"Who makes Battlestar Galactica Knockoffs?" Topic

Back at Winter Wars I played in a BSG hame brewed set of rules. The person running the game had knock offs made by a company. The figures she said where called Zylons. They had fighters, base stars, and the main colonial ships.

Who sells these?

I think you're looking for Studio Bergstrom, I don't have any of his BSG stuff but I did get some of his Star Wars stuff.

link

Studio Bergstrom:

link

There is also a place on Ebay to get resin capital ships in the Galactica pattern but different unique classes, etc. I cannot recall where or how. The fellow is on TMP I think.

I think cloudcaptain is thinking of Ravenstar Studios:

ravenstarstudios.com

And don't forget that Hasbro makes die cast BSG ships in gameable sizes (about 3.5"), though they can be a bit hard to find. Hasbro's not trying for any scale accuracy, but the ships should still work well with Ravenstar's stuff.

Also, try these links for info on spaceships

star-ranger.com/Home.htm

armouryhobbies.com

So, I'm looking at the Studio Bergstrom stuff, particularly their fighter craft as I've been looking for Viper mk2s in a larger size without payout out the nose for the die-cast stuff.

But, I gotta say… and I know about the whole, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all bit… But, damn, either these ships are just not so well painted, or the pictures just not do them justice. They are pretty cheap, which scares me as in this bizz, generally you get what you pay for.

I guess I could send out a test purchase. But, for those that do have these… do they look better in person? Anyone have better pics?

Much appreciated.
Cheers!

I have some of the studio Bergstrom Mini's and they are much nicer in person, especially the Vipers. I would have been put off by the pics on the website but I had already seen some in action at a convention and knew they were nicer.

I've got the bergstrom galactica (new) and pegasus…aswell as some of the spiky basestars from the new series and they are great models…all i did was give them a silver base coat and a metallic black wash and they've turned out wonderfully…plenty of detail too catch the wash…

as is the case many times…photos don't always do justice to miniatures…some make the minis look BETTER than they are and some make them look worse!

I've gotten a whole 'swarm/fleet?' of the 'galatics' and 'xylons' from Bergstrom…and they are well worth every penny…IMHO…

I've yet to get any ravenstar, but what I've seen of paintjobs and those I've seen on ebay don't 'inspire' me…

they are also a bit 'pricey'…for some of us….

there are other 'rag-tag fleet' ships on ebay or MiniModelMadness site…(old and new)…and Hasbro is going to release the NEW 'basestar' by may???

For a specific character, you might like the Hasbro Vipers, but for fleet actions…the bergstrom really are sharp!

I hope to get more 'down the road'…and am trying to do a few 'rag-tag' ships myself…for my own 'fleet'…

I think you'll be pleased with the Bergstrom ships…I know I was/am!!

*slish…slish*
Sgt DWW

Is anyone going to be DH'd for recommending the use of models that infringe the TV company's IP? :)

probably :(

Yeah isn't he violating copy right law by making those Star Wars and BSG minis?

I may be wrong, but I don't think Ravenstar makes copies of canon BSG ships; I think he makes variants that are different in visually significant ways. You look at his ships and think, "Hey, that could be from Battlestar Galactica!" but not "Hey, that is the Galactica." But then, as the Great Tentacular One* has stated, they can be a bit pricey, so I've only glanced at the site once or twice, sighed, and dreamt of cheaper fleets.

I like Studio Bergstrom's Hive fleet (which, AFAIK, is completely original), but I have some qualms about his not-StarWars, not-BSG stuff. Yes, if you compare the "real" ships to his models, his are indeed different in various details… I'm just not certain whether or not they're different enough. So I've never purchased any of those.

All my BSG stuff comes from Hasbro's Titanium line. Wish they made small fighters to be more in scale with the capital vessels. But at least they're gonna release a new series Cylon Basestar this year!

*(No, not Cthulhu. I mean Dances With Words!)

Okay, went to the Ravenstar site.

I have to admit some discomfort here. Pulling my Titanium Pegasus, new Galactica and original Galactica and comparing them visually to the pictures of Ravenstar's product line, I have to say that, with a few minor detail changes, his Pegasus and Hasbro's are the same ship. Ditto the original BSG and Ravenstar's generic Battlestar. He doesn't offer a new "ribbed" BSG, but the "Armored Battlestar" is awfully darn close. To the casual observer, I think they'd conclude they were the ships from the series.

And he's added Vipers and Raiders which are clearly Vipers and Raiders.

There's some definite line-skirting going on here when it comes to IP issues. :-(

True most of these models are skirting the 10% different line.

There are other examples out there of skirting the lines. Even with sponsors of this site.

You do realize there is no such thins as a 10% line right?

Nope heard it from others. So what is the rule?

The rule is you can't take someone elses property and use it. It doesn't matter if you change it a little or not. But go ahead and keep telling people it's ok to steal as long as they change it a little bit……

Interesting, brettz124, I did some checking based on your comment. I really don't know that much about this, but now that you bring it up it is very interesting.

It looks like under the derivative work statute you are correct. No 10% rule, minor changes are derivative works and need permission.

However there is another aspect I found interesting:

On trademarks the issue is whether or not the buyer can be confused on buying the product, i.e. if the buyer might think they are buying an official "Coke" product when they are not. So if someone implied the product was BSG then it might mislead the buyer into thinking they had a license?

Another interesting issue is the "fair use" clause. It has several points including a point about whether or not the violation is harming the value of the original copyright! i.e. if someone can prove the market was damaged, or significant value was lost from the original owner of the copyright then it is a violation.

So here is my question? Under the derivative work rule anyone that is making say a model of a "real-life" object or a model of an image from a movie is potentially in violation? That means that if a company makes a WWII tank model they have essentially created a derivative work, and they must have a license or permission from the original designers of that tank before making such a model?

Is this correct?

Are they covered by the fair use clause?

Brettz,
sorry if Implied that I think stealing is ok. That was not what I meant. I actually thought there was a rule about how different something has to be. You pointed out I was wrong so I went to the US copyright/trademark sight to look it up. I am not a lawyer so it is a little fuzzy to me. It looks liek you are correct. There is no justification for making small changes, but my search raised other issues??? Like McDonald Douglas suing some guy for making a 3D CAD model of a WWII bomber???

Then my question is this? If a company makes a resin casting of a Model T ford for sale as a game piece without Ford's permission, did they violate the copyright law?

"That means that if a company makes a WWII tank model they have essentially created a derivative work, and they must have a license or permission from the original designers of that tank before making such a model?"

I'm not sure anyone can "acquire" a lisence to produce Tiger and Panzer tanks from Nazi Germany anymore. :-P

Now, I sent an order to Bergstrom… let's see how these truely are.
I guess if they're just blobs of pewter, as the pictures kind of indicate, then, sure… they look nothing like Battlestar Galactica & Lucasfilm copyrighted product. Heh.
But, hey, at least he -has- pictures, right? Which is more than I can say for many manufacturers that sell minis.

Lemme see how it goes and I'll report back when I get 'em.

Cheers!

I've heard that some companies (trains, cars, planes, military equipment) are indeed trying to claim license fees from model companies, or at least had announced attempts to do so a few years ago. While I think they might have legal standing on current or recent products, I suspect the design of any real world object that's been out and copied by model-makers for years would be declared public domain, design wise, at least on the basis of failure to defend I.P.. (Plus it makes for really, really, bad P.R.). But I'm not an I.P. lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), so I don't know if that holds water or not.

But for designs like BSG and Lucasfilm stuff, well, just because they don't currently license or sell miniatures doesn't mean that they couldn't… and knockoffs could be seen as cutting into possible profits even if no actual attempt is being made to offer products within a specific market. (I'm pretty sure, for example, that you can't simply go out and sell a line of A-wing-shaped lawnmowers just because Lucasfilm doesn't sell them.) As it is, the Hasbro line and the various Wiz-Kid and WotC products certainly might be considered as directly impacted by the sales of unlicensed miniatures.

In all, the situation stinks for spaceship miniatures buyers. We're not seen as a viable market by the IP holders, or they sign agreements with companies that target younger purchasers and make poor, out-of-scale products of inconsistent quality.

On the other hand, they're not making an effort to squash the knock-off, unpainted miniatures makers… but whether that's because the IP holders don't think it's valuable to protect their IP in this area (hardly likely), or because the one-man shops which make the things are so far below the radar as to not appear on their screens.

Shame, really. The IP holders either don't see money in the market, or won't pursue it, while people who can do a great job of creating solid quality replicas can't or won't present a proposal that will tempt the holders into providing a license.

Is anyone going to be DH'd for recommending the use of models that infringe the TV company's IP?

I'll leave the judgment of IP rights and infringements to the courts.

Parzival,
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I was shocked when I found the article where a guy was being sued over a 3D cad model of a WWII bomber. I mean who cares? Also, if he had taken a photo, then the photo would have been his!

Regarding spaceship models, I think you hit it exactly. The problem is we have a market so small that nobody cares but us. Also, a lot of the BSG stuff (which I don't collect) seems to be stuff that does not even exist in the original films. I don't remember seeing all those different classes of ships in the movies? Maybe they are in the extended literature, but I don not remember seeing any pictures?

Anyway, a bit of a dilemma: we are quick to throw darts at these guys for unlicensed models, but I do not believe that people making other models have licenses for there stuff?

What about the pulp fiction guys? I see a lot of stuff from some pretty familiar comics and movies being produced. Are they all licensed? I do not know.

"Another interesting issue is the "fair use" clause."

I suggest you read up on the Fair Use clause before trying to justify anything with it.

I did read it, at least the version on the US Gov sight.

I am not trying to justify anything with it, just saying that reading up on I.P. rights made me more confused than before.

I am not a lawyer, I just assumed that it would be a little clearer than it is. For example if you don't defend your IP then you loose it? What constitutes defending it?

Also, I and a lot of other people out there make our own game rules for things like Stargate, Star Wars, Indiana Jones… if we are clearly not selling these rules or materials for our own commercial benefit, then I think we are okay? Right? Or is it only because we are under the Radar?

Also, I just read up on Bill's policy update. I now know why he does not deal with IP issues.

He has a ban on Piracy which fairly clear cut!

I once had a copyright lawyer explain to me that loaning a book to a friend was technically against the law (unless you are a library). It is distributing copyrighted material without permission! Selling a used book, also against the law.

Is that true?

It might be technically true as the law is worded, but I doubt it'd hold up in front of either judge or jury, as it clearly isn't the intent of copyright law to prohibit such actions.

Glad you enjoyed the game!