[CUSTOM] not-Hasbro

Posted by RedAleseides 
Is this the thread where I request that somebody makes an illegal third party knockoff of that Heavy E-Frame? Because I'd totally buy that, especially from a dealer at Botcon.
thomas Wrote:
>
> I apologise if that seemed like an unwarranted ad
> hominem, but unfortunately in my experience in
> most copyright-related discussions someone will
> bring up this point and suggest that if a judge in
> country X (where X is usually the US, sometimes
> the UK, and more rarely others) it should also
> apply to other countries.

Well, it's important to note that international rulings DO affect other countries with sympathetic legal frameworks, as a general guideline that judges may consider... the American political right may want American courts to be thoroughly blind to rulings from Canadian or European courts, but they can't effectively prevent it.

This discussion is only moot for as long as there is no legal action being taken, so I don't think there's a problem with discussing it in terms of the law of one country or another, so long as it's clear which country's law is being considered in any individual statements.

> The point I was trying to make is that a court
> case might result in a product ban only in a
> certain geographic area.

Well, yes, that's always the case. It really depends, though, what countries the producers of these items are in - are they entirely in China, or are they only manufacturing there, and running their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or somewhere else? Do they only import into the United States through independent retailers, or do they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement) in California that could place them under U.S. jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether the sale of these products could be stopped, but what punitive actions could be taken. If they've placed any substantial portion of their business in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the enforcement of copyright, they could open themselves up to financial damages.

> But copyright experts are rather strict
> in deciding what is allowed and what isn't because
> being too lax would open the door to mass-sueing
> and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> super heroes: How many of them are rather similar
> and inspired by each other? Making a point of that
> would surely kill the industry faster than it is
> currently doing.

Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn / Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for reminding us of that) you'll see that there is precedent in American law for drawing an infringing correlation between two characters that's about as close as these not-Devastators are to Devastator. There have been other such cases in the comics industry (though not many are actually litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to publish his "Agent America" character, followed by his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting American character, which Marvel forced him to revise further.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
<snip>
>
> > The point I was trying to make is that a court
> > case might result in a product ban only in a
> > certain geographic area.
>
> Well, yes, that's always the case. It really
> depends, though, what countries the producers of
> these items are in - are they entirely in China,
> or are they only manufacturing there, and running
> their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or
> somewhere else?

Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of China.
I think it is quite telling that even companies that have Hong Kong branches (e.g. Bandai) seem quite incapable of stemming the flow of bootlegs from HK/China. One problem seems to be that some bootleg items are actually items from the official factories that didn't pass QC.

Do they only import into the
> United States through independent retailers, or do
> they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement)
> in California that could place them under U.S.
> jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether
> the sale of these products could be stopped, but
> what punitive actions could be taken. If they've
> placed any substantial portion of their business
> in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the
> enforcement of copyright, they could open
> themselves up to financial damages.

Yes, but unless they actually have bank accounts in the US or the US branch is directly related to the mother company I doubt a conviction will do more than kill the US branch. AFAIK they will have to sue the legal representative of the company in each country separately to get a complete ban.
Another option would be trying to obtain an import ban in different countries, but that might require that the third-party products are actually counterfeit (i.e. imitation of actual HasTak items, not original designs).

> > But copyright experts are rather strict
> > in deciding what is allowed and what isn't
> because
> > being too lax would open the door to
> mass-sueing
> > and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> > super heroes: How many of them are rather
> similar
> > and inspired by each other? Making a point of
> that
> > would surely kill the industry faster than it
> is
> > currently doing.
>
> Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn /
> Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for
> reminding us of that) you'll see that there is
> precedent in American law for drawing an
> infringing correlation between two characters
> that's about as close as these not-Devastators are
> to Devastator. There have been other such cases in
> the comics industry (though not many are actually
> litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to
> publish his "Agent America" character, followed by
> his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting
> American character, which Marvel forced him to
> revise further.

In that case it is likely that in the US HasTak could win a court case regarding character infringement. It also depends on whether the third-party manufacturer itself actually says "This is Devastator.", or whether it is the fans that say "This toy by third-party company X is Devastator.". The latter will probably be chucked out in court.
Whether a court ruling on character likeness would make the actual toy illegal I don't know: although the color scheme and general looks are that of Devastator, the transformations and details are original. This is important because it also explains why a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking very similar.
B00
I love these third party shenanigans TFW2005.com

__________________
MoonBaseTom Season tickets available. Call now.
thomas Wrote:
>
> Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of
> China.

They both effectively self-govern, and copyright enforcement is handled differently there, which was my point.


> a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement
> of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking
> very similar.

I don't think that's a great example of suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's really all.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
If you check iGear's Facebook page they're teasing prototypes of everything from Alternators Bumblebee (ripped straight out of concept art) and a MP style Bumblebee in the same vein as that Cliffjumper from a few pages back in this thread.
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an
> infringement
> > of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both
> looking
> > very similar.
>
> I don't think that's a great example of
> suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics
> Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's
> really all.

Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar. They are not the same toy DESIGN. AFAIK, this would represent two separate court cases because one applies to the (worded) media representation of the character, and the other to the actual design.
The same applies to the not-Constructicons. Let's have a look at the G1 Constructicons:

- Cement Mixer, transforms by folding out cab and sliding out arms.
- Dump Truck, fold out truck bed, slide out arms, fold down front half, flip up head.
- Back Hoe, slide out arms, flip up head, fold out legs and do something to the feet
- Crane, slide out both halves, fold out legs, flip up head, slide out arms, slide both halves back
- bulldozer, flip out legs, slide out arms, do some other stuff.
- The other one, slide out arms, flip out legs.

Basic vehicle designs (i.e. car, bulldozer, crane, etc.) are commonalities that are exempt of copyright. The transformations are so insanely simple that they are also common - they can be found on many, many transforming toys.
There's enough court cases in history where some company tried to assert they were the only ones to have the right to use some word that they invented as a trademark and that joined the common popular language of the people - these cases are pretty certain te be lost. Which is why we don't see Google throw a hissy fit anytime anyone uses the word "googling" instead of "searching".
Third-party Devastator has the same basic types of vehicles, but a completely different transformation.

So AFAIK HasTak could get a third-party company convicted of character infringement, but for the toy DESIGN to be banned they would have to explicitly prove that the DESIGN was explicitly *created* to represent Devastator. If they can do that, the third-party company is hosed.
I think the third-party Megatrons would be a much better target for a lawsuit, because it a) has to be a certain type of gun, b) has to have a certain transformation, and c) has to have a very recognisable character design.

And then they'd have to repeat the process for every single different third-party TF design... :S


Also, TF:CR Build Boy is totally a rip-off of Bandai's CG Robo Dozer (Takara should be sued!):

[counter-x.net]
[www.tfu.info]
[twitpic.com]

Jetfire is a weird case because he was originally authorized by Tatsunoko, unlike the Battletech stuff.
thomas Wrote:
>
> Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire
> represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar.

This is a gross oversimplification. Classics Jetfire represents the G1 cartoon and comic Jetfire design, which was created specifically to NOT look like a VF-1 - the entire purpose of the cartoon/comic Jetfire design was to distance the character from the toy to the point that it would no longer be infringing. The fact that Classics Jetfire has a vaguely F-14ish jet mode and two big red boosters doesn't change that.


As for the Devastator thing, I'm not really interested in playing out the entirety of the argument of a potential court case in this thread. I think we've discussed the general legalities of it enough to make it clear that an actual U.S. court case would be anyone's game, as long as both sides could afford competent representation.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
[counter-x.net]

Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack
VF5SS Wrote:
> [counter-x.net]
>
> Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer
> guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack

I am STUNNED at how much that Gobot looks like Classics Jetfire.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
It kinda looks like G2 Cyberjet Jetfire...

-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
i'm stunned that gobot has a way better jet mode than classics Jetfire

like guys



stop doing this



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2012 06:06PM by VF5SS.
Attachments:
open | download - f16robos.jpg (73.5 KB)
Sanjeev (Admin)
Always the ventral side with you, isn't it?
i just want to be able to appreciate a toy from more angles than just directly above

plus Josh also likes a smooth ventral side

i take those kind of pics just so he'll mention it on the CDX show

it's pretty steamy if you know what i mean
Sanjeev (Admin)
It's not an unreasonable request. But perhaps a bit unrealistic.

I mean, flip over any car-former...
no

every jackass on /toy/ argues that

nobody except a car nut gives a shit about what the underside of a car looks like
Sanjeev (Admin)
True: you see the underside of a jet more often than you see the underside of a car...

But I still think Classics Jetfire is dope. ;)
VF5SS Wrote:
>
> like guys
>
> [toyboxdx.com]
>
> stop doing this

Ahahah I can't argue with that jet mode comparison

but which of those toys has a cuter backpack in robot mode



and yeah jet mode underside is super important when you whoosh it around the room

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
like just look at Ben's review of Classics Sky Shadow

I know the original Thunderwing toy and the Classics did that too but guys even in the comic he never used that stupid jet mode

you guys basically made one of those semi-transforming Action Master Elites from Europe again


also Paul you could probably make Sky Dive much better while retaining the adorable minijet backpack

I mean I love the Aerialbots (I mean look at me come on!) but their gimmick didn't even justify their shittiness
[twitpic.com]

damn you, Floro Dery!

maybe what the toys need is more anime magic

ps this episode is pretty Toei-tastic

also Slingshot has the same shitty underside as his toy yet the other have faux realistic jet modes

your life sucks, Slingshot
Okay, okay I give up.

Here, have some vegetable rip-off: [www.google.com] (total failure).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:25AM by thomas.
[www.tfw2005.com]

vehicle modes that aren't just green lumps?

must be inferior to the more expensive toy

[www.tfw2005.com]

is Hench a real mensch

this is the image of addiction
That dump truck robo actually feels fairly original to me. I like the robot mode proportions.

Nice to see a third party Sharkticon toy that's just as crappy as the G1 Sharkticon, and in most of the same ways.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:31PM by asterphage.
[www.tfw2005.com]

scroll down

and work that tail RAW


oh how scandalous

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
That Sharkticon is awesome, except for the tail, which is too dildolicious.
No replies since then...did I kill the thread?
Twitter is ablaze that something happened to the artist alley for the upcoming Botcon
the tweeeeeeets are aliiiiiive... with the sound of faaaan whiiiiining

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
from TFW2005

"We have received word that artists that booked an artist alley table for BotCon 2012 are now being told that any fan art that may infrige on Hasbro's intellectual property or trademarks can not be sold at BotCon.

The wording from the BotCon brochure advertised "that you can get single tables to show-and-sell your custom Transformers art for $200", but it would appear that Hasbro has reversed this now resulting in more table cancellations at the Texas convention scheduled for later this month."
who saw this coming

*raises hand*

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
When I saw people getting excited for a KO of City Commander done up Shattered Glass style, I realized what bugged me about this stuff was the exploitative nature that's bordering on drug addiction.

And now the drugs are illegal.

now 'scuse me while I polish my jets with arms
Sanjeev (Admin)
Well, sure bootlegging is exploitive...but is that a bad thing? I just see it as "it is what it is."

Consumers get MORE of what they want (the characters and styles of toys these 3rd partyers are offering). I see no problem with bootlegging a bootleg: Fansproject may bitch on the surface, but they have no substantial grounds to complain when all of their profit comes from someone else's IP.
this is like when the jackasses on /m/ say Toonami is their comfort food :v
...and the art ban has been reversed: [www.tfw2005.com]

I guess too many tables got unbooked.
I wonder if they'll allow one-off custom toys. And if so, where the line is drawn.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2012 11:51AM by asterphage.
ITT: Crusader Jin's self-inflated ego takes a pin to center mass:

[www.tfw2005.com]

Parts of the Transformer collecting community make me as mad as the vinyl community.

Highlights include:

-TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he has to say
-Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
-Jin being racist against Chinese industry even though he supports it through his purchases
-Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he has to say
-Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a Nazi

This is my new favorite thing on the whole internet.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2012 12:44AM by Prometheum5.
Prometheum5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> Parts of the Transformer collecting community make
> me as mad as the vinyl community.
>
> Highlights include:
>
> -TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he
> has to say
> -Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting
> off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
> -Jin being racist against Chinese industry even
> though he supports it through his purchases
> -Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he
> has to say
> -Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a
> Nazi
>
> This is my new favorite thing on the whole
> internet.

You mean you only discover this now?

Overly inflated egos have always been a 'critical' part of the Transformers fan community.

Although I love it that someone asks "who are you?" in the 3rd post already...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer