The Energon Pub

Cyber Bishop wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I, I don't think I like it. That Earthrise Mirage mold didn't feel good to me, and neither did the Siege one, and this just seems off. There might be some legalities over doing a more toy-accurate car mold, I still might go for it.

The original was a Ligier JS11 race car, I have been searching around to see if there were any noted legal issues with them using that exact style car.

I'm not sure Ligier is an active company or brand anymore. I'm holding out hope that Hasbro legal permits future Mirage toys to more closely resemble the original, but Siege is fine for now.

RiddlerJ wrote:That head doesn't work at all for Crasher

I agree, I don't like that head at all. If they were going to make a new head, why not make it good.

Rodimus Knight wrote:

RiddlerJ wrote:That head doesn't work at all for Crasher

I agree, I don't like that head at all. If they were going to make a new head, why not make it good.

It's not a new head. It's the toy-accurate Holo-Mirage head.

I'm really happy with how this looks honestly, I'm assuming this was probably the closest race-car mold out of recent releases that both fits a race-car bot like Crasher and isn't required to be a combiner. (Hasbro probably didn't want to confuse kids by using the Dragstrip mold since there'd be no "dedicated" combiner for it... and the whole Combiner Wars gimmick is long gone so I don't know why PotP Jazz would've been a candidate at all. Especially considering all the fragility issues people reported, I think it was for the best that they didn't use PotP Jazz.)

As much as it requires a lot of squinting, I think it was a clever reuse of the Holo Mirage head for Crasher since it more or less has the same shape as her 'toon noggin.
Still gonna be a nice Decepticon rank filler much like the Decepticon redeco of Mirage was.

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Cyber Bishop wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I, I don't think I like it. That Earthrise Mirage mold didn't feel good to me, and neither did the Siege one, and this just seems off. There might be some legalities over doing a more toy-accurate car mold, I still might go for it.

The original was a Ligier JS11 race car, I have been searching around to see if there were any noted legal issues with them using that exact style car.

I'm not sure Ligier is an active company or brand anymore. I'm holding out hope that Hasbro legal permits future Mirage toys to more closely resemble the original, but Siege is fine for now.

They're still active: Ligier Automobiles. Even if it had gone bankrupt, another company would buy the designs and take over copyrights.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Cyber Bishop wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I, I don't think I like it. That Earthrise Mirage mold didn't feel good to me, and neither did the Siege one, and this just seems off. There might be some legalities over doing a more toy-accurate car mold, I still might go for it.

The original was a Ligier JS11 race car, I have been searching around to see if there were any noted legal issues with them using that exact style car.

I'm not sure Ligier is an active company or brand anymore. I'm holding out hope that Hasbro legal permits future Mirage toys to more closely resemble the original, but Siege is fine for now.

They're still active: Ligier Automobiles. Even if it had gone bankrupt, another company would buy the designs and take over copyrights.

I'm not sure the associated IP has all that much long-term value, but I guess someone would probably buy it.

Those colors on that head mold REALLY bring out the "I am constipated and suffering" expression on that face!

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:They're still active: Ligier Automobiles. Even if it had gone bankrupt, another company would buy the designs and take over copyrights.

Thank you for that clarification.

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Cyber Bishop wrote:

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I, I don't think I like it. That Earthrise Mirage mold didn't feel good to me, and neither did the Siege one, and this just seems off. There might be some legalities over doing a more toy-accurate car mold, I still might go for it.

The original was a Ligier JS11 race car, I have been searching around to see if there were any noted legal issues with them using that exact style car.

I'm not sure Ligier is an active company or brand anymore. I'm holding out hope that Hasbro legal permits future Mirage toys to more closely resemble the original, but Siege is fine for now.

They're still active: Ligier Automobiles. Even if it had gone bankrupt, another company would buy the designs and take over copyrights.

I'm not sure the associated IP has all that much long-term value, but I guess someone would probably buy it.

Someone would have to, just to end the auction. It would just sit there and wait for an opportunity to turn a profit either by selling it off again or licensing it, whichever is better in the long run. That's the hardest part of economics: patience.

I think Crasher looks great ... except I'd really like to see her with a more Cartoon accurate head. Does Hasbro own the rights to the cartoon likenesses? Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book? I could care less about Go-Bots toy accuracy ... but Go-Bots cartoon accuracy would be amazing. One day!

This reminds me that I need to do those 2007 Classics/Cybertron galleries still after all these years. Plus I think I'm going to sell what Go-Bots I have. I keep thinking I'll have time to do their galleries, but I never do plus I don't think I want to own Go-Bots also (though it'd be a limited collection and I own most of the key characters already). Decisions, decisions.

The galleries that never made from 2011!

Seibertron wrote:I think Crasher looks great ... except I'd really like to see her with a more Cartoon accurate head. Does Hasbro own the rights to the cartoon likenesses? Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book? I could care less about Go-Bots toy accuracy ... but Go-Bots cartoon accuracy would be amazing. One day!

This reminds me that I need to do those 2007 Classics/Cybertron galleries still after all these years. Plus I think I'm going to sell what Go-Bots I have. I keep thinking I'll have time to do their galleries, but I never do plus I don't think I want to own Go-Bots also (though it'd be a limited collection and I own most of the key characters already). Decisions, decisions.

The galleries that never made from 2011!

It would be pretty cool to see Go-Bots galleries honestly.

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

That's interesting since Hasbro doesn't have the rights to the toys.

Seibertron wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

That's interesting since Hasbro doesn't have the rights to the toys.

I'm straight up calling this an urban legend at this point. Just because it's on TFWiki doesn't mean it's true. Generally speaking, toy designs are not protected by copyright, and the patents for the original toys expired decades ago.

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

Silver face with no five o'clock shadow for Cy-Kill, mouthplated eye-less face for Leader-1, visored mouthplated face for Crasher, etc.

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

There is definitely a distinction between the toy designs and the cartoon designs. Hasbro owns the Go-Bots brand and I think their fictional likenesses, but not the physical toy forms which Bandai owns. It's my understanding that Hasbro could make a silver jet Transformers toy with a cartoon accurate Leader-1 head but couldn't make an homage to a 1980s toy accurate Leader-1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong! It was always my understanding that they could homage the originals or the cartoon versions but not the toys.

I'm assuming artwork in a comic book falls under different copyright laws. Maybe Hasbro has a right to how they look as toys as well in art form but not in toy form? Or based on what Sabrblade said above, perhaps the designs were changed enough to get by.

Seibertron wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

There is definitely a distinction between the toy designs and the cartoon designs. Hasbro owns the Go-Bots brand and I think their fictional likenesses, but not the physical toy forms which Bandai owns. It's my understanding that Hasbro could make a silver jet Transformers toy with a cartoon accurate Leader-1 head but couldn't make an homage to a 1980s toy accurate Leader-1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong! It was always my understanding that they could homage the originals or the cartoon versions but not the toys.

I'm assuming artwork in a comic book falls under different copyright laws. Maybe Hasbro has a right to how they look as toys as well in art form but not in toy form? Or based on what Sabrblade said above, perhaps the designs were changed enough to get by.

I want to be clear that I'm not a lawyer and have no insider knowledge, but I've read as much on this topic as humanly possible short of going into IP law. There are certainly basic cosmetic differences between the cartoon and toy characters, but not enough that one would be permissible and the other infringing. The idea that Bandai owns something related to possible toys that Hasbro doesn't isn't supported by any law. I'll dig up old posts and elaborate, but the core of the argument is that intellectual property for media and for utility objects like toys are very different.

I'd love to see GoBot galleries here. It would be something unexpected. But I guess there are bigger fish to fry.

This version of Crasher ... I don't like it? I mean, I'm glad they remember her and it'd be great if she becomes a regular Decepticon troop, but that head just ruins it. It doesn't even look right in terms of color placement. So I'm good with Fracture.

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Seibertron wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

There is definitely a distinction between the toy designs and the cartoon designs. Hasbro owns the Go-Bots brand and I think their fictional likenesses, but not the physical toy forms which Bandai owns. It's my understanding that Hasbro could make a silver jet Transformers toy with a cartoon accurate Leader-1 head but couldn't make an homage to a 1980s toy accurate Leader-1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong! It was always my understanding that they could homage the originals or the cartoon versions but not the toys.

I'm assuming artwork in a comic book falls under different copyright laws. Maybe Hasbro has a right to how they look as toys as well in art form but not in toy form? Or based on what Sabrblade said above, perhaps the designs were changed enough to get by.

I want to be clear that I'm not a lawyer and have no insider knowledge, but I've read as much on this topic as humanly possible short of going into IP law. There are certainly basic cosmetic differences between the cartoon and toy characters, but not enough that one would be permissible and the other infringing. The idea that Bandai owns something related to possible toys that Hasbro doesn't isn't supported by any law. I'll dig up old posts and elaborate, but the core of the argument is that intellectual property for media and for utility objects like toys are very different.

The comic using the toy designs is interesting... If anything is to be understood concerning law, it's not so much on what is actually allowed and what isn't, but how it can be interpreted to allow such and such to actually be legal, despite the law on first glance saying it shouldn't be, and vice versa. That's why we have lawyers

I went long on this in a post at TFW back in the fall:
https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/threads/ ... t-19574786

I wish I'd saved more of the research I did, there was a post on Allspark from Jim Sorenson many years ago where he said, in his opinion, that business strategic reasons were the bigger factor in Hasbro's treatment of the GoBot brand than legal risks.

All of this is my opinion and interpretation, so I can't promise anything, and everyone is free to disagree with me. The other side of it is, once I really started to get into understanding IP, it didn't just help me understand things like GoBots but also helped me make sense of the 3P scene and why it works the way it does.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Seibertron wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Seibertron wrote:Didn't they use them in the IDW Go-Bots comic book?

The IDW comic used toy-accurate designs instead.

There is no meaningful distinction between those two things

There is definitely a distinction between the toy designs and the cartoon designs. Hasbro owns the Go-Bots brand and I think their fictional likenesses, but not the physical toy forms which Bandai owns. It's my understanding that Hasbro could make a silver jet Transformers toy with a cartoon accurate Leader-1 head but couldn't make an homage to a 1980s toy accurate Leader-1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong! It was always my understanding that they could homage the originals or the cartoon versions but not the toys.

I'm assuming artwork in a comic book falls under different copyright laws. Maybe Hasbro has a right to how they look as toys as well in art form but not in toy form? Or based on what Sabrblade said above, perhaps the designs were changed enough to get by.

I want to be clear that I'm not a lawyer and have no insider knowledge, but I've read as much on this topic as humanly possible short of going into IP law. There are certainly basic cosmetic differences between the cartoon and toy characters, but not enough that one would be permissible and the other infringing. The idea that Bandai owns something related to possible toys that Hasbro doesn't isn't supported by any law. I'll dig up old posts and elaborate, but the core of the argument is that intellectual property for media and for utility objects like toys are very different.

The comic using the toy designs is interesting... If anything is to be understood concerning law, it's not so much on what is actually allowed and what isn't, but how it can be interpreted to allow such and such to actually be legal, despite the law on first glance saying it shouldn't be, and vice versa. That's why we have lawyers

A big principle of law and life is that you can do what you want as long as you accept the consequences. In potential IP disputes, that can cut both ways, because you might not do something you have the legal authority to do if it might create some harm. Put another way, having a right doesn't mean you won't get sued, and sometimes it's not worth fighting even if you'd win. I don't think anyone would go to court over silver face paint or a particular racecar body, but you never can tell.

I'll probably buy Crasher, but I really don't like it. The colors are the only thing going for it. Bot mode doesn't look anything like her. She did not turn into an F1 race car like Mirage and Dragstrip, she's a sports race car, they're entirely different things. PotP Jazz is based on the exact same Porsche model as Crasher and in bot mode it's similar to Crasher, but backwards. This a case where I think Crasher would have been better suited for a new mold that they could then use later for Deluge.

ZeroWolf wrote:A retool would be more expensive then what this is (a redeco with a previously used mirage head)

It's hard to curb expectations for this line when wave 1 gave us two new molds.

Emerje

I still like that new Crasher.

For me, the old Classic repaint is the female crasher, and that new one is the gender-swapped, r63 male crasher.

Both will look fantastic together.... if I'm ever able to get the damn thing.