Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Sean, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 4:48am

   
   

   Just a thought. So should BNSF sue those graffiti artist that tag their train cars for trademark violation because it causes people to believe that BNSF supports this?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   not a good analogy

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 5:39am

   
   

   If they knew who was vandalizing their train cars, I think they'd want them in jail - not sue them

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 5:44am

   
   

   Well... they would, if they could catch them.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Freedom of expression?!?

   

   Mark, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 5:47am

   
   

   Would this not be covered under the constitution?
   
   Let's see, freedom of expression...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   If...

   

   Mike F.M, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 6:08am

   
   

   ...these drawings were being used for mallicious purposes or to give the impression that the railway was bad or hated customers then they may have stood a chance of getting these drawings taken down - on different charges, of course.
   
   As it stands, it's stupid to try and get them taken down because the amount of negative publicity that this will and is gaining will outweigh the positive effect they achieve (which I still can't see).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   It's all about...

   

   Sanguine Dream, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 6:20am

   
   

   the numbers. These companies that cry foul like this are only in it for the money. They're scared of the notion that someone may acutally make something good without them getting the lion's share of the profit, credit, good press... Or is all this whinning over the fact the paintings were commissioned by a firm that handles cases involving injured railroad workers?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   mixlplix, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 6:34am

   
   

   ill guess the latter.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   DougT, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 6:44am

   
   

   Sadly, there seems to be some precedent for this. The Flatiron Building in NY is trademark, and the owners of the trademark have successfully sued in the past for the use of their image:
   
   http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/1463/
   
   And in the field of trains, the TGV seems to have a similar status:
   
   http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php?Keyword=&CategoryID=&Sort= &page=10
   
   So ... for right or wrong ... it seems like BNSF actually has grounds to stand on.
   
   -Doug
   http;//www.htcphones.info

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: how about the cost of tickets?

   

   mark o. worrell, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 7:13am

   
   

   the real problem is how much is this eventually costing the passenger or shipper in increased expenses...trains will be gone from the American landscape in 25-50 years and this is exactly why...train companies used to take pride in artists utilizing their images
   
   its like greyhound saying don't use us in films...this foolish stance is just a lonely bugle coming from railroad's selfcreated Little Big Horn

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Doug makes a point...

    

    ehrichweiss, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 7:22am

    
    

    and now I have to wonder if I could create a unique looking car, trademark it and then sue the town when they broadcast images of it on cable via their traffic-cams.
    
    This is yet another example of why the USPTO and copyright offices need to be completely revamped immediately.
    
    Of course it could be just as easy to say screw BNSF and start painting pics of maglev trains instead. They always say there's no such thing as bad publicity, so ignore them instead. When people stop paying any attention to them they'll either come around or be quickly forgotten.
    
    That being said, I have some old toy trains for sale...I forget the name of them now...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    SPR, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 7:43am

    
    

    Be careful, they might sue you for using their name in the title of this article!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    gizard lizard, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 9:09am

    
    

    Time to revise those paintings to depict the LAMF railroad.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Patent-envy...

    

    ConceptJunkie, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 9:25am

    
    

    The holders of trademarks are just envious of how you can patent anything and strongarm anyone into doing what you want... they just want their fair share of being able to abuse the law for fun and profit.
    
    Maybe they should patent the look of their trains and pursue that route. Why not? You can patent anything that even resembles an idea.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Ballenger, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 10:02am

    
    

    If it's photography involving a logo on a privately owned train in a public setting, O. Winston Link's work for example, in question, it's not likely the greedy, simple-minded, short-sighted hired legal weasels trying to pull this off will get their way in the long term. If they are successful, we have a problem on a much larger scale to contend with. It's ironic, that this clumsy effort will probably push "train art" off a dusty shelf of awareness in the mind of the public, and by drawing attention to the genre, make their efforts all the more difficult. Photographers should make every effort to get shots of the legal team doing this standing next to a train, so those dill-weeds can be properly memorialized for the next few hundred years in railroad, legal and parasitology history text.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Re:

    

    SPR, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 10:11am

    
    

    As if someone would actually WANT a picture of a baterium, virus, lawyer or any other parasitic bug!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    oh dear,...

    

    Grandfather Time, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 11:00am

    
    

    this reminds me of that ebay/shampoo incident a while back, only now it involves a train and a painting.....

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 11:46am

    
    

    Would a moron in a hurry see these paintings on a lawyer's website and somehow be confused that the site was somehow associated with BNSF?

    Only a moron could make a mistake like that. Oh, wait...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Precedent

    

    Dosquatch, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 11:50am

    
    

    The question isn't precedent, or wisdom, it's whether "moron in a hurry" is trumped by "moron with a lawyer"... though I suppose that would depend on the moron on the bench.
    

    As far as legal standing, I can't imagine anyone would be fuzzy on this point - art is protected speech. In fact, some companies even (gasp) recognize and embrace the benefit to the brand name that art can bring.
    

    imagine that.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Re: Precedent

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2006 @ 12:07pm

    
    

    As far as legal standing, I can't imagine anyone would be fuzzy on this point - art is protected speech.

    That doesn't prevent SLAPP suits.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: Precedent

    

    debra janousek, Mar 8th, 2007 @ 12:05pm

    
    

    go to nebdiv.com and see real photo's taken inside the bnsf. Graffiti written by their own employee's

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment