Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "Batman GOTHAM BY GASLIGHT #1 Facsimile Cvr A DC Comics 2024 ptg 1A (CA) Mignola"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/gotham-by-gaslight/01A-facsimile-2024-ptg/t-DSC07297.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "BAT-MAN FIRST KNIGHT #3 Cvr B DC Comics 2024 0324DC124 3B (CA) Crook"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/dc/batman/bat-man-first-knight/03B/t-DSC06658.jpg)
ZeroWolf wrote:@Ironhideish the only way to get hasbro to stop being greedy is if Shareholders do something but considering they are the ones who are the constant drive for profit...We're never going to get to that point.
Remember this news is only affecting KOs who are deliberately using trademarks, 3P are unaffected by this and will continue to do so. In essence the 3p biggest threat isn't hasbro anyway, but other 3p companies and companies who make kos of their products.
CdogCdog4 wrote:ZeroWolf wrote:@Ironhideish the only way to get hasbro to stop being greedy is if Shareholders do something but considering they are the ones who are the constant drive for profit...We're never going to get to that point.
Remember this news is only affecting KOs who are deliberately using trademarks, 3P are unaffected by this and will continue to do so. In essence the 3p biggest threat isn't hasbro anyway, but other 3p companies and companies who make kos of their products.
I wouldn't be so sure, it's highly likely they will go after them if they find a reason to. Because let's face it 3rd party and knock off are in the same category and there is a thin line between the two, at heart (I mean they are sold in the same area online ect.) but the law is where it matters. But the law can be twisted. And changed.
leokearon wrote:CdogCdog4 wrote:ZeroWolf wrote:@Ironhideish the only way to get hasbro to stop being greedy is if Shareholders do something but considering they are the ones who are the constant drive for profit...We're never going to get to that point.
Remember this news is only affecting KOs who are deliberately using trademarks, 3P are unaffected by this and will continue to do so. In essence the 3p biggest threat isn't hasbro anyway, but other 3p companies and companies who make kos of their products.
I wouldn't be so sure, it's highly likely they will go after them if they find a reason to. Because let's face it 3rd party and knock off are in the same category and there is a thin line between the two, at heart (I mean they are sold in the same area online ect.) but the law is where it matters. But the law can be twisted. And changed.
3rd Parties may not copy Hasbro toys, but they are using their characters' likenesses for their own profit. You can make a Spider-man toy, call him something different put him in his own unique packaging but you aren't really going to fool anyone. After the KO's the third parties will be targeted.
Leonardo wrote:Take your lips off my pipe!
Burn wrote:This isn't about price, this is about protecting their property, and in a way, their consumers who do NOT want to be ripped off by non-genuine products which are often of poorer quality (as the early "G1 reissues" were.
Wireless_Phantom wrote:I'm of two minds about this issue. I'm glad Hasbro is taking out some of these companies, but at the same time some vintage figures that KO companies were making versions of probably won't ever be remade now (things like G1 Swoop, where the original mold was lost)
william-james88 wrote:If ever Sabrblade decides to go on vacation, I am glad to know we can rely on you.
gantzrunner wrote: These hurt, but imagine getting prime 3.0 and having something like this happen. At his price it's unimaginable.
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.
AcademyofDrX wrote:I don't know if the design itself can be copyrighted, but the characters can be, and the toys would be derivative figures of characters protected by copyright. I don't think it matters that the characters were toys first instead of comic or TV characters.
Think of it this way: if you make a Spider-Man action figure, you're violating Marvel's IP whether you're copying an existing toy design or not. I imagine hypothetical infringement claims would only boil down to the toy design if the engineering was duplicated but the character was not recognizably the same.
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.
This is about protecting intellectual property. As long as the KOs are being produced, it's irrelevant how much the official pieces cost. And if the official pieces were cheaper, there would still be KOs, even cheaper.Megatron Wolf wrote:If you dont want people buying knock offs then stop selling over priced garbage, all the money that was spent on that trial could've been put back into the toyline to make things better and give people less reason to buy KOs.
Black Hat wrote:Yeah, actual 1:1 KOs are what's being targeted here. I don't think Hasbro would stand a chance of getting "original" 3Ps being taken down; China is notoriously fierce in its defence of its own industry, and given that 3Ps occupy a sort of "grey area" the chances are that Hasbro wouldn't get anywhere in a Chinese court. They only went after these companies because it was "easy pickings"- even in China they can't exactly pretend that's their own work.
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.
Caelus wrote: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".
.Caelus wrote: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.
Ironhidensh wrote:leokearon wrote:3rd Parties may not copy Hasbro toys, but they are using their characters' likenesses for their own profit. You can make a Spider-man toy, call him something different put him in his own unique packaging but you aren't really going to fool anyone. After the KO's the third parties will be targeted.
Doubtful. Hasbro would loose more money fighting it in court, than they stood to gain.
Emerje wrote:If a company like Harmony Gold that doesn't really make anything can keep defending their Macross/Robotech copyrights in court then surely Hasbro can.
Emerje
william-james88 wrote:Emerje wrote:If a company like Harmony Gold that doesn't really make anything can keep defending their Macross/Robotech copyrights in court then surely Hasbro can.
Emerje
Wait a sec, thats a very interesting point. Hasbro did produce a Jetfire toy that had the macross look and even the style of headsculpt in the generations line.
So how is that different (legally speaking, I dont want to get into morality) than another company making a transforming toy that looks like Optimus but isnt called that and is its own mold?
Emerje wrote:william-james88 wrote:Emerje wrote:If a company like Harmony Gold that doesn't really make anything can keep defending their Macross/Robotech copyrights in court then surely Hasbro can.
Emerje
Wait a sec, thats a very interesting point. Hasbro did produce a Jetfire toy that had the macross look and even the style of headsculpt in the generations line.
So how is that different (legally speaking, I dont want to get into morality) than another company making a transforming toy that looks like Optimus but isnt called that and is its own mold?
Keep in mind that Harmony gold DID sue Hasbro over their SDCC G.I.Joe Jetfire which settled out of court (which allowed for the set to be sold on HTS even though HG demanded they be turned over to them). Then shortly after that we got Leader Jetfire so I'm guessing this release had something to do with the settlement. You don't see any Harmony Gold trademarks on Jetfire's box so it's likely the settlement was in Hasbro's favor.
Emerje
william-james88 wrote:Emerje wrote:If a company like Harmony Gold that doesn't really make anything can keep defending their Macross/Robotech copyrights in court then surely Hasbro can.
Emerje
Wait a sec, thats a very interesting point. Hasbro did produce a Jetfire toy that had the macross look and even the style of headsculpt in the generations line.
So how is that different (legally speaking, I dont want to get into morality) than another company making a transforming toy that looks like Optimus but isnt called that and is its own mold?
william-james88 wrote:Emerje wrote:william-james88 wrote:Emerje wrote:If a company like Harmony Gold that doesn't really make anything can keep defending their Macross/Robotech copyrights in court then surely Hasbro can.
Emerje
Wait a sec, thats a very interesting point. Hasbro did produce a Jetfire toy that had the macross look and even the style of headsculpt in the generations line.
So how is that different (legally speaking, I dont want to get into morality) than another company making a transforming toy that looks like Optimus but isnt called that and is its own mold?
Keep in mind that Harmony gold DID sue Hasbro over their SDCC G.I.Joe Jetfire which settled out of court (which allowed for the set to be sold on HTS even though HG demanded they be turned over to them). Then shortly after that we got Leader Jetfire so I'm guessing this release had something to do with the settlement. You don't see any Harmony Gold trademarks on Jetfire's box so it's likely the settlement was in Hasbro's favor.
Emerje
So that means that the toy did not infringe on Harmony Gold's copyright, which may mean that a 3p item that looks like a known Hasbro character might not infringe on Hasbro's, right?
Return to Transformers Toys Discussion
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSN [Bot], Nemesis Primal, Sammythekat, Yahoo [Bot], ZeroWolf