we have to deal with the company's decision whether we like it or not.

My assumption would be them seeing TS as glorified advertising for their company. Why advertise to other parts of the world that can't use their service?
(Not saying people who play TS are the kind of people that use BNSF for anything)

The real problem is Steam’s attitude to the issue. They will not allow non US residents to even purchase via a US based outlet. This is comparable to (for example) Athearn or Walthers refusing to allow a US based model shop to sell one of their items to a visiting or internet customer not resident in the US. BNSF do not prevent said manufacturers from allowing their products carrying BNSF (and their heritage roads) logos being sold outside the US (BNSF get their logo royalty via the US sales) and as the “manufacturers” are US companies this works. Steam is a US company, DTG are not but any and all US sales satisfy the BNSF corporate requirements ( presumably) so why shouldn’t the same be true if Steam insisted on BNSF logo products are sold only via US outlets i.e. Steam!!

Antwerp wrote:

buzz456 wrote:I was berated privately for what was viewed to be intemperate remarks about BNSF attitude towards allowing their name to be used outside of the USA. Does anyone on here know why they are the only major railroad that does not allow this? What is different as opposed to everyone else?

NAL, but company's can generally do what they see fit with their trademarks and brand, even not allowing for its use outside a certain region. As arbitrary as their decision may be, we have to deal with the company's decision whether we like it or not.

My assumption would be them seeing TS as glorified advertising for their company. Why advertise to other parts of the world that can't use their service?
(Not saying people who play TS are the kind of people that use BNSF for anything)

I’m certainly not saying they can’t do whatever they want however it’s not consistent with the other companies and I see little reason to not criticize them for what I consider a silly reason for their policy.

It was my understanding that those buyers outside the US can't even buy BNSF branded software directly from the DTG store. So I don't think it is a Steam issue, as much as it is a BNSF licensing issue with DTG. Steam is just a distribution channel for DTG.

In my opinion, licensing is about money... plain and simple. I'm sure the BNSF lawyers see it as if a manufacturer can make money off the BNSF likeness, then BNSF should get their cut. And just as importantly, it helps justify what I'm sure is bloated BNSF legal department.

As to why they don't want to deal with DTG, or probably foreign manufacturers in general, is that their legal group doesn't want to have to deal with foreign law when trying to license it's likeness. It is probably just easier to deal with US manufacturers as US copyright and trademark law is known along with enforcement, prosecution, and associated court decisions. Each country has it's own copyright / trademark laws, which may go against BNSF's best interests. In addition, getting a foreign country to enforce and prosecute for a US company is probably difficult at best.

The other US railroads that DTG has licensing with obviously made the decision to follow the money, and extract whatever licensing fees it can as long as it approves the likeness. They probably figured that DTG is a safe bet, and pushing a positive likeness across multiple countries will embed a positive image of the railroad, thus maybe helping with selling their transportation services. Remember, a lot of large companies have foreign ownership, and even though the railroad doesn't operate in that country, they still need to sell in that country.

A lot of foreign companies use the US railroads for transport so one would think like UP running their heritage fleet around for good will that BNSF might consider the same thing. I'm sure whatever they make off licensing is a rounding error in their P&L.

At least there are workarounds.

BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway/Warren Buffet. They are going to have a much different perspective on branding and licensing than a stand-alone railroad might. Doubt that this has much if anything to do with the financial aspect and everything to do with control/legal aspect - of which there is little once off of North American shores.


Jeff

Tha point I am making is that DTG have a license to sell using the BNSF logo in the US. Why can’t Steam sell the same DLC to non US residents via a US retail outlet. That way the license fees are paid in the US so if it is money or control it is still in the US and under the license agreement.

mindenjohn wrote:Tha point I am making is that DTG have a license to sell using the BNSF logo in the US. Why can’t Steam sell the same DLC to non US residents via a US retail outlet. That way the license fees are paid in the US so if it is money or control it is still in the US and under the license agreement.

At one time someone could gift a restricted DLC but that option was removed under legal pressure. Your user agreement with Steam prohibits selling restricted content to restricted regional areas. Steam may also be bound by international laws on proprietary content. Because of the scope of their business, it is in their best interest not to stray into gray areas.
We have a wonderful group of people who create wonderful pieces on virtual rolling stock, buildings, and other assets. These are their creations and they are proprietary to them; they own them. They set the conditions on who, when, and how they are to be used. Some are very gracious to allow others to modify as long due credit is given. BNSF is just larger and more complex and looks at the assets and liabilities and pros and cons of allowing the use of its proprietary content. We can all speculate as to the reasoning behind their decisions and at times we may not agree, but it is their decision based on the reasoning that most likely has taken many lawyer hours to reach.

"that most likely has taken many lawyer hours to reach" and reached a conclusion that is the opposite of every other major US railroad.

mindenjohn wrote:Tha point I am making is that DTG have a license to sell using the BNSF logo in the US. Why can’t Steam sell the same DLC to non US residents via a US retail outlet. That way the license fees are paid in the US so if it is money or control it is still in the US and under the license agreement.

Some countries have the jurisdiction determined by the point of delivery, not the point of sale, is one thing to consider in the point you are making.

But, it really comes down to four important factors at play here. First, BNSF/BH does not derive any meaningful income from such licensing as this. That revenue would never even make its way to an income statement except as a fraction of "Misc and Other". Second, BH is very protective of their and any subsidiary's intellectual property and understandably so. Once you lose control of your copyrights, trademarks, etc it is very difficult to claw them back even in U.S. courts with an airtight case. (For those of you who are musicians, you will know what I am talking about re the guitar companies constant legal fights.)

Third, BH/BNSF would potentially have to protect their intellectual property across multiple jurisdictions - many with dubious laws and courts. This is practically impossible and would cost huge legal fees to even attempt it. That leads to the fourth factor: Once IP is out of the bag it will be just a matter of time before it is considered public domain, greatly reducing its value and the ability to protect it here in the US, even if the issue occurred overseas. I'll say that a different way, if you lose control of your branding overseas - which is almost a given - that will also directly impact your ability to protect it here in the US. That is a big deal to BH/BNSF and their shareholders.

Given these four factors, this sums up to one big legal headache for BH/BNSF, fraught with risk and little to no upside. If I were an exec at BH/BNSF, I would have made the same decision they did. As much as it pains me to say it, we should probably count ourselves fortunate that they consider the railfan base - some who may be clients - strong enough in the US offer up any licensing at all.

Now, as much as I have convinced myself to see BNSF's point of view from a business/legal standpoint, I still get annoyed that the state of the world causes these decisions.....But then, I just imagine the number of bankers' eyes rolling in Omaha when BNSF came to them asking for approval to license their logo for a video game played by fat old guys who could never quite grow up and get over their obsession to drive a train! That always gives me a chuckle.

So the logos etc on N gauge and HO models are not the same IP? Some double standards are afoot methinks and have been for some time. Anyway it matters not what we think cause it ain’t gonna change. I’m still subscribing to the camels or if oversubscribed put me on the waiting list.

All this still doesn't address the question of why they are opposite of all of the other railroad companies. Bye the way I'm old but not fat.