Burn wrote:Isn't there something about if it's a certain % different then there's no case? That might be how Generations Jetfire slipped through.
Caelus wrote:william-james88 wrote:Caelus wrote:Patents only last 20yrs, so any toy designs patented before 1998 should be legally reproducible. G1 figures would have become public domain a long time ago.
Copyrights last much longer, though, so, ironically, the artwork and names on the toy's packaging is protected longer than the toy.
But the toy itself comes from a design that is copywritten, no? So by reproducing the toy you are infringing on a design copyright.
My recollection is that most of the season 1-2 G1 Transformers existed as toys in other lines before any of the characters we recognize were conceived. If one diligently reproduces or reverse engineers the original mold for Optimus, they're reproducing a toy that existed before any copyrights pertaining to "Optimus Prime".
If you want a comparison point, look at Armalite's AR-15 - it's design is now public domain, so anyone can manufacture it. The only copyright applies to the designation "AR-15" - only Colt is allowed to market the AR-15 as an AR-15.
returnofplex wrote:Walmart is about ready to give us half of an Optimus Prime figure for $10 more than a complete, super high quality KO shipped from China. What's wrong with this picture? I'd say as long as it's not a product that's part of a current line, or something coming shortly down the pipe Hasbro should be excited that the fans are so willing to consume product based on their property. We are what's kept the franchise alive for 30+ years, putting their products and characters in front of our children.
Skritz wrote:Also that part about banning fanart: what the flying **** was that about? Is Hasbro this horribly protective of its IP?
Burn wrote:Isn't there something about if it's a certain % different then there's no case? That might be how Generations Jetfire slipped through.
JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised at how many people defend the presence of bootlegs (as in direct copies down to the packaging). Sure, they're cheap, albeit illegal, alternatives, but isn't it a bit akin to biting the hand that feeds you?
Leonardo wrote:Take your lips off my pipe!
Caelus wrote:Here's another point to consider - most of the G1 crew are based on toys designed to obviously look like specific licensed vehicles, and that was done without permission or credit. And Hastak hasn't had a great track record of respecting other people's IP (e.g., Beast Wars Torca). It's hard to say people should respect an intellectual property that was derived from stolen IP.
returnofplex wrote:Walmart is about ready to give us half of an Optimus Prime figure for $10 more than a complete, super high quality KO shipped from China.
Caelus wrote:And Hastak hasn't had a great track record of respecting other people's IP (e.g., Beast Wars Torca). It's hard to say people should respect an intellectual property that was derived from stolen IP.
Emerje wrote:returnofplex wrote:Walmart is about ready to give us half of an Optimus Prime figure for $10 more than a complete, super high quality KO shipped from China.
I'd be curious to see what would happen if someone tested the die cast metal and paint in one of these "super high quality KOs" for lead and other cheap, but toxic, metals. You really think these companies care about safety? You don't want these things in front of your kids.Caelus wrote:And Hastak hasn't had a great track record of respecting other people's IP (e.g., Beast Wars Torca). It's hard to say people should respect an intellectual property that was derived from stolen IP.
Torca's design came from a concept artist that likely was paid for their freelance work, either directly or through an agent. Hasbro literally does this all the time. Some stuff gets made into a toy and some doesn't. They're at no obligation to tell the artist when they're using the art they were paid for and Hasbro owns. I'd like to know where the idea that the art was stolen came from because nothing I've read indicates that happening.
Emerje
Emerje wrote:Caelus wrote:And Hastak hasn't had a great track record of respecting other people's IP (e.g., Beast Wars Torca). It's hard to say people should respect an intellectual property that was derived from stolen IP.
Torca's design came from a concept artist that likely was paid for their freelance work, either directly or through an agent. Hasbro literally does this all the time. Some stuff gets made into a toy and some doesn't. They're at no obligation to tell the artist when they're using the art they were paid for and Hasbro owns. I'd like to know where the idea that the art was stolen came from because nothing I've read indicates that happening.
Emerje
tfwiki wrote:The sculpt and design for the beast modes of Torca (and likely Bantor) have a somewhat dubious history. An eagle-eyed fan spotted the distinctive beast form amidst the online portfolio of a concept designer around 2002. Upon contacting the designer ("Khang" as per the signatures on the art), he was unaware that his designs had been put to use.
Caelus wrote:Here's another point to consider - most of the G1 crew are based on toys designed to obviously look like specific licensed vehicles, and that was done without permission or credit. And Hastak hasn't had a great track record of respecting other people's IP (e.g., Beast Wars Torca). It's hard to say people should respect an intellectual property that was derived from stolen IP.
Return to Transformers Toys Discussion
Registered users: -Crossfire-, ashe5k, Bing [Bot], Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Lunatic Prime, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], TF-fan kev777, Yahoo [Bot]