BotCon 2012 Update: Artist Alley Restrictions on Fan Art

I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that this is the legal strategy that Hasbro has been forced into. They have to take a zero-tolerance approach to all infringing works now, just to be able to effectively fight the third-party products. Even things which are effectively harmless, or may even benefit their bottom line, now have to be fought just so Hasbro has a documented history of fighting infringing works. You must protect your trademarks or lose them, in the legal world.

Third-party toys have brought this hammer down from Hasbro. Now, the rest of the fandom gets to suffer, as a result. Thanks, guys. Thanks a whole heap.

Really glad I didn't join the fan club now. Now I have the benifit of: not having my credit card info hacked, not having to pay full price for 1/3 of a botcon, and can still have my transformers my way. I have a colossus Devastator now thanks to third parties and have just watched quality control at hasbro decline in the prime series.

I would have thought the best way to fight the third-party toys is to actually compete with them.

I can understand wanting to protect your property, IP, or whatnot, but to restrict fans enjoyment, creativity, enthusiasm, and fun at a convention for the fans is going a bit too far.

I can honestly say that this is one year that I'm glad not to be attending BotCon! My convention of choice this year is Savcon, at least they don't have a ginormous banhammer to thwart my fun!

Uncommon wrote:I would have thought the best way to fight the third-party toys is to actually compete with them.

Well, this is easier. Trying to one-up against 3rd parties would be a losing battle. They got Hasbro's budget limits and QC beat with higher pricing and limited runs.

It's a little sad Hasbro/Fun Pub decided to stop being cool about it. Outside the MP line, (which Hasbro doesn't tap half as often as Takara) 3rd parties pretty much are the adult collector's line. Moreso really, because most stuff is tailored to join Classics shelves.

I can't say I see why they have to take an all or nothing approach.

Requiem Prime wrote:

Requiem Prime wrote:It's a little sad Hasbro/Fun Pub decided to stop being cool about it. Outside the MP line, (which Hasbro doesn't tap half as often as Takara) 3rd parties pretty much are the adult collector's line. Moreso really, because most stuff is tailored to join Classics shelves.

Unless they announce they're creating a TF Elite line or something to do just that.

I'd go for that.

I hope we can get a good, indepth explanation for this at BotCon.

Also, someone needs to ask Hasbro why they don't have an line aimed at the adult collector.

You know what bugs me?

Hasbro stomp on 3rd party, unlicensed or unofficial works because they receive no benefit (read: money) from the sale of such things. The other party is profiting from Hasbro's characters and established efforts.

So, how is selling second-hand toys any better? Hasbro don't see a cent from the thousands of dollars that changes hands for old toys - be it Armada, Beast Wars, a MISB Fort Max or Galaxy Shuttle. What is happening is the same, dealers are making money (sometimes, a LOT of money) from Hasbro's intellectual property.

So why allow it? What's the difference between a box of G1 figures, and a handpainted picture of a G1 character, say. Both will change hands for money. Hasbro will not receive any profit. Should toy dealers apply for licenses now, or be banned from selling?

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

AdamPrime wrote:You know what bugs me?

Hasbro stomp on 3rd party, unlicensed or unofficial works because they receive no benefit (read: money) from the sale of such things. The other party is profiting from Hasbro's characters and established efforts.

So, how is selling second-hand toys any better? Hasbro don't see a cent from the thousands of dollars that changes hands for old toys - be it Armada, Beast Wars, a MISB Fort Max or Galaxy Shuttle. What is happening is the same, dealers are making money (sometimes, a LOT of money) from Hasbro's intellectual property.

So why allow it? What's the difference between a box of G1 figures, and a handpainted picture of a G1 character, say. Both will change hands for money. Hasbro will not receive any profit. Should toy dealers apply for licenses now, or be banned from selling?

Totally different story. Hasbro already has your money (actually, the money from the store buying their stock) from way back when the 2nd hand toys were first bought. Do you see other companies suing stores that deal in 2nd hand items? No. It's basic economics with the supplier not being a company, but an individual, a middleman as it were. Perfectly legal.

Actually some game companies tried to stop people from re-selling their games. Some suggested making the games kind of a console bound. Meaning that once you put the game inside your console it is registered to that particular console only and basically you couldn't sell it forward. But I think that this didn't quite work. Don't remember all the details, but I guess it was against some laws and such.

So you might say that at least some big companies would try to change this thing if they could. Would hastak do the same? Hopefully we'll never know.

Dorkimus wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

AdamPrime wrote:You know what bugs me?

Hasbro stomp on 3rd party, unlicensed or unofficial works because they receive no benefit (read: money) from the sale of such things. The other party is profiting from Hasbro's characters and established efforts.

So, how is selling second-hand toys any better? Hasbro don't see a cent from the thousands of dollars that changes hands for old toys - be it Armada, Beast Wars, a MISB Fort Max or Galaxy Shuttle. What is happening is the same, dealers are making money (sometimes, a LOT of money) from Hasbro's intellectual property.

So why allow it? What's the difference between a box of G1 figures, and a handpainted picture of a G1 character, say. Both will change hands for money. Hasbro will not receive any profit. Should toy dealers apply for licenses now, or be banned from selling?

Totally different story. Hasbro already has your money (actually, the money from the store buying their stock) from way back when the 2nd hand toys were first bought. Do you see other companies suing stores that deal in 2nd hand items? No. It's basic economics with the supplier not being a company, but an individual, a middleman as it were. Perfectly legal.

Actually some game companies tried to stop people from re-selling their games. Some suggested making the games kind of a console bound. Meaning that once you put the game inside your console it is registered to that particular console only and basically you couldn't sell it forward. But I think that this didn't quite work. Don't remember all the details, but I guess it was against some laws and such.

Really? Never heard of that story.

My guess is that is to prevent software piracy, as I can imagine it's pretty easy to copy games onto a blank cartridge or disk if you have the right equipment. With us in the Netherlands we're pretty strict on software sales: exchange within 24 hours, or if it has a one-use activation code, no exchange at all.