The Energon Pub

megatronus wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:

Considering a preorder on this alone! Hilarious!

Creepy Woody makes everything hilarious.

Still having a hard time buying a 3rd party gobot toy.

perhaps if I was using 3rd party money, it would be easier to justify buying this.

Tsutsukakushi wrote:Still having a hard time buying a 3rd party gobot toy.

perhaps if I was using 3rd party money, it would be easier to justify buying this.

Whats the issue ? Its a homage to a classic character. And its nice and big and out of scale just like you like em !!!

So glad I'm getting him.

Can't wait for this one to show up. Should be interesting next to the 3rd party Groove.

Autobot Genocide wrote:

This is what I wanted to see. Im sick and tired of seeing test shot pics from privileged individuals. Just show me the damn box so I know its coming in my pile of loot soon...

Autobot Genocide wrote:

This is what I wanted to see. Im sick and tired of seeing test shot pics from privileged individuals. Just show me the damn box so I know its coming in my pile of loot soon...
Double post...so sick of th is crap, site always gets jammed, must be overloaded with stuff nobodys looking at. Can we Just get a delete comment button already ?

Autobot Genocide wrote:

LOL! Their box art totally copies the Jesse Philips TF art prints sold at AcidFreeGallery!

That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

I don't think it's about owning a style of art. I think it's a matter of, if not approved by him, this is a blatant rip-off on his style. Without crediting his work as inspiration, it's just poor form...

hpfabe wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

I don't think it's about owning a style of art. I think it's a matter of, if not approved by him, this is a blatant rip-off on his style. Without crediting his work as inspiration, it's just poor form...

I think not, but to each their own. but who knows maybe they commission him to do it. Whatever.

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

I think you're confusing a layout with a style.

And I said he owns it "to an extent."

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

I think you're confusing a layout with a style.

And I said he owns it "to an extent."

I didn't know you can own a layout either to any extent. Every piece of art ever made is inspired by something.

If you look closely its obviously there are some inspirations taken but I wouldn't call it a rip off.

Also I don't really care and I'm done making my point, we can disagree. =]

How does this compare to some 3P companies releasing box art similar to Hasbro's G1 style? Or how about other work like one of my favorites:



IP Discussions are always interesting. How do we protect something that someone has created, and yet allow for freedom to create, even if it is based off of something else?

Mkall wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Autobot Genocide wrote:

Considering a preorder on this alone! Hilarious!

Creepy Woody makes everything hilarious.

Oh god, he's mobile now.

Damn this thing looks fantastic.

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:That's very lame. But maybe they hd a commission made? They legit bought customs before, so maybe they legit commissioned the cover. Anyone up for emailing Philips?

Wait I don't get it. Jesse Philips owns this style of art?

Well, did he come up with the layout and way of presenting characters? If so then, yes. I'd say he owns it to an extent. As he's just an artists trying to make a buck, I do classify a copy of it as lame.

Not lame enough to make me not buy this, but it's still lame.

I don't care what he is trying to do but how do you own a style of ART? If I want to paint an Impression painting am I copying Claude Monet because he did it first?

I think you're confusing a layout with a style.

And I said he owns it "to an extent."

I didn't know you can own a layout either to any extent. Every piece of art ever made is inspired by something.

If you look closely its obviously there are some inspirations taken but I wouldn't call it a rip off.

Also I don't really care and I'm done making my point, we can disagree. =]

If you can point to it and say it's done in another artist's "style" then yeah, that artist can own it "to an extant".

Another, more relevant, example is Pat Lee style. He can't sue anyone for using it, but you DO know what I'm talking about when I say "Pat Lee style", right? Sure you do. He owns that style. It's his. In the same way you can own a layout or composition.

Edit: And when you copy something right down to text placement and font weight ... well! Then you're clearly copying; it goes beyond "inspiration". And, as this isn't exactly a famous piece of TF art I call this "lame" (on the assumption that it's not a commission done by the artist).

Rated X wrote:Im still on board, but im not liking the feet. I knew it was going to be asymmetrical, but I thought the color was going to hide it. The white foot is a real eyesore

I think it will grow on me too but I see the different color on his feet as the only flaw...hopefully nothing more.


Getting back to the subject I just wanna tip my hat and give gratitude to those of you that always order/pre-order without knowing what to expect. Especially when it's from a 3rd Party manufacturer, you truly TOFTT.

I for one cannot do this without some form of review or feedback so I look forward to you that have this pre-ordered. I can't wait for the verdict...c'mon Cy-Kill!

Agamemnon wrote:How does this compare to some 3P companies releasing box art similar to Hasbro's G1 style? Or how about other work like one of my favorites:



IP Discussions are always interesting. How do we protect something that someone has created, and yet allow for freedom to create, even if it is based off of something else?

If you're asking my own opinion?

It's a question of scale. Obama has made that particular campaign image iconic. And Hasbro's 80's boxes are iconic as well, at least in our own community. Both are made by large entities on a massive scale.

Another is a print made by an artist who sees ... how much in exchange for the work?

The act is the same. But the scale is different. And that's what matters to me.

As with the 3rd party market in general I'm perfectly fine with David beating Goliath. But David picking on a smaller David rubs me the wrong way. Not enough to not buy the thing, but enough for me to say it's lame on a forum.

Edit: Bear in mind I'm not talking about legalities. I'm talking about what I, personally, feel is lame.

Oh, I was being mostly rhetorical. IP discussions are messy at best. When is something an homage something else? When is it outright theft? What should we actually be able to copyright? What goes too far? It's a debate that has gone on a long time and will likely continue.

I definitely respect your thoughts on this, Gauntlet. I can see your point, and I admit that if UT didn't get the artists permission (or even commission it from him) then it makes me feel not quite right either. On the other hand, this is an ironic discussion in a Knock-off and 3rd party forum, eh? *wry smile*

Very neat that my post prompted a nice little debate!

I'm fairly in line with Gauntlet in theory (that it's a shame, given the scale and context), but Aggie in sentiment (wry irony).

Oh, I agree it's ironic. Fully aware that a discussion on artists' rights in the 3rd party forum is inherently ironic. Bear in mind I'm not saying we should boycott UT ... it doesn't make me angry. I just feel that, given that UT has made a unique toy here, they could have made their own unique artwork as they had with the Sharkticons. It's just lame, that's all.

IP theft is often discussed here, but it's usually in legal tones with a lot of high handed opinions on both sides.

Anyway, I went ahead and found Philips and let him know. Here's his response:

I was not aware of this, Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

It's actually kind of flattering to be honest. But def. bootlegged and they even drew their robot (a Gobot clone it seems) in the same style.

But if they are fully producing unlicensed transformers/Gobots toys it would probably be hard to get them on swiping a design for the packaging.

I'll let AcidFree know about this, but honestly I'm not too miffed, there's a long history of bootlegging toys and appropriating often unrelated artwork for the packaging.

Cheers,

Jesse