|
|
Post by legios on Sept 5, 2017 7:26:50 GMT
C&D's have to be issued against specific infringements and specific infringers unfortunately, so if they wanted to go after every illegal product they'd have to issue specific letters for each one and to either the people making them (hiding out in territory currently hostile to copyright law), or the people selling them (more likely targets due to being easier to get at). It could well be the case that there is an element of point-maling in this, in the hopes that a reminder might make people comply with the law. It will be interesting to see if they expand this approach if/when the message doesn't get through.
(I'm not sanguine about the various stores taking the point I fear. The level of risk, compared to the level of profit, in the illegal trade so far has seemingly convinced them that they can get away with this. I'm not sure if a C&D on one store for a couple of the illegal items will convince the webstores to get out of the illegal distribution chain. I can but hope though).
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by browny87 on Sept 5, 2017 7:52:42 GMT
Indeed. They've put up new pre-orders for 3P toys since their post on TFW (Fans Hobby Power Baser went up the other day). They did say the C&D was about two specific toys from one company. Which is either the start of something from Hasbro, or a very peculiar way of saying they're fine with everything else (if it was Hasbro who issued the C&D). would be very odd if they only had a problem with 2 toys, I think this is a warning shot so to speak, testing the water to see if it dissuades other companies and if it doesn't we may see a full blown attack on it |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 5, 2017 8:04:11 GMT
Indeed. They've put up new pre-orders for 3P toys since their post on TFW (Fans Hobby Power Baser went up the other day). They did say the C&D was about two specific toys from one company. Which is either the start of something from Hasbro, or a very peculiar way of saying they're fine with everything else (if it was Hasbro who issued the C&D). would be very odd if they only had a problem with 2 toys, I think this is a warning shot so to speak, testing the water to see if it dissuades other companies and if it doesn't we may see a full blown attack on it Current theory is that they're toys infringing on specific licences (ie car designs, which have a lot more protection, or movie characters who have a separate contract with paramount) |
|
|
|
Post by browny87 on Sept 5, 2017 8:59:34 GMT
yeah that would make sense, from a purely marketing perspective surely Hasbro actually get something out of these, especially with the MP moulds stuff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 5, 2017 9:05:18 GMT
Whether or not it is targeted or not for reason X or Y it is a warning shot even if unintentional.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 5, 2017 12:35:18 GMT
yeah that would make sense, from a purely marketing perspective surely Hasbro actually get something out of these, especially with the MP moulds stuff? Hasbro and Tomy get their IP stolen, and they lose some sales that they otherwise might get, so they lose potential money in their pockets. These things are bought in general by folk already familiar with Hasbro/Tomy's Transformers products, so I'm not seeing where there would be a gain to the victim here really Karl |
|
|
|
Post by browny87 on Sept 5, 2017 13:02:20 GMT
people who wouldn't otherwise have bought some products, see the MP stuff that sometimes undercuts the 3P version and feel its a bit of a steal so end up buying them, I know a few people ive spoken to who would've bought 3P but ended up buying Hasbro when in the past they wouldn't have bought either
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on Sept 5, 2017 14:17:55 GMT
But the point is that the 3P wouldn't exist without decades of Hasbro/Takara Tomy research and work. It's like, you've got the choice right now of what? Four upcoming Comos toys, when Hasbro has just released one. That money should be going to the people who own the Cosmos identity, right? It's not even like the 3P are making an effort to disguise that it's Cosmos.
At least with something like the 3P MTMTE Caldinus that isn't something on the IP holder's radar, so there's a bit of leeway? It's very much a niche interest toy, even in this niche interest hobby. But even with that, are people going to buy Caldinus, and then skip on TR Hot Rod and POTP Rodimus? I would guess yes, and that's money again going away from the rightful IP holder.
|
|
|
|
Post by browny87 on Sept 5, 2017 14:28:43 GMT
i agree Urzu, Hasbro should get the money, the rights and the praise so to speak from it all, just trying to put forth a balanced argument for both sides!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 5, 2017 22:44:47 GMT
I'm not sure there is a balance to be had here. It's theft of IP even if the producers don't see themselves as criminals the effect is the same.
|
|
The Huff
Thunderjet
Hufferlover
Posts: 4,243
|
Post by The Huff on Sept 6, 2017 15:44:20 GMT
But the point is that the 3P wouldn't exist without decades of Hasbro/Takara Tomy research and work. It's like, you've got the choice right now of what? Four upcoming Comos toys, when Hasbro has just released one. That money should be going to the people who own the Cosmos identity, right? It's not even like the 3P are making an effort to disguise that it's Cosmos. Funny thing is, the fake Cosmos' all look more like Cosmos than the one official one! |
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Sept 26, 2017 20:29:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinwig on Sept 26, 2017 20:52:39 GMT
So the G1 head and Grinder himself. And Hasbro UK issuing it if it came as a result of a purchase at TFN. Must be because MP Grimlock has been sold here. Otherwise why just that one? They are very similar. Also sounds like they wanted to be able to prove they'd bought the product before issuing the C&D.
Red Leader seems pretty unfazed though. He does say this has happened before and blown over. Does cast doubt on FT Hot Rod though.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 26, 2017 20:57:10 GMT
Maybe best not to sell 3P stuff at highly visible conventions then?
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 26, 2017 22:40:02 GMT
I'm amazed at how in those threads fans blame Hasbro for driving them to 3P products and how they don't take a blind bit of notice about what the c&d says about such products but just how they can still get around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 27, 2017 5:33:27 GMT
I made the mistake of reading some of the other comments, which gave me a "raaagh! Stop talking about the box not having things on it the Hasbro/Tomy have Trademarks for. Trademark law is irrelevant to an issue of copyright law in the same way that traffic law is irrelevant to a discussion of financial fraud law!" moment to go with my breakfast.
Considering the blatancy of the theft of Tomy/Hasbro IP by the products in question I am hardly surprised that it turns out to be them that were the trigger for this. You can't really get much more of a violation than "a version of a character owned by Tomy/Hasbro, made to look as similar as possible to an existing product that Hasbro/Tomy made". Whilst they do seem reluctant to pursue suit under the moral rights element of the law, this is so blatant a treading on their economic rights that if it came to it an competent IP lawyer would render this an open and shut case if it had gone to court.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 27, 2017 9:46:03 GMT
I somewhat suspect Hasbro would have the means to hire such a lawyer as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 27, 2017 9:58:46 GMT
I somewhat suspect Hasbro would have the means to hire such a lawyer as well. That's what he meant! No one is saying the third parties have a leg to stand on! That said, what's the difference (is there one?) between a third party making toys and a fan artist selling character art? Both are artistic interpretations of the same designs |
|
Jim
Thunderjet
Micromaster Backside Monitor
Now in glorious Ultra HD 4K
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by Jim on Sept 27, 2017 10:50:59 GMT
Purely technically I don't think there is a difference, though in market terms I think one key difference is that character art is not likely to be cannibalising sales of official merchandise by Hasbro / Takara; while they do produce posters it's not really the same market. But there is clear crossover in the toy market, especially around MPs and I guess higher-end mainline releases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 27, 2017 15:03:21 GMT
I somewhat suspect Hasbro would have the means to hire such a lawyer as well. That's what he meant! No one is saying the third parties have a leg to stand on! I know! I was agreeing with the point. Thus far Hasbro have gone very softly softly on this. As I've said before it seems like warning shots to nudge suppliers and buyers back into healthier practices. They don't seem to be responding in a good way. Will be unsurprised if pressure is ramped up in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 27, 2017 15:06:25 GMT
Purely technically I don't think there is a difference, though in market terms I think one key difference is that character art is not likely to be cannibalising sales of official merchandise by Hasbro / Takara; while they do produce posters it's not really the same market. But there is clear crossover in the toy market, especially around MPs and I guess higher-end mainline releases. I also think there would be a difference for an artist who is employed by Hasbro via IDW doing such sketches at a convention vs. someone just randomly doing and selling sketches online for folk. One is promoting an official product the artist is involved in and contributing to its success... the other is more milking things for self-profit. |
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 27, 2017 17:54:56 GMT
If hasbro sold a large variety of Transformers art, prints and posters etc I can imagine they would take just as much interest in "fans" selling mass produced prints as they do in "fans" selling mass produced transforming toys.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 27, 2017 19:06:50 GMT
Purely technically I don't think there is a difference, though in market terms I think one key difference is that character art is not likely to be cannibalising sales of official merchandise by Hasbro / Takara; while they do produce posters it's not really the same market. But there is clear crossover in the toy market, especially around MPs and I guess higher-end mainline releases. Yep, that is correct. In simple legal terms there is no difference between an unauthorised, unlicensed Grimlock toy and an unauthorised, unlicensed Grimlock picture. Both are equally a violation of Hasbro/Tomy's copyright. The practical difference is that Hasbro/Tomy do not feel that they are sufficiently put out, harmed, or annoyed by a handful of individual artists making a small amount of money that way. That's why I feel like the fan-art, and fan-fiction, angle on this is a bit of a blind alley. We are not really talking about that - we are talking about IP theft as a large-scale profit-generating business. The game changes when you get into commercial concerns stealing their IP for industrial scale profits. Let's be clear on this, we are not talking about fan activity and handicrafts here. We are talking about proper commercial activity, being carried out on the basis of generating significant levels of profit from stolen intellectual property. It is the same comparison as the difference between someone making a mix-tape to give to a friend (or a soon-to-be-spacekidnapped son or whatever) and a group cranking out hundreds and thousands of copies of an new album so as to rake in the money for selling them at whatever the market will bear. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Sept 27, 2017 19:24:58 GMT
I also think there would be a difference for an artist who is employed by Hasbro via IDW doing such sketches at a convention vs. someone just randomly doing and selling sketches online for folk. One is promoting an official product the aetist is involved in and contributing to its success... the other is more milking things for self-profit. If hasbro sold a large variety of Transformers art, prints and posters etc I can imagine they would take just as much interest in "fans" selling mass produced prints as they do in "fans" selling mass produced transforming toys. Hasbro tried this once. They tried to have FP ban all Hasbro related fanart from being sold at botcon. Naturally It did not go over well. At all. I can't remember if it was actually put into effect for that real and repealed the next, or if it was lifted a few days before. |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Oct 23, 2017 17:23:47 GMT
So I been thinking about this for a long time.
The fandon has long been asking why doesn't hasbro go after 3Ps full stop? I think one of the problems is that we know for a fact Hasbro approves of some of them. Otherwise they wouldn't allow Shapeways to be a thing. They're literally letting fans produce things that things that they couldn't afford to include.
And I really do think they tended to look the other way on things that filled holes they had no interest in (I fully believe CW is a direct responce to the 3P combiner wars, and the name may even go so far as to be a play on that).
But ultimately, I don't think they would have any problem ending the various City Commander upgrades and Kulturs, in order to end all the Starscream and Grimlock MPs that borderline direct bootlegs.
The problem is, there are real 3Ps that no one thinks of as 3Ps. The ones I think that Hasbro really does approve of, but awarding a license to them would be problematic in several ways.
Reprolabels, and Extreme Sets (I use extreme sets as an example, there are a few groups doing what they do).
Both these products are borderline useless without official Transformer toys. They exist literally and only to enhance hasbro product.
However, both are very expensive, as they are. Hasbro could offer them a license, but such a thing would drive costs up even further to pay for it, and Hasbro's TM would be all over it. Plus they would have to pass safety standards they're not currently subjected to. As for Reprolabels, they would probably have to stop making labels for 3P toys.
Both of these companies are every bit as in the wrong as Fans Toys, from a legal standpoint. Both would be collateral damage if Hasbro went after 3Ps full stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Oct 24, 2017 0:06:25 GMT
Unless Hasbro says they approve of something (by licencing it) I don't think we can assume their approval for anything.
|
|
