Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
NATO-BOT wrote:Ok, so here's two cents from some one with a little experience with this particular subject. When I started proposing my BT/ALT add-on kits waaaayy back in the day before there was a Fansproject (2004), I was known as NATO2469 over on TFANS, I was among those who jump started this whole conversation when I swore up and down that I would eventually produce my BT/Alt Ironhide. I read quite a lot on trademark and copyright law, as well as a few books on the toy industry specifically. And I'm sorry to tell you but Scaleface is right. With the exception some of the strait mold copies (MP Prime and seeker KOs etc.) there is no IP infringement being done here. So long as the design is at least "15% different" and the name is not so close that it can be confused with Hasbro's IP it cannot be considered trademark infringement. Copy right only deals with the printed page or things that could be printed in the cases of digital media (and must be exact copies). Patents only effect ideas and processes and are very hard and time intensive (and thus almost never sought in the toy industry). Hasbro would have no legal claim, on FP and most of the other 3rd parties.
Since then I have learned that Hasbro considers the 3rd parties as "direct competition" not IP thieves. So take that for tidbit for what it's worth.
The link given for the MLP KO game shows an obvious use of exactly the same designs used the official Hub show (including hair, face shape etc.) had they designed their own little brightly colored ponies instead of using the show's ponies with different cutimarks there wouldn't be a problem. There are plenty examples of pink and purple pony toys out there that Hasbro has no legal claim on (including some with frilly designs on their flanks).
Gauntlet101010 wrote:I can see his point and it explains a lot.
But I do wonder about products like IT's Quints. They're obviously based on the Quintessons. Is the lack of an official toy really preventing Hasbro from suing them? Are the Quints, either Arcee, or Hegemeon really 15% different than Hasbro's designs?
Gauntlet101010 wrote:I can see his point and it explains a lot.
But I do wonder about products like IT's Quints. They're obviously based on the Quintessons. Is the lack of an official toy really preventing Hasbro from suing them? Are the Quints, either Arcee, or Hegemeon really 15% different than Hasbro's designs?
Burn wrote:Frankly I think the only real winners here are the lawyers.
Burn wrote:So ... Apple suing, and subsequently winning against Samsung because the Galaxy was a rectangle with round corners just like the iPhone and people could get confused ... was because the Galaxy wasn't 15% different?
Frankly I think the only real winners here are the lawyers.
Trademark infringement involves the determination of the probability of confusion by consumers between two marks. Similarity of appearance, phonetics, and meaning as well as channels of trade, direct competitiveness, strength of the famous mark, and evidence of actual confusion can determine trademark infringement.[1]
A "key fact about trademark law is the difference between the ™ symbol and the ® symbol. The former requires no formal paperwork. You literally just add ™ to claim it. The latter requires an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that should include proof of sustained and exclusive use of the mark."[1] Using the "TM" mark does not actually confer any legal rights in federal law, but it may nevertheless help a business acquire secondary meaning concerning a specific mark.
Although most modern copyright systems do not treat copyrighted or patented materials in the same way as real property, the term "intellectual property" has gained prominence. For more on this subject, see "intellectual property"
Rated X wrote:The truth is there is no law in writing that can satisfy either side of this debate. It's basically the Roe vs. Wade of the Transformers fandom. Any law ever placed would be dodged with loopholes like anything else that passes congress.
Mkall wrote:I'm under no illusion that this may degenerate into the typical butting of heads and clashing of opinions, however I do feel it needs to be brought to the attention of all who have strong feelings one way or another. And yes I know that there will be those who won't change their opinions even if contradictory evidence was found on The Golden Disk but if a few could be better educated on the subject then who knows how it could benefit future views and discussions?
For those that do not know, NATO-BOT was one of the first ever to make and sell TF accessories, first for Alternators, then he made an Animated Prime Axe and a kit to turn Universe Roadbutster into something slightly more G1-ish. I'm not sure what he's up to these days but I take his words with more truth than most on these boards who weigh in with opinions (my own included).
Context for his posting can be found hereNATO-BOT wrote:Ok, so here's two cents from some one with a little experience with this particular subject. When I started proposing my BT/ALT add-on kits waaaayy back in the day before there was a Fansproject (2004), I was known as NATO2469 over on TFANS, I was among those who jump started this whole conversation when I swore up and down that I would eventually produce my BT/Alt Ironhide. I read quite a lot on trademark and copyright law, as well as a few books on the toy industry specifically. And I'm sorry to tell you but Scaleface is right. With the exception some of the strait mold copies (MP Prime and seeker KOs etc.) there is no IP infringement being done here. So long as the design is at least "15% different" and the name is not so close that it can be confused with Hasbro's IP it cannot be considered trademark infringement. Copy right only deals with the printed page or things that could be printed in the cases of digital media (and must be exact copies). Patents only effect ideas and processes and are very hard and time intensive (and thus almost never sought in the toy industry). Hasbro would have no legal claim, on FP and most of the other 3rd parties.
Since then I have learned that Hasbro considers the 3rd parties as "direct competition" not IP thieves. So take that for tidbit for what it's worth.
The link given for the MLP KO game shows an obvious use of exactly the same designs used the official Hub show (including hair, face shape etc.) had they designed their own little brightly colored ponies instead of using the show's ponies with different cutimarks there wouldn't be a problem. There are plenty examples of pink and purple pony toys out there that Hasbro has no legal claim on (including some with frilly designs on their flanks).
Rated X wrote:This is a no win debate because some people out there are more Hasbro fans then they are Transformer fans. If Hasbro buys the sesame street line, they all start collecting Big Bird. If Hasbro sells the Transformers franchise tomorrow, the sell their collections and roll with Hasbro like some fake ass corporate zombies.
El Duque wrote:I'm sure a lot of people will probably take issue with this, but I really think it just boils down to a pricing issue. I think if the third-party stuff was on par with Has/Tak pricing we wouldn't see all the rage. I think we run into a lot of "I want it, but I can't afford it, therefore I hate it". I know that's not the case for everyone out there who isn't a fan of the third-party movement, but I feel it's a major contributing factor to all the controversy.
Gauntlet101010 wrote:I still have a hard time believing that Hasbro/Takara can't do anything against the Impossible Toys line. I mean, I can see it being not worth their while, but being powerless? Those things are almost exactly like the animation model.
I don't think you actually understand other people's position on TFs.[quote]Gauntlet101010 wrote:
Gauntlet101010 wrote:Yeah, I get your position. But either you don't understand other people's or you're just being insulting on purpose.
Gauntlet101010 wrote:Oh, I don't think Hasbro will ever make toys out of them or act on IT. I'm just of a mind that they must be able to do something if they chose to.
Are random designs up for grabs from anyone? While I might be able to buy that (somewhat) you also have Arcee and the Quintessons, which have been used subsequently in posters and comics after the movie. And Hegemon who is clearly based off G1 Megatron's animation model. And much moreso than something like Herc or Giant. Maybe his gun mode and transformation sequence protects him? Hm.
This is a no win debate because some people out there are more Hasbro fans then they are Transformer fans. If Hasbro buys the sesame street line, they all start collecting Big Bird. If Hasbro sells the Transformers franchise tomorrow, the sell their collections and roll with Hasbro like some fake ass corporate zombies.
However I honestly dont understand the position of "Pro-Hasbro" Transformers fans who are "Anti-Third party". I know you are not one of them, however maybe you can shed some light on what makes them tick...
Rated X wrote:I don't think you actually understand other people's position on TFs.Gauntlet101010 wrote:
Maybe I dont but Im sure you can enlighten me...
However, I can state my position on Transformers. I consider Transformers to be a cast of ever evolving characters that anyone can add on or homage it's existing 25+ years of fiction. I am a fan, not a stockholder. I dont see it as a "brand" or a "franchise" because those are corporate terms that have no relevance to being a fan. It's like saying every Penn State fan must be a Sandusky supporter because he was part of the team at one time. I dont collect G.I.Joe, Star Wars, My Little Pony and I have no personal connection to Hasbro as a company. They could sell any one of these "franchises" at any time. So my loyalty is with the Transformers characters, not whoever currently owns their copyrights or finances their most current reincarnation. It's hard to defend a bunch of guys in business suits who were probally in high school when G1 was born in 1984. The CURRENT Hasbro CEO's didnt create Transformers, they just inherited it.
RodimalToyota wrote:Hasbro can't walk into court and say "our Megatron from 20 years, that we will never sell again, looks like this Hegemon fellow who isn't available anywhere but some e-tailers"
Return to Unlicensed and KO Transformers Toys
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Drop Bear, Emerje, Galvatronus Prime, Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, MSN [Bot], Psycho Warrior, sprockitz, Thundertron, Weston, Yahoo [Bot]