"Serious question regarding manufacturer IP theft...." Topic

I wanted to bring up what is bound to be a very controversial subject, manufacturers making unlicensed miniatures based on popular Sci-Fi movies.

I really don't understand why gamers see that this is ok. i.e.: Even though the manufacturers may change the name to something like "Sci-Fi Egyptians", one look and you know it is a direct copy of Stargate. It seems there is this "nod nod, wink wink" mentality that allows this to occur.

Two companies I have seen that are regularly engaging in this is Eureka Miniatures & GZG. Am I wrong to assume that these companies do not have licenses to produce these minis?

This does bother me, in the same way people are bothered about the illegal downloading of music, I look at this the same way. The companies that engage in this activity make minis that are direct copies of Stargate, Aliens, Predator, etc., give them a suggestive name, and people happily buy away.

I believe this hurts our hobby a great deal. When a publisher goes out of their way to attain a license to legally produce minis based on popular movies or franchises (i.e.: Mongoose Publishing), they should not have to deal with or worry about unlicensed manufacturers making a profit from the license they paid so much to get. Just because you change the name on something does not make it ok, people are buying the minis because of what they represent.

Just some food for thought, and I truly hope an intelligent discussion can emerge about how this affects our hobby, and of we as consumers should turn away from companies engaging in this activity, or continue turning a blind eye.

Obviously I feel very strongly about this, YMMV

Several ways to approach it

1. The publisher needs to protect the ideas AND enforce their rights by taking action against any offenders.It does need the enforcement end and it may not seem financially worth it for a small pirate BUT it will only need one example to frighten off other pirates - "pour encourage les autres".

2. make it "cheaper" to buy a limited license to produce miniatures maybe even a share of the gross turnover. it would not be too bad for the little manufacturer and the copyright holder would get some cash but would gain a lot of positive publicity for nothing.

3. Ignore it - are these flea bites worth it?

4. There needs to be some common sense though many years ago in the UK someone cpoyrighted the name "Wargaming" for many years which is why many of the older authors refer to "Battlegaming" - that was not good - why should a name be copyrighted? Luckily it lapsed so we can now use the name but think of the implications!

5. Egyptians in your example are just that - did Stargate get a license to use the images of Egypt? Maybe it gets difficult with intellectual copyright, why should one company who was quick off the mark copyright an idea from many years ago and expect payment for its use- it is not their actual intellectual property as they did not come up with the idea?

I hae no problems with an original thinker protecting their intellectual property BUT I do have issue with exploiters of other peoples ideas without permission or recompense or even recognition.

Steve

I agree that this does seem wrong. It happens in fantasy as well D&D "Halflings" *cough, cough* Although my copy of D&D still says "Hobbits, should anyone wish to play one..."

It is a bit more grey if the figures are close but not exact copies. But some I have seen are very direct copies. The IP licenses may not be available or may be prohibitively expensive, look at the price of GW LotR...

Not much incentive to go after the license when unauthorized versions abound. Nor much reason for the owner to grant one.

An interesting point here is whether a movie or TV show is the source of the IP or just the inspiration. For example, Stargate may have inspired a company/sculptor to look into a line of minis with an Egyptian look. Given a highly identifiable style, these are bound to look similar. (I don't know the minis referenced above so can't comment - are they doing characters straight from the show?)

Also, certain things cannot be claimed as "IP" as they are in the public domain. In fantasy, who owns the IP to Elves, Orcs and Dwarves? I notice a lot of those minis look similar too. What about knights in plate mail? Wyverns and dragons?

The fact is, this kind of merchandising is perfectly legal and goes on all the time. In other industries they're called "knock-offs" and are part of the business. Your job as a marketer of officially licensed product is to make the licensed product more compelling and appealing through use of the licensee's IP (or whatever).

A major component of these kinds of cases is also taht you are trying to confuse the consumer. Hence having a Rolex-styled watch with the "Ronex" brand name is prosecutable, while the same watch with the "Cheap Knock Off Watch Co." is not.

If you believe someone is really flat out STEALING IP, then yes, that is a crime. But what you describe does not, as far as I know, qualify.

My $0.02

"look at the price of GW LotR..."

Yes, but look at the market share and recognition. Other companies are making LotR LIKE figures but the knockoff lines really aren't that popular by comparison.

Eureka does have a habit of doing things like this and it's a wee bit naughty BUUUUUUUT -- I'd buy licenced alien miniatures in 28mm if anyone wants to produce them? Anyone? Anyone?

I'd kind of have more of an issue if the legit figures were still available -- then they're cannibilising someone else's sales. As it is, they're kind of using someone else's work but they are putting some effort in themselves as well.

To me it's kind of like the difference between using samples of a track to create a new track and simply pirating the track without adding anything. It's naughty not to ask permission first though but the answer from any of the large media companies is "No you can't. And no, we're not going to either" and that's if you can get an answer at all.

{One of my many problems with large corporations as they current are formulated is their habit of wanting to fence off lumps of the world and then not do anything with those bits.}

ALL this stuff ends up, ultimately being "inspired" by other people anyway.. "Space Marines" are pretty definitely inspired by storm troopers which were inspired by medieval armour.

Goblins are inspired by Tolkein... track this back, and Tolkein gets almost all the money from fantasy stuff ever, despite not really putting in much work recently. And Tolkein was inspired by the myths of Norse and Irish history...

Frankly I think the whole thing is a load of tosh - how on earth can you copyright an image, the brand name is fair enough though. I don't recall the makers of Stargate paying vast royalties to the makers to 'The Tomorrow People' for the use of the idea and images of evil ancient egyptian aliens.

Ripoffs of other peoples figures are bad, unlicensed use of a brand name is bad. Creating your own interpretation of an image (which as KatieL says above, usually has a complex history of 'inspiration') is absolutely fine.

Cheers
Martin

""Space Marines" are pretty definitely inspired by storm troopers which were inspired by medieval armour"

Well, Games Workshop has a trademark on "Space Marine" which will pretty much shut down anyone trying to make those.

Space Knights would be a different matter.

Actually, once the series is no longer being made, the rights cost goes way down. The famous tale is of the guy who likes the Movies 'Caddyshack' and wanted to make Caddyshack related shirts. The film had been out for ages, so he paid a small amount for the rights. Smart as it turned out as they became a hit in Golf Stores everywhere and he made a killing.

The question is, would these figs be made or sold if not for the original concept. And in these cases I doubt it. Yes, it is ripping off the IP. Much the same as a company that makes look alike figures of the Lost in Space B9 robot (many lawsuits over B9 production by the way).

Trademarks, patents, copyrights, and IP all have their own ins and outs. I take it seriously as I a always chasing down someone stealing my stuff. (Right now a website lifting chunks from a book).

BAsically, if you base something on someone else's work, better watch out. The Hwood lawyers sit around with scads of minions looking for people to sue to justify the hiring of said lawyers.

License fees are so high as they have to pay for all the lawyers as well.

My new joke (justa joke): Why kill all the lawyers?

A: Cause most politicians are also lawyers so you get two birds with one stone!

didn't we just cover this extensively in the last several months?

Maybe we should be discussing slander rather than copyright infringement...

just something to think about.

Turnabout is fair play in your example. The Stargate IP was ripped-off from a game (Richard Tucholka's stuff), so it's only fair that somebody in the gaming industry do the same to them.

The trademark on "Space Marine" is a graphical mark, not a defensible word mark.

Just like the White Wolf trademark on "Vampire"...they actually tried to get me to agree to some kind of license to use the word "Vampire" in the title of my game "Vampire Hunter$" which had been for sale at that point for more than 2 years...and advertised for 3 years prior to that...

I told them "no"...and they went away.

-Paul @ Team Frog Studios

""Space Marine" is a graphical mark, not a defensible word mark."

The registration is for a TYPED DRAWING word mark which, in my amateur opinion, would be the "plain text": Space Marine

Real trademark lawyers may wish to opine.

Stargates Goa'uld parasites are straight out of Brian Lumleys Necroscope series of books. The Egyptian headed warriors are from old Egyptian art. The Stargate itself is ripped out god knows how many other sources - books and film and other TV and Lumleys books yet again.

No I dont think anyone, including the film companies involved have much of a problem with smale scale lines of what are in effect fan based miniatures with limited distribution.

You have to also judge how much these small scale compliments to the original IP are enhancing that IP? So how many of us have bought Stargate series DVD's etc that we wouldnt have bought otherwise etc.?

There seems to be a small misconception about IP, copyright etc. IP and copyright are not the same, if you were to make a mini, or otherwise manufacture a toy which looks enough like a character in a movie, TV show, game, book, whatever... and this copy could be construed by a reasonable person to be a representation of said characters, then you're violating the IP of the company or individual that owns/created that character.

Eureka's minis, as well as MJ (Dragonshoard), and MOFO's Stargate minis are all intended to represent characters from the stargate series. They are almost dead-on duplicates. One company (Dragonshoard I believe) was manufacturing SG-teams, one of them featuring the characters of SG-1 (a black Jaffa, a woman, a professor, etc...).

Another company sells knock offs, calls them something else, but if you email and ask for the StarGate minis, they will ask which do you want, Carter, Tealc, Daniel, Jaffa? Don't fool yourself, this is theft of IP.

As for the "mosquito bites" comment, it doesn't matter how much or little you make off of someone else's IP, if they ignore it, that will weaken their position should they attempt to enforce their rights in the future. So every company I deal with vigorously defends their IP, no matter how small the infraction. Most of the time they sue, shut the operation down and seize/destroy goods.

Mr. Magoo- People in the film industry have a HUGE problem with "fan based miniatures with limited distribution". If they discover the infringement of their IP, they will sue the pants off the individuals producing the product. Especially if those persons are located in a country where they can easily protect their IP rights (USA, UK, Europe, Australia).

Blackscribe- if the Stargate IP was ripped off from Richard Tucholka stuff, then he should sue. However, since it isn't he can't. WHEN (notice I did not say if) MGM goes after Eureka, and the others (anyone notice dragonshoard is down for a week, hmmm...)

Martin Rapier- "Frankly I think the whole thing is a load of tosh - how on earth can you copyright an image, the brand name is fair enough though"...

Okay that's a unique viewpoint... as an experiment why don't you print up some Mickey Mouse T-shirts and sell them online. You could call him "Marty Mouse" or something clever. Lets see how long it takes Disney to ruin you.

jgawne- good points all around.

delljohnb- You're right, this thread has been done before.

I work in security and investigations, mostly I deal with protecting written IP, such as business processes, software code, etc. However, I also have to be on the lookout and report other violations that I see; such as merchandise and character related items. Some of my clients are Hollywood companies, and they act quicker than any of the others.

You should keep an eye out and see how long even minor IP infringements continue. Beer & Pretzels gaming already pulled his Star Trek covers on the Star Fight game, Dragonshoard is down, I strongly suspect that MGM is taking action, and I'll bet that Eureka will pull or modify the "Sci-fi Egyptians".

Well, in that case we'd all better buy lots more of the minis right now. :-p

Also, it's interesting that "Horseless" started his or her membership today, just before posting the question... Perhaps trying to avoid flames? Sockpuppet?

:)

"Frankly I think the whole thing is a load of tosh - how on earth can you copyright an image, the brand name is fair enough though."

Image (as in drawing, painting, photograph etc.) is protectable by copyright as an original work the same way as any piece of writing or sculpture. As for brand names, they are not protectable by copyright, but by trademark.

A lot of people cannot really tell the difference between copyright, trademark and patent. However, I have been lately intrigued by these mentions of "IP legislation" which is claimed to be able to protect ideas and such - I don't think we have it around here, or then I am unaware of it. Anybody able to give some _hard_ references to it in various national legislations or better still international treaties (any references to EU legislation would be particularly welcome).

Griefbringer

Steve- that's what I would do if you game Star Gate, buy big :)

Paul (Team Frog) do you play MOHAA on-line? Mazx and EN clans maybe?

Resp,
Delljohnb

I don't know about the EU, but here in the states we have the DCMA, just for starters. You can find it online. I've found that it's even easier to shut down violators in the UK, but I can't point you to the legislation (that's the lawyer's job).

Standardizing IP protection between nations is a big issue right now. The EU seems to be moving more towards the US model, with tighter controls. The big problems are in China and southeast Asia

OOPS, that should be the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), not DCMA

Thanks for the LD on the DMCA on IP real PDQ, I'm on the OK. TY. See you on the BS for the 5-0. Oh...BTW, RTMA...IMHO. ;-)

whew...my head is spinning. With all the acronyms flying around I feel like I'm back in the military again. If not the military, then certainly at some large shopping mall in southern California... LOL

Can I roll my eyes now?

Resp,
Delljohnb

"I don't know about the EU, but here in the states we have the DCMA, just for starters."

Well, I found DMCA as PDF at PDF link though on a quick look I couldn't notice anything specifically addressing IP. Can you specify which sections I should pay attention to?

Griefbringer

Here are some interesting (at least to me) examples of IP protection in action (or inaction).

A guy I knew made a miniature of the Rocketeer soon after it came out. He wrote to Disney asking for permission to make them commercially. Disney's legal department turned him down flat. No negotiations, just "no." I found out later that they had an exclusive license with Mattel at the time that precluded ANY toy or game bearing a Disney character being made by another company. Of course, if he had gone to its originator, Dave Stevens, he would have been set. Disney's legal department also originated the policy of "don't run our videos at day care centers without paying us a licensing fee for public performance" and also sued a Day Care center in Burbank for having Disney characters painted on its walls. That backfired as artists from Hannah Barbera came over and painted Yogi, Droopy and other of their characters in their place.

LucasFilm & Paramount have both had differing approaches to fan fiction based on, respectively, Star Wars & Star Trek. LucasFilm issued a lot of cease and desist notices only after things got out of hand, but they seemingly have backed off in the past 5 years. Paramount's IP department has maintained a nearly Zero-Tolerance policy throughout the past two decades. However, I've seen a few unlicensed rip-off Star Trek toys come through BigLots (close-out discount store) and one of the biggest spammers was using the DS9 theme on their website for years before being shut down for spamming so their enforcement is a bit lacking.

Similarly, Maisto was using a few Hot Wheels cars as masters for their own products.

Wyatt

Well, I guess we can kiss all historical gaming post ww1 and probably for anything but ancients.

Basically, we cannot represent any vehicles or equipment, etc... for manufacturers that still exist. Ford, Marmon-Herrington, etc... etc...

And most fantasy is out since it infringes on someone's IP, unless you totally created something new, but wait almost every concept has been done already. Hmmm....

Do you people really want to kill off the hobby??? I hope you like ancients!

Lets, get a bit of common sense here!

Lets not forget that this is a tiny niche hobby. Very few people are getting rich off of this hobby and most manufacturers barely scrape by as it is.

I look at this way; if I want to buy minis based on a movie or book, and a company is producing 'knock offs' while no company is producing 'official' minis, I'll buy the 'knock offs'. No reason to deny them my business simply becuase they don't have a license that would likely be beyond thier reach anyway. Even though I'd agree that the legal issues come down on the side of IP holder, I'll be damned if I can't do a good scenario based on a movie of book simply becuase there's no official license. The companies producing the 'knock offs' are simply providing a product no else offers. However, if someone *has* shelled out the big bucks for a real license that's a different matter to my mind. Then the 'knock offs' are possiably and probably hurting the business of the people making the real product. Basically, I'd rather give my money to someone who actually holds the license, but if no one holds said license I'm not going to hold myself back from purchasing other minis that will do the job.

-Will

To add one detail: Starget isn't the first to mix Sci Fi and ancient Egypt. Remember Battlestar Galactica? There are others, bu memory fails me.

When someone has borrowed from history you have to be *very* close to them to legally be infringing. And they must prove damage.

Andrew

"Well, I found DMCA as PDF at PDF link though on a quick look I couldn't notice anything specifically addressing IP. Can you specify which sections I should pay attention to?"

The whole thing. On page two: Public Law 105–304, 105th Congress: An Act, To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes." The whole thing deals with IP, copyrights, protections, WIPO etc… mostly digitally distributable IP.

I believe the legal definition of IP is something along the lines of: any unique product of human intellect that is unique, novel, and has some value in the marketplace. Recordings, literary works, business processes, graphic presentation, yadda, yadda… all fall under IP. The DMCA is just one of the laws that protect IP; you'll have to look up the rest.

"To add one detail: Starget isn't the first to mix Sci Fi and ancient Egypt. Remember Battlestar Galactica? There are others, bu memory fails me.
"When someone has borrowed from history you have to be *very* close to them to legally be infringing. And they must prove damage."

Yes, but making Stargate knock-offs has nothing to do with borrowing from Egyptian history. It's extremely unlikely that any of the Jaffa knock-offs being produced by MJ, Eureka or others would look anything like they do if Stargate didn't exist first. Look at the minis, they're dead-on ringers for Stargate characters. It's not the Egyptian theme that makes this a violation of MGM's IP; it's the copying of the characters. If they were Egyptians with bubble helmets and ray-guns, there wouldn't be an issue.

And you are way off, an IP holder does not have to prove damage. Any unauthorized use or copying of another's IP is stealing and the IP owner can pursue relief through the courts ( in the UK, US, and Europe ) , regardless of whether or not the violator makes a buck or if the IP owner loses money or market share.

Bjporter- "Well, I guess we can kiss all historical gaming post ww1 and probably for anything but ancients. Basically, we cannot represent any vehicles or equipment, etc… for manufacturers that still exist. Ford, Marmon-Herrington, etc… etc…

That's more of a gray area, as it involves history and military vehicles. I'm pretty sure that as long as company trademarks are left off of the model ( i.e. Ford logo, and name ) a manufacturer can get away with it.

"And most fantasy is out since it infringes on someone's IP, unless you totally created something new, but wait almost every concept has been done already. Hmmm…."

That's false. Most of the races and fantasy types we see; orcs, elves, dwarves, wizards, blah, blah… are public domain taken straight out of ethnic folklore and mythology. You'd have to copy another person's characters VERY closely to be infringing on their rights, hence the whole "hobbit vs. Halfling" issue. Even then, that's actually difficult to enforce once a word like hobbit, becomes commonly used. That's why companies have to defend their rights or they will lose them. Xerox for example defends its trademark even though it's commonly used as a verb, "I have to go Xerox these papers". If they let it slide, they would lose the rights and anyone could start making xerox machines ( vs. photocopy machines ) .

"Do you people really want to kill off the hobby??? I hope you like ancients! Lets, get a bit of common sense here!"

Companies' protecting their property is not going to kill off this hobby, that's irrational, but rampant theft will. What incentive is there for any company, big or small to create cool minis or great new games if their competition can simply make cheap knock-offs and undercut them? MGM has licensed a gaming company to produce an RPG, and for all we know the license may include exclusive rights to produce miniatures. Either way, it's up to the license holder to decide what to do with the franchise. Just because they choose not to do so, that does not justify illegal production of minis based on their IP.

"Lets not forget that this is a tiny niche hobby. Very few people are getting rich off of this hobby and most manufacturers barely scrape by as it is."

Once again, that is irrelevant. Rather than rip off someone else's ideas, manufacturers should come up with their own creative designs. That is what ultimately determines success in the market anyway, not stealing.

The creators of Stargate, Star Trek, etc… aren't being bad-guys when they protect what is theirs; it's their right to do so. Apparently, they produce something creative, which enough people really enjoy to make the shows successful. Not to mention the companies that produce these shows employ hundreds, and indirectly thousands of people.

A manufacturer trying to make a buck off-of someone else's, creations is theft, regardless of how they wish to rationalize it. As for buying minis from someone ripping off another person's IP, that's a personal choice. If you don't see a problem with it, buy them. I'm done, so until this thread surfaces again next month, I'm off to paint licensed minis

Holy Flapping Jaw Batman!!!

I beleive Batman is the IP of DC comics, if you hear a knock on your door and there's a group of guys with capes, masks, and briefcases standing there... run! It's their lawyers... :P

I type 80 words a minute, so my posts can be loooong....

I'm still trying to figure out who's sockpuppet "horseless" is

Pandinus,

You took my comments a lot more seriously than I did when I wrote them! I think the best recommendation for everyone here is.

If you think that people's IP rights are being infringed, don't buy the miniatures/models in question.

If someone is manufacturing miniatures/models that are being made under license by a licensed company then report them or just buy the licensed ones.

If no one makes "licensed" figures for whatever reason and you really want them go ahead and buy them while they are available!

Do whatever makes you happy!

Hey, who wants to make fighting lawyer figures in 28mm??? Now where is my hammer????

Just wondering - but does anyone actually possess a licence to produce official Stargate miniatures?

There's clearly a demand for them, but if the official licence holders are not interested in producing such figures, what are fans and gamers of the genre supposed to do?

It's a very grey area I know, but can other companies be blamed for modestly filling a gap in the market that the official licence holders refuses to fill?

LOL...

yes Pandinus. You did catch my little joke there. ;-)

Pandinus,

First, great information and well thought out discussion you have provided on the subject, my thanks as you hit my sentiments exactly. I have nothing against GZG or Eureka, other than the fact they are engaging in this practice.

Second, the whole "Sockpuppet" business has become far too chic here on TMP, and is being thrown about far too liberally. A Sockpuppet would be a competitor of said companies above, posting something like this with malicious intent. As I am neither a competitor in any way, or employed in the gaming industry, nor have any malicious intent (unless you consider pointing these practices out malicious, which I do not), the sockpuppet tag is far off the base.

On the other hand, if I choose to post anonymously, well that is my prerogative. The only reason I would do so is because I have seen a thread like this elsewhere before, brought up in a very level headed way, and seen flocks of fan-boys of said companies descend upon the person like a flock of vultures, it wasn't pretty:-)

I only wanted to voice my opinion on this matter, as it has bothered me for some time. I am also pleased that there have been mostly level-headed and common sense replies made on this thread, with some exceptions.

Also seeing some replies in defense of the Stargate example, would point out GZG's new Xenomorph minis, I believe there has to be a reasonable line between what is "Inspired" by another's works, and what is just blatantly copied. I find comments that if this kind of activity is policed by the IP holders it will ruin the industry, that is a very knee jerk response that has no basis in fact.

I agree with Pandinus that it is the ongoing IP theft that will hurt it more in the long term. These licenses are out there for any company that wants to try at them; Mongoose has done a great job as an example. Mongoose did not start producing "Stargate" or "Starship Troopers" inspired RPG, Minis & Games, they legally sought out the licenses to produce this material and should be fully supported for doing so, as should any other company that goes down the same path.

For the others, well I don't know what to say, only that I truly believe what they are doing is wrong. However in all fairness I would invite any company such as GZG, Eureka, etc. to comment on the minis in question. Perhaps I am way off the mark in believing what I do, and could be convinced otherwise.

There seems to be this belief that is pervasive now days that stealing from big corporations is ok, as we are just a cottage industry it doesn't hurt anyone, but you see illegal copies of minis up on Ebay and a thread gets posted here about it, everyone is waiving a sword. Just seems hypocritical to me, as both activities are damaging our hobby.

Again not all will agree, YMMV

Don't forget Denizen's "Hikers" which are suspiciously like Arthur Dent, Zaphod, and company, but since they don't look like the characters from the BBC series (or much anyways) they're just skating the edge.

A clear case of IP abuse is Union Pacific Railroad's assertion that they own the rights to not only their emblems, but the emblems and names of every railroad they've ever gobbled up. In this case, its a legal fallacy since they abandoned same for over 3 years, but since none of the small model railroad manufacturers have the financial resources to take them on, they're caving. UP isn't receiving any money, except from KATO, I think, but it is turning people off on that railroad and they're modeling Burlington Northern & Santa Fe instead. Last I heard the hobbyists themselves were looking for some legal assistance to stop the insanity - much like the yeoman work Bill has done with certain manufacturers via this page.

Wyatt

The only way around this is to kill all the lawyers. Especially ones working in disguise for companies that are currently in negotiation for certain licences.

Sock puppet? what sock puppet?

If no company is making 28mm. miniatures of a certain series or film, I'll buy a knock-off anytime.
I don't think that's theft.
According to the law, maybe, but not to me.

If another company IS producing licensed 28mm, I'd prefer to buy the official, IF it's good quality and not TOO expensive.

If the license is too costly, or any company will get a plain 'no', why not.

I think this IP buisiness is getting a bit out of proportion. Can a pop-culture icon be copyrighted?
Should it be?

Tied with all this license stuff ...

There will be no end . Some big company will try some day to get copyright on historical names too .

I'm more interested in "salve labour" in game industry, even if those companies have legal license to produce such mini's .

It's impossible for a small manufacturer to get rights for movies products .
I think that products such as sci-fi egyptians are some kind of free advert for stargate movies, dvd and so ...

"I believe the legal definition of IP is something along the lines of: any unique product of human intellect that is unique, novel, and has some value in the marketplace. Recordings, literary works, business processes, graphic presentation, yadda, yadda... all fall under IP."

Hmmmm, this might be where the confusion on my part arises - does the US copyright legislation only protect written text?

Griefbringer

[does the US copyright legislation only protect written text?]

No. Copyright exists on all creative works. 'creative' here meaning created by a person, regardless of artistic merit or monetary worth.

If no one will make the mini's we want then we will bye something that look's the same from someone who will.

Horseless - if it smells like a sockpuppet, talks like a sockpuppet, acts like a sockpuppet and looks like a sockpuppet, and then defends itself by pouring scorn on sockpuppet allegations, then to my mind it must be a sock puppet. Otherwise, why start a new membership and post anonymously? You hold views that you want to express, but dont want them attributed to yourself?

"No. Copyright exists on all creative works. 'creative' here meaning created by a person, regardless of artistic merit or monetary worth."

Thanks - I just wanted to check that the US definition of copyright is the same that I am used to (which it seems to be - though I still need to learn the purpose of the curious US practice of registering copyrights).

I am still searching for that core piece of US IP legislation, though (since DMCA seems to be mostly an add-on to it).

Griefbringer

So what ARE you trying to tell us Horseless & Pandinus? By purchasing a few of these relatively inexpensive toys (that might or might not be someone else’s IP) that we miniatures collectors are all contributing to the downfall of western commercial civilisation? What was soooo important about this that you felt you had to spend so much of your time telling us about it?

OK - So you’re ‘uncomfortable’ about some companies producing the occasional look-alike figure and calling it something else in a flimsy attempt to avoid prosecution. Fair enough. You’re entitled to your opinion – and (as it happens) I’m not too keen on IP infringement either, but why come on TMP trying to occupy some higher moral ground, with a great big lecture on the legal and moral (as you see it) ins and outs of IP and copyright? And why, in particular, have you chosen to single out and name (and shame?) two companies, both with reasonably good reputations as far as I’m aware? If you’re not happy, why not just report the supposed infringements to the proper authorities and have done with it? Why do you feel the need to come on TMP, naming names and sounding off to other miniature collectors about all this?

After all - Most TMP’ers have a brain – we’re reasonably intelligent people, and are quite capable of looking at figures from various manufacturers and deciding for ourselves whether we (or someone else) is being ripped off or not. We can make our own moral decisions based on that, and we don’t need you to point out the obvious to us. AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT – so what is your real purpose in doing this? Despite your claims to be interested only in protecting the IP rights of certain creators and license holders (very commendable under normal circumstances) I fear that that you are in fact pushing a far more personal agenda. In short - this is starting to look like some grubby mud slinging exercise at some companies you’ve taken particular exception to, disguised as some kind of moral crusade.

No "malicious intent" you say horseless? I'm not too sure about that one.

"Don't forget Denizen's "Hikers" which are suspiciously like Arthur Dent, Zaphod, and company, but since they don't look like the characters from the BBC series (or much anyways) they're just skating the edge."

They are close enough to the characters to be actionable. But the BBC don't own HHGG, Douglas N Adam's estate owns it. DNA knew about the Denizen figs as do several, if not all, of the actors. They liked them and saw it as too small an issue to worry about. Of course HHGG is being released as a film next year and is being made by Disney. So things might change...

"though I still need to learn the purpose of the curious US practice of registering copyrights"

Luckily I found very good information on this at the US copyright office website copyright.gov – definitely very good reading for those interested in the basics of US copyright legislation ( which is not as mysterious as I though – there are not many differences to the core Bern convention material ) .

I am still on the search for the mysterious "IP right" law.

Griefbrigner

kewl...

more sockpuppet discussions!!

I get to take out my soap box and talk about "unauthorized employees" who are family members and insulting customers!!

rolling eyes...

BTD, when will we ever see a 28mm "Sock Puppet" mini?

oops....not "BTD"...I meant BTW...

BTW="By The Way" ;-)