The Energon Pub

MINDVVIPE wrote:I understand why you, Bowspearer feel that Hercules is IP theft. One can argue that easily. I just feel it isn't, since Hercules is a product unlike any other on the market. Its not targeting the exact same target audience since its a toy and not a comic (where the design is found). And the game example was interpreted correctly, but the example I used would not be using ANYTHING from cod, so it wouldn't be stealing the engine.

Which is a different situation to the whole Hercules situation. Your COD analogy would only apply if you were describing a 3rd party toy set where construction vehicles turned into robots which looked clearly different to the Constructicons and formed a giant robot which looked nothing like Devastator. The other problem you have is the concept art wasn't just used for the comics and cartoon, but as box illustrations. Granted there were some modifications, but the problem you hit there that the boxart situation proves the likeness issue.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Just to clarify.

My whole point of contributing to this thread was to shed some light on the fact that the actions Hasbro take should be supportive of its fans (even though I don't expect anything) and not anything to kill 3rd party companies that are trying to be legal, and also don't really impact Hasbros profits. If all the collectors stopped buying from Hasbro tomorrow, I don't think that would even matter much on Hasbros bottom line, right? Anyway. so much blabbing on about stuff we can't really control, hehe.

Ideally some kind of likeness licensing situation will hopefully come about (in which case problem solved), however Hasbro's only real concern here would be protecting its IP with anything else coming second. I think Hasbro have let things go so long now that they're trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. I wouldn't be surprised if Botcon was just the start of things, with things possibly being resolved behind closed doors and out of court with most of the 3rd party companies.

Dead Metal wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Not quite. Both are brands with the same type of product. The catch is this:

The concept of the product can't be protected by copyright law, the execution of that concept however, can be.

Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Fact remains that while Hasbro legally has no case against third parties yet (and I doubt they ever will), they can ban them from any event they organise, which includes BotCon.

The problem with that argument though is that it ignores character likeness rights. On those grounds, the figures at the very least and in 99% of all cases are in breach of copyright law in these cases.

No, in order for Hasbro to sucessfully sue they would have to be exact reproductions of existing toy designs, or have less than 20 differences with them.

Hercules is shares hardly any similarities with any official Hasbro toy, and especially not FansProjects stuff.

That is why Hasbro got away with Classics Jetfire, it resembles a Valkyre, but not close enough for any court to decide that it breaches Bandai's IP.

The problem there though is that you're not just talking about physical toy likeness or boxart likeness. Transformers was approached holistically as not only a toy line but a toy advertising campaign in the form of the cartoon. As such, you'd find that there's be a strong argument for the cartoon concept art, the toy box art and the toy likeness to be regarded as one in the same.

Even if you can claim that the individual components have enough points of difference to them to be inspired rather than ripping off the designs; Hercules himself looks far too much like cartoon concept art to get off scott free. Remember, Al Capone was never charged for his organised crimal activities, but for tax evasion .

Vicalliose wrote:Whilst the fan companies are indeed blatantly basing stuff off of Hasbro's characters, all it really boils down to is that it looks like something of Hasbro's. It'd be like me saying someone stole my identity because they're wearing the same clothes as me... N- no that's a terrible example... probably.

Oh! How 'bout this?

You'd have to say that's inspired at best, rather than being a design with IP theft going on.

Bowspearer wrote:
The problem there though is that you're not just talking about physical toy likeness or boxart likeness. Transformers was approached holistically as not only a toy line but a toy advertising campaign in the form of the cartoon. As such, you'd find that there's be a strong argument for the cartoon concept art, the toy box art and the toy likeness to be regarded as one in the same.

Even if you can claim that the individual components have enough points of difference to them to be inspired rather than ripping off the designs; Hercules himself looks far too much like cartoon concept art to get off scott free. Remember, Al Capone was never charged for his organised crimal activities, but for tax evasion .

Nope, he does not look like the cartoon concept art, too many differences. That's why Hasbro hasn't been sued over Classics Jetfire, which again resembles a Valkyre.

Bowspearer wrote:

Vicalliose wrote:Whilst the fan companies are indeed blatantly basing stuff off of Hasbro's characters, all it really boils down to is that it looks like something of Hasbro's. It'd be like me saying someone stole my identity because they're wearing the same clothes as me... N- no that's a terrible example... probably.

Oh! How 'bout this?

You'd have to say that's inspired at best, rather than being a design with IP theft going on.

...and it can DANCE.

Dead Metal wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:
The problem there though is that you're not just talking about physical toy likeness or boxart likeness. Transformers was approached holistically as not only a toy line but a toy advertising campaign in the form of the cartoon. As such, you'd find that there's be a strong argument for the cartoon concept art, the toy box art and the toy likeness to be regarded as one in the same.

Even if you can claim that the individual components have enough points of difference to them to be inspired rather than ripping off the designs; Hercules himself looks far too much like cartoon concept art to get off scott free. Remember, Al Capone was never charged for his organised crimal activities, but for tax evasion .

Nope, he does not look like the cartoon concept art, too many differences. That's why Hasbro hasn't been sued over Classics Jetfire, which again resembles a Valkyre.

We are clear that I was referring to Hercules/Devastator, not Jetfire/Valkyries right? The thing is that besides the forearm treads, there are minimal differences between the cartoon concept art for Devastator and Hercules- to the point where I highly doubt you'd get 20 or more differences in that form.

Bowspearer wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:
The problem there though is that you're not just talking about physical toy likeness or boxart likeness. Transformers was approached holistically as not only a toy line but a toy advertising campaign in the form of the cartoon. As such, you'd find that there's be a strong argument for the cartoon concept art, the toy box art and the toy likeness to be regarded as one in the same.

Even if you can claim that the individual components have enough points of difference to them to be inspired rather than ripping off the designs; Hercules himself looks far too much like cartoon concept art to get off scott free. Remember, Al Capone was never charged for his organised crimal activities, but for tax evasion .

Nope, he does not look like the cartoon concept art, too many differences. That's why Hasbro hasn't been sued over Classics Jetfire, which again resembles a Valkyre.

I was referring to Hercules/Devastator, not Jetfire/Valkyries.

It's still the same.
Hasbro designed Classics Jefire to resemble the Valkyire, with enough differences to not be sued by Bandai.
TFC did the same with Hercules.

Basically we're trying to make a legal argument for Hasbro's actions. Based on laws that are ridiculous to begin with. No Intellectual Property laws are bullshit, they do little to help the small man, you cannot change my mind on the subject.

But if we're going to go the route of "it looks like production art", then lawsuits should be flung left and right in any industries marketing giant robots, not necessarily just Transformers. If we keep crap like this up it will eventually get to the point where anybody can accuse anyone of theft and the only ones who will get by will be the ones with the most cash to bribe the law with, precisely the reason why things like ACTA, SOPA and PIPA exist.

Long story short it's all a friggin mess.

Same arguments, 'round and 'round, with no end in sight. Hasn't this thread (and the people) suffered enough? Take it out back, Pa. Put it out of it's misery. Ma's already got the hole dug.

Autobot032 wrote:Same arguments, 'round and 'round, with no end in sight. Hasn't this thread (and the people) suffered enough? Take it out back, Pa. Put it out of it's misery. Ma's already got the hole dug.

amen, brother

Vicalliose wrote:Intellectual Property laws are bullshit, they do little to help the small man, you cannot change my mind on the subject.

I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if something you'd invested time and energy into creating and maintaining was suddenly getting ripped off without your consent.

But I guess it's okay as long as you get your plastic crack addiction satisfied?

Burn wrote:

Vicalliose wrote:Intellectual Property laws are bullshit, they do little to help the small man, you cannot change my mind on the subject.

I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if something you'd invested time and energy into creating and maintaining was suddenly getting ripped off without your consent.

But I guess it's okay as long as you get your plastic crack addiction satisfied?

Except the chances of that even happening on a massive scale, or at all, are slim, though perhaps it's dependent on the product. And again, even if these laws existed they wouldn't help me and it wouldn't be worth while to sue or put someone in prison for something so petty. Clearly the people who did what they did wouldn't want to buy from or support me in the first place, it would simply be ignorant and bullheaded to give two shits. Besides depending on what you're talking about, my product may be so much like what other companies produce that it really doesn't make a difference.

It's petty, pure and simple.

Edit: Seriously though, in a world where basically EVERYTHING has been tried and originality is completely dead, how in the hell would I actually make something that doesn't look like something else?!

Rated X wrote:Granted, I didn’t invent the term “intellectual property” but I would love to punch the guy in the face that did.

My man, that had me rolling around in stitches. After reading through an encyclopaedias' worth of comments harking on about IP theft this was a very welcome relief and I couldn't agree more.

El Duque wrote:I know, my point is the whole IP theft argument just seems silly to me. This kind of thing goes on all the time in other industries. Also let us not forget Hasbro steals IP whenever they want:

Not-Lambo #1


Not-Lambo #2


.....and the worst offender of all......
Not-Valkyrie


and the list goes on.......

There is absolutely no difference in what Hasbro did to Bandai and what TFC Toys did to Hasbro.

This is exactly the point I made in my last post. If Hasbro can change a few details to get around paying licensing fees, why can't the third party makers use the same trick.

For those who argue the third party makers are doing something wrong, how is what Hasbro's doing any more legal than what the third party makers are doing?

not lambo 2? thats pretty much exactly what a Bugatti Veyron looks like, hah.

Bowspearer wrote:Except that you've contradicted yourself here. The engineering on Hercules is totally different to G1 devastator- completely agreed. However it goes copy the design though and that's where your IP theft comes into play. I completely agree that they don't own exclusive rights over converting robots. However they do own the rights over all of their designs- that's where 3rd party companies run into trouble.

I doubt there's a single person on this site who would claim Hasbro own the rights to the idea of robots who transform into various vehicles, etc, so lets draw a line under that one.

Lets stick with G1 Devastator (in any form) and TFC's Hercules as an example. We all know that Hercules was designed to homage Devastator in nearly every respect, lets not beat around the bush: We're talking about two teams of six robots, bright green and purple in colour, who transform in construction vehicles and combine into a singular humanoid robot.

As highly unlikely as it is, the sheer extent of the human imagination means that it's not impossible that someone could create Hercules without ever laying eyes on Devastator. Only if it were exactly the same could Hasbro seriously accuse TFC of IP theft.

Sodan-1 wrote:
Lets stick with G1 Devastator (in any form) and TFC's Hercules as an example. We all know that Hercules was designed to homage Devastator in nearly every respect, lets not beat around the bush: We're talking about two teams of six robots, bright green and purple in colour, who transform in construction vehicles and combine into a singular humanoid robot.

As highly unlikely as it is, the sheer extent of the human imagination means that it's not impossible that someone could create Hercules without ever laying eyes on Devastator. Only if it were exactly the same could Hasbro seriously accuse TFC of IP theft.

One thing I'd like to note, is this:
If Hasbro decided to suddenly attack TFC for Hercules, I would be defending TFC. Why? Obviously Hasbro can push the fact that Hercules is a ripoff of Devastator, and they would be right. Regardless, I would defend TFC because they are the little guys, who aren't stealing profits, not stealing market share, and they're actually filling a product want that isn't already being attempted by Hasbro (not on the same level of complexity or size or price). Finally, I'd back them up since they themselves are fans, who are trying to be business smart and make money selling somthing they know people want, and don't already have. If this was IBM, and MAC, and one was accused of making a faster hard drive with the same sorta technology, thats real competition (not the best example but you get what I mean).
This is not. SOOOOOooooo, cheers to you 3rd party guys, as I'll be backing you up as long as you're being stepped on for no REAL reason.

Thank you DAIRYCON for siding with those of us who appreciate and love our 3rd party toys!!!
http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/dairycons-stance-on-3rd-party-items/24313/

Ok. Better be careful next year. If you try and Cosplay and its not an officially licensed Hasbro Halloween costume. You WILL be stripped to your underwear in the exhibition hall.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:I think we're talking more about cartoon likeness vs. toy likeness, which is essentially barking up a different tree.

I don't know how copyright law works in that aspect, as in making toys in the likeness of a character as portrayed in any form of multimedia, so I can't or shouldn't comment on that. All I know is that's a multi-company nightmare.

The flaw in your argument here is that Hasbro can argue that Devastator is a cross-media property for example and that as they do market said property as a toy, it does cross that line.

Vicalliose wrote:

Burn wrote:

Vicalliose wrote:Intellectual Property laws are bullshit, they do little to help the small man, you cannot change my mind on the subject.

I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if something you'd invested time and energy into creating and maintaining was suddenly getting ripped off without your consent.

But I guess it's okay as long as you get your plastic crack addiction satisfied?

Except the chances of that even happening on a massive scale, or at all, are slim, though perhaps it's dependent on the product. And again, even if these laws existed they wouldn't help me and it wouldn't be worth while to sue or put someone in prison for something so petty. Clearly the people who did what they did wouldn't want to buy from or support me in the first place, it would simply be ignorant and bullheaded to give two shits. Besides depending on what you're talking about, my product may be so much like what other companies produce that it really doesn't make a difference.

It's petty, pure and simple.

I agree with Burn - I have no doubt that if you were in this position, that you'd be singing a very different tune on the subject. That's forgetting about the fact that if you own and 3rd Party TFs or KOs, you're in a situation where you benefit by Hasbro's IP being blatantly stolen. Considering that, it's all to easy to try and delude yourself into thinking that what 3rd Party companies are doing is ethical by trying to convince yourself that Hasbro are "just being petty".

Vicalliose wrote:Edit: Seriously though, in a world where basically EVERYTHING has been tried and originality is completely dead, how in the hell would I actually make something that doesn't look like something else?!

Except that as Figueroa's new Armarauders project proves, it isn't. Sure it's inspired by amny things, as are the designs, but there's no blatant ripoff in that project. But then as that project proves, there is a clear difference between inspiration and plageurism.

CommanderHazar wrote:This is exactly the point I made in my last post. If Hasbro can change a few details to get around paying licensing fees, why can't the third party makers use the same trick.

For those who argue the third party makers are doing something wrong, how is what Hasbro's doing any more legal than what the third party makers are doing?

Except that this argument fails on two fronts. To begin with, The Valk was licensed for toy use by Hasbro so the claims that this is about avoiding copyright in that case are pretty flimsy. Secondly, considering what has happened with Alternity and Binalteh; it's pretty obvious that these are more than just a few changes- otherwise they would have been sued to the hilt by Volkswagen in booth cases, especially given their public statemewnts about how they feel about their cars being associated with war. The fact that no such lawsuit has happened, given HasTak are "a big enough fish to fry" means that they do cross over the line from rip-off to inspiration.

Sodan-1 wrote:As highly unlikely as it is, the sheer extent of the human imagination means that it's not impossible that someone could create Hercules without ever laying eyes on Devastator. Only if it were exactly the same could Hasbro seriously accuse TFC of IP theft.

That argument would have worked 20-30 years ago. These days with the way the net is though, you're talking "getting hit by a meteor and killed the instant you walk out the front door of a morning" probability in terms of that happening. It's possible in the very early stage of things, but the moment the concept art started floating around (before the sculpting stage), there's no way that they couldn't have had someone bring up the similarities between Hercules and Devastator before it went to the proto stage, let alone the test shot phase.

MINDVVIPE wrote:One thing I'd like to note, is this:
If Hasbro decided to suddenly attack TFC for Hercules, I would be defending TFC. Why? Obviously Hasbro can push the fact that Hercules is a ripoff of Devastator, and they would be right. Regardless, I would defend TFC because they are the little guys, who aren't stealing profits, not stealing market share, and they're actually filling a product want that isn't already being attempted by Hasbro (not on the same level of complexity or size or price). Finally, I'd back them up since they themselves are fans, who are trying to be business smart and make money selling somthing they know people want, and don't already have.

That's a oxymoron. On one hand you claim Hercules is a direct ripoff of Devastator - meaning TFC are stealing profits in the form of IP rights, and as they are competing in the same market, market share. You then claim that they aren't stealing profits or market share(even though you've already admitted they are by stating that Hercules is a direct rip-off), only to go on by saying that TFC are a business and are trying to make money off Hasbro's ideas.

It's what you state after that that says what is really going on here. This romantic view of "defending the underdog" with 3rd party companies, is nothing more than an oxymoronic (as proven by your own post here) and flimsy argument to mask what is really going on here, which is fans trying to justify blatant theft because of an attitude of "I want my toy!" which they have.

TransformersEmporium wrote:Thank you DAIRYCON for siding with those of us who appreciate and love our 3rd party toys!!!
http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/dairycons-stance-on-3rd-party-items/24313/

All Dairycon are doing here is slitting their own throats for short term gain. I can see Hasbro's response straight away if they're sick and tired of KOs and 3rd party TFs. All they'd need to do is make Botcon the only authorised TF convention in the US and at that point Dairycon becomes illegal and the organisers can be sued or at the very least, face a C&D letter. A similar move happened in Japan when Takara had a falling out with fans years ago, so it has been done in the past.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but I don't like Dairycon's chances of surviving this unscathed.

Mechas8n wrote:Ok. Better be careful next year. If you try and Cosplay and its not an officially licensed Hasbro Halloween costume. You WILL be stripped to your underwear in the exhibition hall.

Until there's any announcement about customising classes and custom figure contests being cancelled (which is highly unlikely), this post really does put the wild into wild speculation.

MINDVVIPE wrote: Stop trying to coddle either official or 3rd party, and realize that its just business. We as fans just have to hope that we don't piss of the guys with the most power to abuse, and allow us to still get the best of both worlds..

Very very true and well said. IN this case, i feel this is strictly a buisness move by hasbro. At this point in time all Hasbro is saying is your not going to walk over us at our own show. Can't blame them for that.

MINDVVIPE wrote:For those of you who are Hasbro Fanatics for the simple reason of being a Hasbro fanatic, I will never understand you or your motives.

I can understand where your coming from, but one can say the same for "Hasbro haters" as well. Alot of responses in hate for hasbro have had no merit nor do they help make any aurgument in defending 3rd parties.

The licensing agreement you keep bringing up between Hasbro and Takatoku Toys regarding the use of the Valk is from the early days of G1 and is no longer in place. In fact it became problematic for Hasbro/Takara as soon as Bandai purchased Takatoku Toys and wanted to revive the Macross line, which is why Jetfire was never released in Japan.

MINDVVIPE wrote: One thing I'd like to note, is this:
If Hasbro decided to suddenly attack TFC for Hercules, I would be defending TFC. Why? and they would be Obviously Hasbro can push the fact that Hercules is a ripoff of Devastator, and they would be right.. Regardless,....... .

Sorry man, but that's where the case is closed. You can try and defend TFC's actions and justify why you'll support them, but all that is completely irrelevent. Espeacially concidering you just admitted Hercules is a rip off of Devestator.
Now let me say that for the most part i agree with you. TFC Hercules is for the most part just made to full fill a demand from the consumer and since hasbro isn't making it, there really isn't a lose of profit. But bottom line is they are full filling a demand that really is based off Hasbro IP. There the small guy. We all love to see the small guy get ahead, get things right and most of all make a product that everyone loves. But at the same time there's a right and wrong way to go about that.

El Duque wrote:The licensing agreement you keep bringing up between Hasbro and Bandai regarding the use of the Valk is from the early days of G1 and is no longer in place.

Even if you factor that in, the argument is incredibly weak and simply doesn't hold up - simply making you look like you don't understand the difference between inspiration and directly ripping something off. The only part of the G1 toy which made it over to the Classics version is the booster rockets, the fact that he has arm mounted missile launchers (which look radically different to the arm arrmour on the Super/Strike valk), and his head having the laser turrets. Everything else on the figure comes from either the Hooligan mold or from the Skyfire design. Clearly the booster section alone, which is the only part of it which is a direct likeness copy in "jet mode" wasn't enough for weren't enough for a lawsuit, or Bandai would have done it already.