New Images of Flame Toys IDW Tarn Non-Transforming Figure

While a shame about the price, that is a thing of beauty.

there are probably12 babies that will be born exactly 9 months from today... all because this sexiness was unleashed upon the public.

Meanwhile Hasbro could've made a decent Tarn using TR Blitzwing or TR Galvatron's mold (or his own mold) last year.

Instead they'd rather be greedy renting the name out to 3P companies. So here are the controversial ironies about highly coveted CHUG TF figures that are putting me off as a collector.

-Hasbro gives the name of Tarn to a 3rd party company with crazy articulation but no transformation, yet has a price tag close to $400.

-Hasbro makes a long awaited Shockwave that's Voyager class size under this cheap Cyber Batallion line with barely no articulation.

This isn't a 3rd party figure. Flame Toys is officially licensed.

Even so, I do wish we would get official toys of the DJD, but considering they are a torture squad and only ever have been, kinda hard to justify as a toy

YoungPrime wrote:Meanwhile Hasbro could've made a decent Tarn using TR Blitzwing

NOPE

Would have looked like crap

And we know that from this reprolabels set that no one wants

https://toyhax.com/for-titans-ret/2453- ... -tarn.html

william-james88 wrote:

YoungPrime wrote:Meanwhile Hasbro could've made a decent Tarn using TR Blitzwing

NOPE

Would have looked like crap

And we know that from this reprolabels set that no one wants

https://toyhax.com/for-titans-ret/2453- ... -tarn.html

yeah not even close

Ultra Markus wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

YoungPrime wrote:Meanwhile Hasbro could've made a decent Tarn using TR Blitzwing

NOPE

Would have looked like crap

And we know that from this reprolabels set that no one wants

https://toyhax.com/for-titans-ret/2453- ... -tarn.html

yeah not even close

this is much closer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKCIDCu3shw

I want it. At some point I will have it.

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:This isn't a 3rd party figure. Flame Toys is officially licensed.

Uh, this is the very definition of an official 3rd party figure, not the KO stuff that people mislabel as 3rd party. 1st party would be Hasbro and any company they own, such as Playskool (Rescue Bots) or Galoob (Titaniums). 2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications. 3rd party would be a company that produces figures on their own with an official license, there's numerous examples of this like Funko, the Loyal Subjects, Kids Logic, etc.

And for the that matter licenses are expensive, you're paying for bot a name and a likeness and Hasbro doesn't give them to just anyone. Flame Toys has to produce something that'll make them a profit at a small production run. Hasbro doesn't allow 3rd parties to make transforming figures so they have to go all out on a figure that makes up for that loss.

Even so, I do wish we would get official toys of the DJD, but considering they are a torture squad and only ever have been, kinda hard to justify as a toy

How is that any different from all the other killer Decepticons? Or for that matter any super villain toys? How many children did Darth Vader personally murder in Episode III again?

Emerje

Emerje wrote:2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications.

Not really. The second party, traditionally speaking, is the consumer. So us.

Emerje wrote:How is that any different from all the other killer Decepticons? Or for that matter any super villain toys? How many children did Darth Vader personally murder in Episode III again?

Emerje

I watched that scene again the other day (watching random star wars clips) and man, I know George Lucas has his faults, but that shot with the cute little kid asking if everything will be ok is PERFECT.

Emerje wrote:

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:This isn't a 3rd party figure. Flame Toys is officially licensed.

Uh, this is the very definition of an official 3rd party figure, not the KO stuff that people mislabel as 3rd party. 1st party would be Hasbro and any company they own, such as Playskool (Rescue Bots) or Galoob (Titaniums). 2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications. 3rd party would be a company that produces figures on their own with an official license, there's numerous examples of this like Funko, the Loyal Subjects, Kids Logic, etc.

And for the that matter licenses are expensive, you're paying for bot a name and a likeness and Hasbro doesn't give them to just anyone. Flame Toys has to produce something that'll make them a profit at a small production run. Hasbro doesn't allow 3rd parties to make transforming figures so they have to go all out on a figure that makes up for that loss.

Even so, I do wish we would get official toys of the DJD, but considering they are a torture squad and only ever have been, kinda hard to justify as a toy

How is that any different from all the other killer Decepticons? Or for that matter any super villain toys? How many children did Darth Vader personally murder in Episode III again?

Emerje

like with console games for example 1st party hasbro owns 100% 2nd party hasbro owns partial 3rd party is an independent company that may have a licence to produce the product
then what of these other companies that make add ons or upgrades or whole figures unofficially without a licence, still third party?

epic action master.

$369.99

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

For a Transformer who not only does not transform but is supposed to be addicted to it.

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications.

Not really. The second party, traditionally speaking, is the consumer. So us.

You're thinking in terms of transactions, not production companies. In transactions the first party is the seller (and sometimes the manufacturer), the second party is the consumer, the third party is actually the supplier. First, second, and third party mean different things in different places.

Ultra Markus wrote:like with console games for example 1st party hasbro owns 100% 2nd party hasbro owns partial 3rd party is an independent company that may have a licence to produce the product
then what of these other companies that make add ons or upgrades or whole figures unofficially without a licence, still third party?

Yes, it's basically the same as game development, but slightly different Microsoft and Rare are both first party companies since Microsoft owns Rare and Microsoft makes the consoles, therefore they're first party games. When Rare used to make games for Nintendo they were a second party company since they weren't owned by Nintendo, just funded by them to make games on Nintendo consoles, but the games were still technically first party since they were published by Nintendo. In this case a third party is a company that makes a game for a console independent of the maker of the console(s), like Capcom making a Street Fighter game for various consoles.

Add-ons and upgrades are simply aftermarket parts, sort of like non-OEM (original equipment manufacturer) parts for cars and computers. Since you're typically replacing an existing official part they don't really fall into the whole party scheme.

Unlicensed figures don't really belong to a party either since they aren't related in any way to Hasbro. Technically and legally speaking they're knockoffs of Hasbro's licenses and properties. I'm sure the only reason why Hasbro doesn't go after them is because it would cost more to try to shut them down than they lose from them existing.

Emerje

Emerje wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

Emerje wrote:2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications.

Not really. The second party, traditionally speaking, is the consumer. So us.

You're thinking in terms of transactions, not production companies. In transactions the first party is the seller (and sometimes the manufacturer), the second party is the consumer, the third party is actually the supplier. First, second, and third party mean different things in different places.

Ultra Markus wrote:like with console games for example 1st party hasbro owns 100% 2nd party hasbro owns partial 3rd party is an independent company that may have a licence to produce the product
then what of these other companies that make add ons or upgrades or whole figures unofficially without a licence, still third party?

Yes, it's basically the same as game development, but slightly different Microsoft and Rare are both first party companies since Microsoft owns Rare and Microsoft makes the consoles, therefore they're first party games. When Rare used to make games for Nintendo they were a second party company since they weren't owned by Nintendo, just funded by them to make games on Nintendo consoles, but the games were still technically first party since they were published by Nintendo. In this case a third party is a company that makes a game for a console independent of the maker of the console(s), like Capcom making a Street Fighter game for various consoles.

Add-ons and upgrades are simply aftermarket parts, sort of like non-OEM (original equipment manufacturer) parts for cars and computers. Since you're typically replacing an existing official part they don't really fall into the whole party scheme.

Unlicensed figures don't really belong to a party either since they aren't related in any way to Hasbro. Technically and legally speaking they're knockoffs of Hasbro's licenses and properties. I'm sure the only reason why Hasbro doesn't go after them is because it would cost more to try to shut them down than they lose from them existing.

Emerje

since unlicensed figures are no way related hasbro should feel free to draw ideas from them since they wouldn't get into any trouble for copyright infringement in some cases i think they may have
besides the best way hasbro can beat these companies is release the official versions of the figures they were trying to make

Ultra Markus wrote:since unlicensed figures are no way related hasbro should feel free to draw ideas from them since they wouldn't get into any trouble for copyright infringement in some cases i think they may have
besides the best way hasbro can beat these companies is release the official versions of the figures they were trying to make

In a sense this is what Hasbro is already doing. Takara Tomy is the ones that work out the transformations and they definitely prefer trying to beat the KOs rather than copy them when it comes to Masterpieces.

Emerje

Oh here we go again...

Personally I have no sympathy for HasTak whatsoever with their apparent "struggle" against 3Ps. Perhaps if they made better products in the first place people wouldn't feel the need to buy upgrades or alternatives to HasTak's output. When figures have terribly applied stickers instead of paint, worse and worse QC and plastic quality, and the former alternative to at least some of the shortcomings (Takara's improved releases) is removed as an option under the guise of "Brand unification" then quite frankly if they go belly up and the Transformers license either goes to another company or goes public then they'll have gotten what they deserved. Even MPs aren't doing so well, with increasingly bizarre design choices, skyrocketing prices and again, increases in QC issues.

>B-But it's illegal! It's unlicensed and violates IP laws!

IP laws as they stand only exist thanks to the greed of Disney, lobbying the US government to indefinitely delay Mickey Mouse and co from going into the public domain. Every time it gets close to the date the Mouse will finally go public, they petition to get the laws changed again. And so it goes on, and on, and on.

Seriously. That's literally it. IP law is a farce and should be treated with naught but contempt.

>B-But even fanart is technically illegal! HasTak are entirely within their rights to take them down!

If you honestly are the kind of person who thinks the full weight of the law should be thrown against fanartists, I have nothing to say to you. You're clearly too far gone.


TLDR: IP law only exists because of powerful crooks, and it should be ignored whenever possible if it means we get better figures.

So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

Emerje

Thanks to the official Twitter account of Flame Toys, the licensed makers of non-transforming highly detailed and posable action figures of Transformers characters, we have the reveal of the next figure in their higher end line, after Decepticon turned Autobot Drift and Decepticon Justice Division leader Tarn - taking another cue from the IDW Publishing comics, we have the Autobot leader himself, Optimus Prime!

We had seen art of this figure previously,but this is the first time we have a prototype of the figure itself, featuring the serious ab crunch, angry looking face, and even more serious ginormous punching fists. Check it out below!

This is a prototype sample of Optimusprime.鉄機巧 4th project. It is still being revised. #FLAMETOYS #鉄機巧 #TRANSFORMERS #optimusprime

I seriously dont see why anyone would buy this. For people who want a transformer, theres MP-10. And for the art loving community, theres Statuemus Prime from Imaginiarium. But a posable statue is increibly pointless.

Emerje wrote:So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. What I'm saying is that were it not for Disney, then Transformers (and for that matter, a great deal of properties) would be in the public domain. Disney literally gets laws made for them so that they will never lose control of characters whose original creator is long, long dead.

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

See that's just the thing. If you use this comparison, most "KOs" as you call them (despite KOs referring specifically to stolen molds) are entirely original tooling, engineering and design, and thus would be covered by derivative product/fair use protections. Beyond looking like an existing character (and "But it looks like our character!" is about on par with Apple trying to claim ownership over rounded rectangles) they are entirely original products. Now I don't support actual KOs where an existing product is actually duplicated. But 3P stuff IMO is fair game, as it is in effect engineering fanart.. they certainly put more effort into a lot of their stuff than HasTak do.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

So basically it's got nothing to do with the actual principle of the thing, it's solely because these companies are successful enough to challenge HasTak.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Rated X wrote:I seriously dont see why anyone would buy this. For people who want a transformer, theres MP-10. And for the art loving community, theres Statuemus Prime from Imaginiarium. But a posable statue is increibly pointless.

I don't really like it myself but I don't think a posable non-transforming figure of a Transformers character is all that pointless. There's been times I've really not given a damn about transformation and wish the robot mode was just done as best as possible. Moreso with the complex movie designs that may have parts impossible to reproduce well in toy form but even some G1 characters in my opinion. I've never really cared for Galvatron's cannon mode and would be quite happy to have a non-transforming figure of him that paid full attention to just a good robot mode. The Titans figure fails hard in both of those AND the extra space ship mode it was forced to have just to give the darn Titan Master a cockpit to sit in. But I have the added problem there that I want a grey Galvatron cos my fave version of him is the Marvel UK comics one and most of them only come out in purple...

Awesome. I’ve been waiting for this one. I’ve admired their work with Drift and Tarn looks like it will be even better. However, those are not characters that I’m going to drop $300-400 on. Now Prime, I may. I’ll be following to see the finished product and price.

Looks pretty good, but cost is an issue

Black Hat wrote:

Emerje wrote:So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. What I'm saying is that were it not for Disney, then Transformers (and for that matter, a great deal of properties) would be in the public domain. Disney literally gets laws made for them so that they will never lose control of characters whose original creator is long, long dead.

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

See that's just the thing. If you use this comparison, most "KOs" as you call them (despite KOs referring specifically to stolen molds) are entirely original tooling, engineering and design, and thus would be covered by derivative product/fair use protections. Beyond looking like an existing character (and "But it looks like our character!" is about on par with Apple trying to claim ownership over rounded rectangles) they are entirely original products. Now I don't support actual KOs where an existing product is actually duplicated. But 3P stuff IMO is fair game, as it is in effect engineering fanart.. they certainly put more effort into a lot of their stuff than HasTak do.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

So basically it's got nothing to do with the actual principle of the thing, it's solely because these companies are successful enough to challenge HasTak.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Nope that’s not even remotely how that works but okay. Pretty sure I’m not gonna change your mind on that nine sense but I will say this. It’s everyones right to own some they created and not your place to think it shouldn’t.

I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Randomhero wrote:

Black Hat wrote:

Emerje wrote:So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. What I'm saying is that were it not for Disney, then Transformers (and for that matter, a great deal of properties) would be in the public domain. Disney literally gets laws made for them so that they will never lose control of characters whose original creator is long, long dead.

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

See that's just the thing. If you use this comparison, most "KOs" as you call them (despite KOs referring specifically to stolen molds) are entirely original tooling, engineering and design, and thus would be covered by derivative product/fair use protections. Beyond looking like an existing character (and "But it looks like our character!" is about on par with Apple trying to claim ownership over rounded rectangles) they are entirely original products. Now I don't support actual KOs where an existing product is actually duplicated. But 3P stuff IMO is fair game, as it is in effect engineering fanart.. they certainly put more effort into a lot of their stuff than HasTak do.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

So basically it's got nothing to do with the actual principle of the thing, it's solely because these companies are successful enough to challenge HasTak.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Nope that’s not even remotely how that works but okay. Pretty sure I’m not gonna change your mind on that nine sense but I will say this. It’s everyones right to own some they created and not your place to think it shouldn’t.

I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.

QUACK QUACK
DUCK FEET!!!

Why does Prime have duck feet!!!???

He has got big toes like, but I think he may need them to stabilise himself after his mega work out

Carnivius_Prime wrote:

Rated X wrote:I seriously dont see why anyone would buy this. For people who want a transformer, theres MP-10. And for the art loving community, theres Statuemus Prime from Imaginiarium. But a posable statue is increibly pointless.

I don't really like it myself but I don't think a posable non-transforming figure of a Transformers character is all that pointless. There's been times I've really not given a damn about transformation and wish the robot mode was just done as best as possible. Moreso with the complex movie designs that may have parts impossible to reproduce well in toy form but even some G1 characters in my opinion. I've never really cared for Galvatron's cannon mode and would be quite happy to have a non-transforming figure of him that paid full attention to just a good robot mode. The Titans figure fails hard in both of those AND the extra space ship mode it was forced to have just to give the darn Titan Master a cockpit to sit in. But I have the added problem there that I want a grey Galvatron cos my fave version of him is the Marvel UK comics one and most of them only come out in purple...

I get what youre saying. But my question would be hasnt MP-10 or any of the many 3rd party primes reached that pinnacle already? I dont transform my transformers much either, but shouldnt not having a transformation lower the price ? Instead they have almost tripled it. Maybe an articulated statue makes sense for a character like Tarn that nobody (cough cough MMC) will ever make a transformable Tarn anyway. But Optimus Prime ? And while Hasbro sort of failed with their Galvatron, several 3rd parties have nailed Galvatron in MP scale without the cannon mode sacraficing the robot modes aesthetics. In chug scale Mania King did a pretty good job of capturing that essence but more stylized. And any of the 3rd party Galvatrons is still less than half of what flame toys would charge for a Statue-tron if they ever make one. But im not gonna lie, galvy in grey might not be a huge seller because the original G1 toy was ugly as hell and the cartoon galvy kind of became the epitome of the character. Even hasbros grey versions of the toy leaned closer to toon deco with the purple.

Double post. Would love to be able to delete it myself but then I suppose then somebody would be out of a job.

Black Hat wrote:

Emerje wrote:So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. What I'm saying is that were it not for Disney, then Transformers (and for that matter, a great deal of properties) would be in the public domain. Disney literally gets laws made for them so that they will never lose control of characters whose original creator is long, long dead.

Funny, still sounds like I got the point. But did you? Public domain applies to three things: books, film, and music and only those created before copyright. That's why Disney fights the public domain limits, but that has absolutely no effect on Transformers so your point is moot.

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

See that's just the thing. If you use this comparison, most "KOs" as you call them (despite KOs referring specifically to stolen molds) are entirely original tooling, engineering and design, and thus would be covered by derivative product/fair use protections. Beyond looking like an existing character (and "But it looks like our character!" is about on par with Apple trying to claim ownership over rounded rectangles) they are entirely original products. Now I don't support actual KOs where an existing product is actually duplicated. But 3P stuff IMO is fair game, as it is in effect engineering fanart.. they certainly put more effort into a lot of their stuff than HasTak do.

Original products and unique molding don't protect them from using character likenesses. You can't just sell a Mickey Mouse figure (since you like to bring up Disney) and think it's OK because it isn't based on an existing Mickey Mouse figure. And really, I'm not stupid, I know there's a number of modified MP-10s and an army of modified MP-11s, and a huge number of up scales and down scales. It's all the same.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

So basically it's got nothing to do with the actual principle of the thing, it's solely because these companies are successful enough to challenge HasTak.

No, it's about the principal and the law. I have no problem admitting that they make some really cool figures and if they want to make one every few months and sell it on eBay like fans do that would be fine. But once you start mass producing for profit you're no longer doing it as a fan, you're doing it as a company using a stolen IP. Like I said earlier, the only reason Hasbro doesn't go off and sue them all (and they would win) is because it would cost them more money to do it than they lose letting them stay since most of them are hiding out in countries that don't care about copyright and IP laws. That does not make it OK.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, but you're supposed to do it using your own ideas, not someone else's. And who said anything about the KOs being more successful? Making a profit doesn't make them more successful. They can make all the robot figures they want and some of them have made some really nice original characters, but they just don't make enough money so they keep going back to Hasbro's characters.

Black Hat wrote:

Randomhero wrote:I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Yeah it is. You're really going to say it's not OK to steal his ideas and characters for a profit against his will, but it's OK to do it to Hasbro?

Emerje

Emerje wrote:

Black Hat wrote:

Emerje wrote:So your whole defense for being OK with KOs is that you don't like Disney? Sure...

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. What I'm saying is that were it not for Disney, then Transformers (and for that matter, a great deal of properties) would be in the public domain. Disney literally gets laws made for them so that they will never lose control of characters whose original creator is long, long dead.

Funny, still sounds like I got the point. But did you? Public domain applies to three things: books, film, and music and only those created before copyright. That's why Disney fights the public domain limits, but that has absolutely no effect on Transformers so your point is moot.

In which case IP law is even more flawed than I thought and requires even more serious reform.

Fan art and KOs aren't even on the same level. Fan art is drawings, sculptures, digital art, etc. usually done on commission, sometimes small print runs that really don't make any real amount of money, certainly not enough to bother Hasbro or any other companies for that matter. Hasbro did try to block them once at BotCon, but quickly came to their senses. There's actually a legal exception for derivative fan art under fair use laws as long as they aren't an outright reproduction of official art.

See that's just the thing. If you use this comparison, most "KOs" as you call them (despite KOs referring specifically to stolen molds) are entirely original tooling, engineering and design, and thus would be covered by derivative product/fair use protections. Beyond looking like an existing character (and "But it looks like our character!" is about on par with Apple trying to claim ownership over rounded rectangles) they are entirely original products. Now I don't support actual KOs where an existing product is actually duplicated. But 3P stuff IMO is fair game, as it is in effect engineering fanart.. they certainly put more effort into a lot of their stuff than HasTak do.

Original products and unique molding don't protect them from using character likenesses. You can't just sell a Mickey Mouse figure (since you like to bring up Disney) and think it's OK because it isn't based on an existing Mickey Mouse figure. And really, I'm not stupid, I know there's a number of modified MP-10s and an army of modified MP-11s, and a huge number of up scales and down scales. It's all the same.

No, it's NOT all the same. That's just it. I have nothing but contempt for actual KOs where they just take original molds and sell them as their own. Making an entirely original figure, even one based on an existing character, takes a lot of work.

KOs are mass produced by companies purely to make money off Hasbro's IP. That's all. No fair use protection here no matter how pretty the figure may be.

So basically it's got nothing to do with the actual principle of the thing, it's solely because these companies are successful enough to challenge HasTak.

No, it's about the principal and the law.

Except as has already been established, the law is literally being rewritten every few years by one company solely out of greed, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I have no problem admitting that they make some really cool figures and if they want to make one every few months and sell it on eBay like fans do that would be fine. But once you start mass producing for profit you're no longer doing it as a fan, you're doing it as a company using a stolen IP. Like I said earlier, the only reason Hasbro doesn't go off and sue them all (and they would win) is because it would cost them more money to do it than they lose letting them stay since most of them are hiding out in countries that don't care about copyright and IP laws. That does not make it OK.

Again. IP laws are absolute nonsense. And you keep coming back to the "Producing for profit" point- If Hasbro's product wasn't so shockingly poor that people felt the need to mass produce upgrades and replacements then maybe the market wouldn't exist.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, but you're supposed to do it using your own ideas, not someone else's.

By that logic, nobody else except Mercedes-Benz should be allowed to make cars because they were the first ones to make them.

And who said anything about the KOs being more successful? Making a profit doesn't make them more successful. They can make all the robot figures they want and some of them have made some really nice original characters, but they just don't make enough money so they keep going back to Hasbro's characters.

Black Hat wrote:

Randomhero wrote:I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Yeah it is. You're really going to say it's not OK to steal his ideas and characters for a profit against his will, but it's OK to do it to Hasbro?

Emerje

For one, he's a small-time artist with limited funds, compare that to a juggernaut like Hasbro with enough money to probably finance a small private army at this point. They are absolutely not comparable. For another, he actually created his IP. Modern Hasbro didn't, they inherited it from the actual creators (people like Floro Dery, Bob Budiansky etc).

TLDR: The law is fundamentally broken and should not be followed or respected in any way, and Hasbro are incompetent at best and do not deserve to have exclusive control of the IP.

What's your obsession with defending Hasbro against those eeeeeevil "IP thieves" anyway? Are you on their payroll, "Correct the Record" style? Do you just not want us to have decent toys?

I think this is a discussion for a seperate copyright thread where you might be able to express your thoughts better, like what reforms there should be. Bringing it up on the thread of a licenced product isnt the best approach. Saying that if someone does make a thread about thus topic, can they let me know as it's a very interesting subject for me.

ZeroWolf wrote:I think this is a discussion for a seperate copyright thread where you might be able to express your thoughts better, like what reforms there should be. Bringing it up on the thread of a licenced product isnt the best approach. Saying that if someone does make a thread about thus topic, can they let me know as it's a very interesting subject for me.

Im gonna play devils advocate here. I agree with Black Hats Disney arguement. If it aplies to "film" then what makes Sunbow cartoons any different than Mickey cartoons other than 50 years ? Disney set the precedent for Hasbro to whine and b**ch. An original mold that uses the likeness of a Sunbow character is just as much "film" as any use of a disney character because mickey mouse and friends started off with short cartoons. It just so happened that those short cartoons were shown on the big screen because TVs hadnt been invented yet. So its all the same s**t but different time eras. Its not another companies fault if Hasbro doesnt get the character right or doesnt make an attempt to make the character in toy form at all. Thats Hasbros loss. I say use it or lose it. I dont see Hasbro doing anything with DJD so why not let MMC take a stab at it?
Hasbro can always make MMC an offer to buy the license. After the fact shouldnt make any difference. Im sure Flame Toys wouldnt be doing a licensed non-transformable Tarn if MMC hadnt broke the boundary and gave the character so much exposure. If anything, flame toys is eating off MMCs plate. Now on to actual KOs (identical copies of an existing mold) KOs dont cost Hasbro much money because they are mostly bought by people who had no plans of buying the original at the original price to begin with. You cant compare a KO Megatron to a KO radiator for a Camaro that is an actual necessity to continue using the vehicle. But you dont need the megatron to stay alive and keep breathing. I just bought the KO megatron on impulse because I liked the price. I bought KO radiator out of necessity and benefited from the price. See the difference? Thats why Chevy actually looses money from KOs and Hasbro really doesnt loose money at all. For every guy willing to wait for the inevitable KO a year later, theres 100 guys who gotta have it the moment it comes out at full price. Impulse buys are not the same as necessities. So Hasbro looses no money because I chose to buy something that I wouldnt normally buy at regular price to begin with.

Also on a side note, I think we are not really going off topic here. Flame Toys is basically a 3rd party company that got down on its knees and did you know what to obtain a license from Hasbro. Thats the only reason they are offical. So MMC didnt stoop to that level with their Tarn like Flame Toys did with theirs...who cares? MMC kept their dignity. They didnt sign off 50% or more of their profits to Hasbro who collects a check for sitting on their ass and doing absolutely nothing. The animators who drew the Sunbow cartoons are not on Hasbros payroll anymore. Artwork shouldnt be passed down through corporate hands for generations. Thats ludacris. So yes when the topic is "Flame Toys" all aspects of the  IP theft debate should be on the table. One of these days one of these 3rd party companies is going to strike a deal with Hasbro and make this site eat its words. I would laugh my ass off if this site is ever forced to front page a former 3rd party product because Hasbro buys them out of business and obtains the molds. It would be so ironic.

Black Hat wrote:No, it's NOT all the same. That's just it. I have nothing but contempt for actual KOs where they just take original molds and sell them as their own. Making an entirely original figure, even one based on an existing character, takes a lot of work.

Nobody denies they put a lot of work into their figures, but it doesn't make it OK to use someone else's characters to do it.

Except as has already been established, the law is literally being rewritten every few years by one company solely out of greed, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

No, you've established a law that doesn't apply here is "broken" (it isn't). Why are you even bringing this up again?

Again. IP laws are absolute nonsense. And you keep coming back to the "Producing for profit" point- If Hasbro's product wasn't so shockingly poor that people felt the need to mass produce upgrades and replacements then maybe the market wouldn't exist.

IP laws aren't nonsense. Intellectual property is no different from physical property. If someone makes a painting it doesn't suddenly get taken away and belong to the public after 50 years.

Maybe if those companies were capable of coming up with original ideas and market them successfully they wouldn't need to copy Hasbro all the time.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, but you're supposed to do it using your own ideas, not someone else's.

By that logic, nobody else except Mercedes-Benz should be allowed to make cars because they were the first ones to make them.

No, because cars are a generic concept, it's the make and model of car that other companies can't make. Nobody is stopping any company from making changeable robots, but they need to come up with their own ideas.

Black Hat wrote:

Randomhero wrote:I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Yeah it is. You're really going to say it's not OK to steal his ideas and characters for a profit against his will, but it's OK to do it to Hasbro?

Emerje

For one, he's a small-time artist with limited funds, compare that to a juggernaut like Hasbro with enough money to probably finance a small private army at this point. They are absolutely not comparable. For another, he actually created his IP. Modern Hasbro didn't, they inherited it from the actual creators (people like Floro Dery, Bob Budiansky etc).

It is shocking how little you understand about how any of this works. First off it doesn't matter how big the owner of the IP is, they're all the same size in the eyes of the law. Second, those individuals that helped develop Transformers did so under contract for Hasbro. The only way it would work the other way is if they came up with the idea and pitched it to Hasbro and Hasbro licensed the rights from them.

TLDR: The law is fundamentally broken and should not be followed or respected in any way, and Hasbro are incompetent at best and do not deserve to have exclusive control of the IP.

Only thing I took from any of this is that you're fine with companies breaking the law as long as it gets you nice things. The law isn't broken in the slightest and the only thing Hasbro doesn't deserve is to have their IP abused.

What's your obsession with defending Hasbro against those eeeeeevil "IP thieves" anyway? Are you on their payroll, "Correct the Record" style? Do you just not want us to have decent toys?

What's wrong with having a firm sense of right and wrong?

Rated X wrote:Im gonna play devils advocate here. I agree with Black Hats Disney arguement. If it aplies to "film" then what makes Sunbow cartoons any different than Mickey cartoons other than 50 years ? Disney set the precedent for Hasbro to whine and b**ch. An original mold that uses the likeness of a Sunbow character is just as much "film" as any use of a disney character because mickey mouse and friends started off with short cartoons.

Did you actually read any of this or did you stop at the part that made you happy? That law doesn't apply to Hasbro and Transformers. Those IP laws only exist for music, film, and books. For an individual like RandomHero it's until his death plus 70 years to his estate. The regular corporate copyright laws that cover everything exist for 95 years after publication so under the current copyright laws Hasbro will lose Transformers in 2078. For Disney, Mickey Mouse's 95 years are up in 2024.

It just so happened that those short cartoons were shown on the big screen because TVs hadnt been invented yet. So its all the same s**t but different time eras. Its not another companies fault if Hasbro doesnt get the character right or doesnt make an attempt to make the character in toy form at all. Thats Hasbros loss. I say use it or lose it. I dont see Hasbro doing anything with DJD so why not let MMC take a stab at it?

MMC can take a stab at it, for a license fee.

Hasbro can always make MMC an offer to buy the license. After the fact shouldnt make any difference.

It should be the other way around. Too bad Hasbro currently doesn't allow other companies to make transforming figures for them, neither does Takara Tomy unless it's a pen.

Im sure Flame Toys wouldnt be doing a licensed non-transformable Tarn if MMC hadnt broke the boundary and gave the character so much exposure. If anything, flame toys is eating off MMCs plate.

Using your food analogy you're saying it's foolish for Flame Toys to pay for their meal and it was smart for MMC to dine and dash.

Now on to actual KOs (identical copies of an existing mold) KOs dont cost Hasbro much money because they are mostly bought by people who had no plans of buying the original at the original price to begin with. You cant compare a KO Megatron to a KO radiator for a Camaro that is an actual necessity to continue using the vehicle. But you dont need the megatron to stay alive and keep breathing. I just bought the KO megatron on impulse because I liked the price. I bought KO radiator out of necessity and benefited from the price. See the difference? Thats why Chevy actually looses money from KOs and Hasbro really doesnt loose money at all. For every guy willing to wait for the inevitable KO a year later, theres 100 guys who gotta have it the moment it comes out at full price. Impulse buys are not the same as necessities. So Hasbro looses no money because I chose to buy something that I wouldnt normally buy at regular price to begin with.

Thief logic: I wasn't going to buy it anyway so it's OK for me to steal it. I'm not saying you're a thief, but it's the same logic. You could have also gone with option B and not bought it at all.

Also your Camero comparison is faulty since the law long ago approved the use of essential car parts produced by companies other than the original equipment manufacturer to prevent unfair pricing and give consumers options. You can't copyright a part, just its design. It can function like an OEM part, it just can't carry the same markings or be marketed as authentic.

Also on a side note, I think we are not really going off topic here. Flame Toys is basically a 3rd party company that got down on its knees and did you know what to obtain a license from Hasbro. Thats the only reason they are offical.

I agree that it isn't off topic since it was the Flame Toys figures that got this ball rolling.

And by doing "you know what" I assume you mean they signed a licensing agreement and gave them some money.

So MMC didnt stoop to that level with their Tarn like Flame Toys did with theirs...who cares? MMC kept their dignity. They didnt sign off 50% or more of their profits to Hasbro who collects a check for sitting on their ass and doing absolutely nothing.

Since when is doing things within the letter of the law "stooping"? And since when is stealing another companies IP maintaining dignity?

Man, I can't wrap my head around the logic of you guys. Do you think Hasbro is stupid for licensing Star Wars and Marvel? You guys seem to think they should have just made those figures anyway because copyright laws are stupid. Maybe Hasbro should start making DC figures while they're at it if they can make them better than Mattel.

The animators who drew the Sunbow cartoons are not on Hasbros payroll anymore. Artwork shouldnt be passed down through corporate hands for generations. Thats ludacris.

They weren't "passed down", they belonged to Hasbro in the first place. Sunbow did that work under contract for Hasbro, it didn't belong to Sunbow. You want to talk about it being done wrong then look no further than GoBots where Tonka had Hanna-Barbera make their cartoon, but forgot to retain the rights to the cartoon character designs which stayed with Hanna-Barbera and now Warner Bros.

So yes when the topic is "Flame Toys" all aspects of the  IP theft debate should be on the table. One of these days one of these 3rd party companies is going to strike a deal with Hasbro and make this site eat its words. I would laugh my ass off if this site is ever forced to front page a former 3rd party product because Hasbro buys them out of business and obtains the molds. It would be so ironic.

Wouldn't you be the one eating your words since it proves the legal method is the right way and it got one of your precious companies to see the errors of their ways? I would definitely be lauding it over anyone saying it's foolish to not just take the IP and make something with it since it's what I've been wanting from the beginning.

Emerje

Yeah that example of Hasbro buying out a 3p isn't the best as it would not longer be a third party anyway...plus I sense an annoyance that this site only cares about official products.

ZeroWolf wrote:Yeah that example of Hasbro buying out a 3p isn't the best as it would not longer be a third party anyway...plus I sense an annoyance that this site only cares about official products.

No, it would be a real third party under the definition that they're a company that makes a figure under license independent from Hasbro.

Emerje

I could have spent hours dissecting that post, but I don't have the time or the inclination to so I'll just approach the elephants in the room.

Emerje wrote:

TLDR: The law is fundamentally broken and should not be followed or respected in any way, and Hasbro are incompetent at best and do not deserve to have exclusive control of the IP.

Only thing I took from any of this is that you're fine with companies breaking the law as long as it gets you nice things. The law isn't broken in the slightest and the only thing Hasbro doesn't deserve is to have their IP abused.

"Law" is simply the word of man, and that means absolutely nothing. If the law stops me from having nice things (in this case decent toys- I'm not exactly talking about hard drugs or thermonuclear weapons here) then yes the law is broken. And yes, they definitely do deserve to have their IP "abused". If they can't do it properly, someone else should.

What's your obsession with defending Hasbro against those eeeeeevil "IP thieves" anyway? Are you on their payroll, "Correct the Record" style? Do you just not want us to have decent toys?

What's wrong with having a firm sense of right and wrong?

What's wrong with it is that your "sense of right and wrong" is flawed. Is it right that I shouldn't be able to get a decent representation of a character just because HasTak is too incompetent to make it and refuses to allow anyone else to do it better than them? Is it wrong that I should give my money to the company who provides a better service than HasTak?

I'll make this my last post on the subject because quite frankly I'm getting tired of this and you're clearly not going to budge in defending a multi-billion dollar company that cuts corners at every opportunity solely to add an extra micrometre of gold leaf to the lining of their trousers. But I will say, you should probably drop the holier-than-thou attitude. It's not exactly endearing.

Emerje wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:Yeah that example of Hasbro buying out a 3p isn't the best as it would not longer be a third party anyway...plus I sense an annoyance that this site only cares about official products.

No, it would be a real third party under the definition that they're a company that makes a figure under license independent from Hasbro.

Emerje

Wait, wouldn't that be a second party as Hasbro owns them or did I read rated x example wrong? I thought he meant Hasbro buying the company outright and they only made toys for Hasbro to sell allowing no room for them to try and do other toylines.

@blackhat I know you've said your final piece but one thing to consider is that there is a power above Hasbro that they have to please and why they always work to find the best cost/profit ratio, the shareholders. They are beholden to them and it's pretty much obligation to deliver as much profit by any means to the shareholders. If the third party companies ever ended up like this, they would go the same way.

Final thing, Hasbro still makes toys for children so as much as we say we're the main market, the toys still have to go through all the health and safety rules and be transformable by kids. Their hands are tied

william-james88 wrote:https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/

Thanks for providing the link will, I found that very enlightening

Black Hat wrote:"Law" is simply the word of man, and that means absolutely nothing.

Oh, you're an anarchist, I should have known. Guess I don't have anything else to say to you.

ZeroWolf wrote:

Emerje wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:Yeah that example of Hasbro buying out a 3p isn't the best as it would not longer be a third party anyway...plus I sense an annoyance that this site only cares about official products.

No, it would be a real third party under the definition that they're a company that makes a figure under license independent from Hasbro.

Emerje

Wait, wouldn't that be a second party as Hasbro owns them or did I read rated x example wrong? I thought he meant Hasbro buying the company outright and they only made toys for Hasbro to sell allowing no room for them to try and do other toylines.

If they own them then they'd be a first party company. I laid this out recently in this thread.

Emerje wrote:1st party would be Hasbro and any company they own, such as Playskool (Rescue Bots) or Galoob (Titaniums). 2nd party would be an outside company that works with Hasbro to produce figures, like Fun Publications. 3rd party would be a company that produces figures on their own with an official license, there's numerous examples of this like Funko, the Loyal Subjects, Kids Logic, etc.

Second parties in the toy industry are extremely rare, I'm not even sure if Fun Publications really counts as one, but since they're so involved in the process compared to, say, Target or TRU, they're as close as it gets.

Emerje

Emerje wrote:

Black Hat wrote:No, it's NOT all the same. That's just it. I have nothing but contempt for actual KOs where they just take original molds and sell them as their own. Making an entirely original figure, even one based on an existing character, takes a lot of work.

Nobody denies they put a lot of work into their figures, but it doesn't make it OK to use someone else's characters to do it.

Except as has already been established, the law is literally being rewritten every few years by one company solely out of greed, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

No, you've established a law that doesn't apply here is "broken" (it isn't). Why are you even bringing this up again?

Again. IP laws are absolute nonsense. And you keep coming back to the "Producing for profit" point- If Hasbro's product wasn't so shockingly poor that people felt the need to mass produce upgrades and replacements then maybe the market wouldn't exist.

IP laws aren't nonsense. Intellectual property is no different from physical property. If someone makes a painting it doesn't suddenly get taken away and belong to the public after 50 years.

Maybe if those companies were capable of coming up with original ideas and market them successfully they wouldn't need to copy Hasbro all the time.

To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, but you're supposed to do it using your own ideas, not someone else's.

By that logic, nobody else except Mercedes-Benz should be allowed to make cars because they were the first ones to make them.

No, because cars are a generic concept, it's the make and model of car that other companies can't make. Nobody is stopping any company from making changeable robots, but they need to come up with their own ideas.

Black Hat wrote:

Randomhero wrote:I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no

Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Yeah it is. You're really going to say it's not OK to steal his ideas and characters for a profit against his will, but it's OK to do it to Hasbro?

Emerje

For one, he's a small-time artist with limited funds, compare that to a juggernaut like Hasbro with enough money to probably finance a small private army at this point. They are absolutely not comparable. For another, he actually created his IP. Modern Hasbro didn't, they inherited it from the actual creators (people like Floro Dery, Bob Budiansky etc).

It is shocking how little you understand about how any of this works. First off it doesn't matter how big the owner of the IP is, they're all the same size in the eyes of the law. Second, those individuals that helped develop Transformers did so under contract for Hasbro. The only way it would work the other way is if they came up with the idea and pitched it to Hasbro and Hasbro licensed the rights from them.

TLDR: The law is fundamentally broken and should not be followed or respected in any way, and Hasbro are incompetent at best and do not deserve to have exclusive control of the IP.

Only thing I took from any of this is that you're fine with companies breaking the law as long as it gets you nice things. The law isn't broken in the slightest and the only thing Hasbro doesn't deserve is to have their IP abused.

What's your obsession with defending Hasbro against those eeeeeevil "IP thieves" anyway? Are you on their payroll, "Correct the Record" style? Do you just not want us to have decent toys?

What's wrong with having a firm sense of right and wrong?

Rated X wrote:Im gonna play devils advocate here. I agree with Black Hats Disney arguement. If it aplies to "film" then what makes Sunbow cartoons any different than Mickey cartoons other than 50 years ? Disney set the precedent for Hasbro to whine and b**ch. An original mold that uses the likeness of a Sunbow character is just as much "film" as any use of a disney character because mickey mouse and friends started off with short cartoons.

Did you actually read any of this or did you stop at the part that made you happy? That law doesn't apply to Hasbro and Transformers. Those IP laws only exist for music, film, and books. For an individual like RandomHero it's until his death plus 70 years to his estate. The regular corporate copyright laws that cover everything exist for 95 years after publication so under the current copyright laws Hasbro will lose Transformers in 2078. For Disney, Mickey Mouse's 95 years are up in 2024.

It just so happened that those short cartoons were shown on the big screen because TVs hadnt been invented yet. So its all the same s**t but different time eras. Its not another companies fault if Hasbro doesnt get the character right or doesnt make an attempt to make the character in toy form at all. Thats Hasbros loss. I say use it or lose it. I dont see Hasbro doing anything with DJD so why not let MMC take a stab at it?

MMC can take a stab at it, for a license fee.

Hasbro can always make MMC an offer to buy the license. After the fact shouldnt make any difference.

It should be the other way around. Too bad Hasbro currently doesn't allow other companies to make transforming figures for them, neither does Takara Tomy unless it's a pen.

Im sure Flame Toys wouldnt be doing a licensed non-transformable Tarn if MMC hadnt broke the boundary and gave the character so much exposure. If anything, flame toys is eating off MMCs plate.

Using your food analogy you're saying it's foolish for Flame Toys to pay for their meal and it was smart for MMC to dine and dash.

Now on to actual KOs (identical copies of an existing mold) KOs dont cost Hasbro much money because they are mostly bought by people who had no plans of buying the original at the original price to begin with. You cant compare a KO Megatron to a KO radiator for a Camaro that is an actual necessity to continue using the vehicle. But you dont need the megatron to stay alive and keep breathing. I just bought the KO megatron on impulse because I liked the price. I bought KO radiator out of necessity and benefited from the price. See the difference? Thats why Chevy actually looses money from KOs and Hasbro really doesnt loose money at all. For every guy willing to wait for the inevitable KO a year later, theres 100 guys who gotta have it the moment it comes out at full price. Impulse buys are not the same as necessities. So Hasbro looses no money because I chose to buy something that I wouldnt normally buy at regular price to begin with.

Thief logic: I wasn't going to buy it anyway so it's OK for me to steal it. I'm not saying you're a thief, but it's the same logic. You could have also gone with option B and not bought it at all.

Also your Camero comparison is faulty since the law long ago approved the use of essential car parts produced by companies other than the original equipment manufacturer to prevent unfair pricing and give consumers options. You can't copyright a part, just its design. It can function like an OEM part, it just can't carry the same markings or be marketed as authentic.

Also on a side note, I think we are not really going off topic here. Flame Toys is basically a 3rd party company that got down on its knees and did you know what to obtain a license from Hasbro. Thats the only reason they are offical.

I agree that it isn't off topic since it was the Flame Toys figures that got this ball rolling.

And by doing "you know what" I assume you mean they signed a licensing agreement and gave them some money.

So MMC didnt stoop to that level with their Tarn like Flame Toys did with theirs...who cares? MMC kept their dignity. They didnt sign off 50% or more of their profits to Hasbro who collects a check for sitting on their ass and doing absolutely nothing.

Since when is doing things within the letter of the law "stooping"? And since when is stealing another companies IP maintaining dignity?

Man, I can't wrap my head around the logic of you guys. Do you think Hasbro is stupid for licensing Star Wars and Marvel? You guys seem to think they should have just made those figures anyway because copyright laws are stupid. Maybe Hasbro should start making DC figures while they're at it if they can make them better than Mattel.

The animators who drew the Sunbow cartoons are not on Hasbros payroll anymore. Artwork shouldnt be passed down through corporate hands for generations. Thats ludacris.

They weren't "passed down", they belonged to Hasbro in the first place. Sunbow did that work under contract for Hasbro, it didn't belong to Sunbow. You want to talk about it being done wrong then look no further than GoBots where Tonka had Hanna-Barbera make their cartoon, but forgot to retain the rights to the cartoon character designs which stayed with Hanna-Barbera and now Warner Bros.

So yes when the topic is "Flame Toys" all aspects of the  IP theft debate should be on the table. One of these days one of these 3rd party companies is going to strike a deal with Hasbro and make this site eat its words. I would laugh my ass off if this site is ever forced to front page a former 3rd party product because Hasbro buys them out of business and obtains the molds. It would be so ironic.

Wouldn't you be the one eating your words since it proves the legal method is the right way and it got one of your precious companies to see the errors of their ways? I would definitely be lauding it over anyone saying it's foolish to not just take the IP and make something with it since it's what I've been wanting from the beginning.

Emerje

I dont have the time to break down everything like I did the last time. (at work) Were just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont believe in "IP" especially in cases where the "intellectual" claiming rights to the "property" isnt even the "intellectual" who created it. I dont believe a piece of paper entitles corporations to have monopolies on the creations of dead people. Laws have always been enacted to protect assets of the rich. It called lobbying. Just because a law exists doesnt give it credibility.

Rated X wrote:I dont have the time to break down everything like I did the last time. (at work) Were just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont believe in "IP" especially in cases where the "intellectual" claiming rights to the "property" isnt even the "intellectual" who created it. I dont believe a piece of paper entitles corporations to have monopolies on the creations of dead people. Laws have always been enacted to protect assets of the rich. It called lobbying. Just because a law exists doesnt give it credibility.

What "dead people" owned the rights to Transformers to begin with? They all worked under contract for Hasbro and held no rights to its creation like they didn't a bunch of times before. This is not the same as what happened with Superman or Batman, only Hasbro (and Takara by extension) own Transformers. There's no monopoly, anyone can and do make robot toys, they just can't make Transformers toys any more than they can make Ford Mustangs. There's no lobbying because there's nothing for Hasbro to lobby for or against. And I think you'll find there's more people in the world that find copyright and IP laws credible than the self entitled minority that think they don't.

Emerje

I think he was referring to Disney with the creations made by a dead guy bit...they've been mentioned a bit. Are people really wanting one law for the little guys like randomhero and another for big companies? As much as I dislike corporations, the law has to be blind to things like that and treat them the same, regardless of how much they are worth

If that's the case then again it's an argument that has nothing to do with Hasbro. Even under the old laws it would be a long time before Hasbro had to worry about it. The laws were created at a time when things like mass media, mass commercialism and mass consumerism didn't really exist so it makes sense for laws to evolve with the times.

BTW, Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse as an employee of Walt Disney Studios rather than independently, hence why it falls under the 95 year corporate law (2023 expiration) rather than the 70 years after the creator's death law (2038 expiration). Even if Disney does loose the films of Mickey Mouse after their copyright expires, the character is still a Disney Trademark and those don't expire as long as they're being used. Another company could mass produce old Mickey Mouse films, but they'd still have to license the rights to the use the character for merchandise.

Emerje

Does that mean then that only the first years worth of Mickey mouse cartoons would be in public domain? Though aside from trying to make quick money via being very lazy, I can't see why people would even care (aside from using it as a stick to beat Disney with) Though as already pointed out, this isn't anything like Hasbro and the third party companies at all. The law is very clear on the fact that they are illegally making figures based on Hasbro property (hence why they almost all operate in country's where the law is very different regarding copyright)

It's unfair to group Flame Toys in with other 3p as they've worked hard to get the licence, raising the cash needed for it (if it works how I think it does) I'm still looking forward to the transformer model kits that are heading our way

Okay guys, the discussion on copyright law might be fun, but let's get back to the topic of Flame Toys Non-Transforming Figures.

i thoroughly enjoyed reading the conversation. i found it to be enlightening, informative, entertaining, mostly civil and point driven. i admire Emerje’s subject matter expertise and Black Hat’s hard stance against greedy corporate interests. if this conversation is so continue elsewhere, please link the thread here.

with that being said, i’m so impressed with how badaft this model is, even though i know i won’t be buying it any time soon, if at all. i’m more of a collector of miniature figures.

but i will say that Impactor would look glorious given this treatment.

i’d have that slag pre-ordered before the concept art was finished drying.

and yes, it is ironic that a bot who’s addicted to transforming is stuck as an action master... Tarn must be agonizing in that mold.

make sure you customers lock that thing up tight before going to sleep cuz he might just short circuit all of your non-living electrical appliances then talk your gaming and computer systems to death out of frustration!

Thinking about it, this is a fitting punishment for tarn in a sense, and nontransformable, mute figure, forever locked into one form with no voice to scream out his rage. Imagine if his consciousness was put into each figure but couldn't control it, every time you removed his mask he'd cry and fragment further into insanity.