"Seriously, What Does Planet Of The Apes IP Really Prohibit?" Topic

Does it mean it is an IP (intellectual property) violation to sculpt any range of advanced apes with firearms or other "modern" weaponry, wearing alien-looking attire?

Or, based on the 2001, does it mean it is a violation to make a range of advanced apes in medieval armor and tech?

In other words . . . what is really safe/allowed?

Thanks,

Dan

You're really more into legal discussion here Dan, but simply the concept itelsf of advanced apes with guns is an open idea. However the closer the look gets to that of one of the films (specifically the design of clothes or armour) the more likely it would be seen as an IP violation. However there is no hard black and white line to say "this does and this doesn't". That's why IP cases are so expensive to run.

Dunno, but just last night I was thinking it was time for a POTA marathon.

You can't copyright or protect an ape. Given that there are ranges of SF upright Apes-Karmans for AT-43 and Ape gangs for Judge Dredd spring to mind- they can't be that litigious. I'd guess it would only be a problem when you started copying the armour and clothing from the movies.

The movie company might still go after generic apes with a C&D, based on the idea that going to court over this, would cost many thousands of dollars, which isn't worth the trouble.

But if you avoid the close similarity with the on-screen apes, there shouldn't be a problem.

You guys are awesome. Thanks so much for the advice.

Dan

I think the general notion is that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea. So: intelligent apes/apes with guns/space apes? Ok. Re-using names or designs from POTA films/TV series? See you in court.

However, as Patrick R mentions above, a large media company with an expensive legal department might well decide to launch a suit knowing full well that a private individual/small company simply won't have the resources to fight it and will have to concede.

Usual disclaimer applies: IANAL.

Whatever their lawyers want it to prohibit, unless you have better lawyers.
-Kle.

In other words . . . what is really safe/allowed?

If you really do want an accurate answer… ask them not us.

fox.co.uk/contact

:)

based on the idea that going to court over this, would cost many thousands of dollars, which isn't worth the trouble.

I am sure they have a few tousand dollars spare to be honest, probably a half decent legal team too..

Oh, and calling them "not-planet of the apes apes" won't work either, no matter what others may tell you.

No more than my own operating system would see the light of day:

picture

Careful as you go..

I am sure they have a few tousand dollars spare to be honest, probably a half decent legal team too..

Depends on what you mean by 'to spare.' They are a public company so they generally try to avoid running about spending thousands of dollars on pointless lawsuits over matters that don't really hurt the company.

That's why so many "not-" ranges exist in the first place, because the models are small enough that the copyright holder is unlikely to be selling a license for similar products. Miniature wargaming is sufficiently fringe that it would indeed escape the notice of the copyright holder, and usually does.

The difference comes when you rip off someone who is in the business of selling something sufficiently close to the wargaming business. They have a good likelihood of being harmed in their own sales by yours, and they will respond accordingly.

Not exactly relevant to this discussion, but I'd really like to see some apes with guns and swords figures. A set of those, I think, would be useful both for the "planetary romance" games, as well as not POTA games.

The only issue with using apes with guns as miniatures in regards to this subject is the use of the title "planet of the apes" and to exact likenesses of characters which use their names; Aldo picture

But a line of apes with guns, safe beyond safe.

Avoid movie titles and using the words that are directly associated to these movies, and you or anyone else would be fine, because there would be no threat to any IP.

Period.

To infringe on a copywriten subject is what it is. The companies that do so take their risks.

But only the elements that can be copywriten are covered.

Jason is a famous character but the name can not be copywriten as it is a common name…but make a big guy with a hockey mask and a knife and advertise him as Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th and you would be infringing.

But Sam Smith the Slasher, big guy with a knife and hockey mask is not covered.

The Alien from Alien is unique and the image is covered.

This is all moot.

For the subject at hand, apes with guns is completely safe if the company avoids any names, movie titles, or references to the Planet of the Apes.

hey, if all else fails. Claim you've never seen Planet of the Apes, you were just inspired by the Japanese flic Time of the Apes.

imdb.com/title/tt0094153

YouTube link

…or the pre-dating book.

The only issue with using apes with guns as miniatures in regards to this subject is the use of the title "planet of the apes" and to exact likenesses of characters which use their names;

Yeah, that's not great advice. It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate, or use the name, to be a violation of the holder's IP rights.

Avoid the "man in ape makeup" look, and the specific clothing and armor styles (the paneled clothing and armor and "forehead compensation" headgear).

AT-43's Karmans escape the similarity by keeping a lot more of the Gorilla body shape and by nudging at someone else's tech look instead of PotA.

Eureka's Boiler Suit Apes (and Monkeys) escape by looking like modern military troops that happen to be gibbons and gorillas. No stylised equipment, and no "man in makeup" statures.

Black Orc's 100 Kingdoms Simians escape by being outfitted as Roman Legions. Can't infringe on nature's copyrights, and empires that last stood over 500 years ago have no claim, either.

It's not a question of Fox not wanting to spend "thousands of dollars" in lawsuits. Studios already pay firms for blocks of time. They have nothing better to do. :)

So it's not a matter of Fox not wanting to spend the cash. All they need do is send the C&D letter. I am confident there isn't a miniature manufactuerer in the world, let alone an enthusiast, who has deeper pockets than the studio.

The designs in both movies are OK but could easily bettered by a sculptor with a bit of imagination/inspiration… meaning that if all you want are ape-men with guns there's no reason to look at POTA for inspiration.
I'd definitely go for ape-like beings with exotic/primitive armor and weapons… for weird fantasy and sci fi games. I'd paint their flesh blue-green and their hair white.

AngelBarracks,

Thanks. Sent Fox an email.

Dan

I'm still awaiting to hear something about Pole Bity's 6mm Sci-fi Apes ?!

Not quite sure what is going on there. Just as he seemed to get going, he suddenly disappeared.

If contemplating someting like this, it might be worth setting up a separate limited liability company to issue the NTPOTA line of figures. When IP lawyers roam the earth seeking whom they may devour, if they are stupid enough to sue, the limited-liability company goes pop, the accusers can't even recover their costs, and unlimited free publicity ensues.

There's no telling how daft a fat and stupid corporation like Fox might be, but Danjaq LLC don't seem to have been too bad over the case of what is now known as Cheapass Games' "Totally Re-named Spy Game".

Usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, don't try this at home, void where prohibited by law, launcher may train without warning.

Also, why are there no wargames with titles like "Battle of the IPR lawyers" or "Copyright infringement showdown"?

All the best,

John.

The copyright.trademark lawyers will sue because they can, because they are on retainer with nothing better to do, nd because you do not have the resources to fight them. They will outlast you.
They don't have to win, just intimidate.
Is it worth it just to have an not-orangutan named Coriolanus?

Ask Lucas and the Star Wars team. Aren't the Wookies just advanced apes with hi tech weaponry?

So, making figures of Ape-Human hybrids outfitted somewhat like the ones 8 seconds into this clip out of the question?

YouTube link

Pics here:

link
link

And what if they were armed with 21st century-comparable weapons?

Dan

"Yeah, that's not great advice. It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate, or use the name, to be a violation of the holder's IP rights"

I will not get pulled into an IP argument.

I have done my research and would be willing to have my lawyer talk to your lawyer if you like…he charges $150 USD an hour for consultation.

If you are not using the IP image, name, or title then it is not a copy.

Make an apple like fruit that is purple on the outside and green on the inside and call it a Mung Mung Fruit and it is not a copy of an apple it is a Mung Mung fruit.

Make an apple that is red on the outside and whitish on the inside and call it a Mackintosh apple on your advertising, then you are infringing.

This subject gets old.

Clearly some people like to stir the pot as it were. I am not interested in a debate.

Happy Halloween.

would be willing to have my lawyer talk to your lawyer if you like…he charges $150.00 USD USD an hour for consultation.

He's cheap :-)

link

"LONDON insolvency lawyers have ramped their fees up to £900.00 GBP per hour as the economic crisis deepens, it emerged today… In 2007 Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters and Slaughter and May charged £600.00 GBP to £750.00 GBP per hour, and in 2003, £375.00 GBP to £450."

If you are not using the IP image, name, or title then it is not a copy.

I think you need a new lawyer.

Make an apple that is red on the outside and whitish on the inside and call it a Mackintosh apple on your advertising, then you are infringing.

Although unlikely to go anywhere as you're comparing apples to, uh, computers.

To be fair, GeoffQRF, you chose the extreme of all extremes, bankruptcy partners at magic circle (the biggest and best) law firms. The first chaps to be paid out of a bankruptcy are the lawyers, so expect their fees to be astronomical. Also partners are much more expensive per hour than associates, and matters even at the large firms are largely staffed by associates.

An attorney who is charging $150 USD an hour is a small time lawyer handling family affairs. I would suggest that he or she is not the right person to retain for advice on issues as complex as copyright. Assuming you actually were given such advice by a lawyer, Geoff is right -- at least for copyright issues, you need a new lawyer, because it is simply terrible advice.

In any event, even an expensive patent attorney giving you advice does not mean that you won't get sued. Often copyright holders will sue even if they don't have a case, just to suppress your product, because they know they can outspend you and will get you to submit. In fact, sometimes deep-pocketed copycats will be audacious enough to sue the original copyright holder (the person who created the item they are ripping off) for copyright infringement! Averring that the opposite is true. With deep enough pockets, yes you can (and people DO) effectively steal the copyright.

The opposite side of the coin is that, even in a blatant rip off, if it is sufficiently marginal (like miniature figurines) and not something they are likely to exploit commercially themselves, the copyright holder may simply ignore it, notwithstanding what some fellow above asserted about them having attorneys on retainer. That doesn't mean they are going to waste the time they've bought on meaningless litigation (and costs will still be incurred by the copyright holder, trust me).

The short answer is there is no short answer. No assurances will absolutely protect you. You may make a blatant copy without any problems. You might make something that is (theoretically speaking) quite distinguishable and still get smacked about for it. You makes your products and takes your chances.

To be fair, GeoffQRF, you chose the extreme of all extremes

I know :-)

The short answer is there is no short answer.

That's why chalenging IP is expensive.

Ok.

This is what I envision an Ape-Human hybrid to look like, physically:

picture

QUESTIONS:

What if the Ape hybrids were dressed like these Bolshevik troops?

picture

But, of course, they would have more modern or near future weaponry.

How safe would that be?

Dan

LOL

The $150 USD an hour was a mistype, he got a kick out of that one. That is $150 USD per phone consultation.

And that I have a good lawyer for a reasonable rate is good on me…why pay more if you don't have to?

My guy is a corporate law and legal fraud guy.

As far as the whole legal issues…there is only one safe way to avoid IP infringement, get complete permission from the owner.

or

Create original work.

******

An ape-man with a gun is just that, an ape-man with a gun.

Unless there is an effort to recreate the Planet of the Apes, a character from the same, or using the names/titles from the movie…it is just an ape-man with a gun.

Just the act of creating a miniature that has some common elements does not infringe on an IP.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -Albert Einstein

The choice to make something that is close to an IP protected source is what it is, wrong.

But and here is the big butt…when one designs or creates something, in this case the Planet of the Apes movies, that does not put a big IP stamp on all things related to apes with guns.

*****

This argument gets brought up at least once a month and it is always the same.

Best to leave IP protected subjects alone or get permission.

We the gaming masses are not qualified to debate as a whole and I don't want to.

*****

Dan,

The simple answer is an ape with a gun is just an ape with a gun. Avoid any mention of Planet of the Apes, the characters, or the costumes from said movies and then these would just be apes with guns.

Have a good night all :)

Thanks!

Nite nite to you too. :)

Dan