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

Didn't "Two Fat Lardies" have a contest this year for a sockpuppet for their mascot?

Someone did. I was thinking there was even a picture of a green posted at one time. LOL
Someone esle with a goofy sense of humor. Kind of sounds like aliensurfer!! LOLOLOL

wink wink, all in good jest.

Actually, delljohnb, Magnificent Egos has a sock puppet mini. He's pretty cute, and one day I must own him.

I think it's in the nightmares section...

Well, you can quite easily scratchbuild a sock-puppet from an old sock...

Hmmmm, I can already see "Sock wars" game announced in TMP news section!

Griefbringer

My sense of humour isn't goofy - it's more donald duck - oh jeepers, I bet that's an IP infringment! ;-)

no offence taken delljohnb :-)

I have plenty of old socks, perhaps I should stuff them, decorate them with a marker and put them for sale on Ebay as sock puppets!

Would that be a solid business plan?

PS: what is the best scale for sock puppets?

Griefbringer

As a preface to my comments, let me note that getting into a fight with one of these companies can be quite costly, and they know it. The penalties for copyright infringement can be quite steep. As well as the attorneys fees. It is enough to put a small business out of business. So if you are in the U.S. or any other country where IP protections are enforced, you need to be careful.

That being said, the whole notion of IP protection is not universal. Recently I had some Russian guests who told me they bought Windows XP for $15.00. They would not even look at the CDs at Wallmart because they pay $3.00 for CDs in Russia.

Now, there is a real practical aspect to this. The typical salary in Russia is about $100.00 to $150.00 per month. Most of this is spent on food and rent. So paying full retail for Windows XP is going to take a month's pay. Most people cannot afford this, and their economy would come to a grinding halt if this type of pricing were allowed to persist.

Also the whole notion of IP protection is entirely foreign to Marxist-Leninist doctrine which guided the Soviets (and the Chinese) for so long. In fact, anyone schooled in these doctrines would simply view IP protection laws as capitalist exploitation of the working classes.

And there actually may be some merit to these contentions. Authors and designers are given a monopoly on their products in order to encourage them to produce these products. Of course, the grant of a monopoly allows them to jack up the prices to just about any level they desire.

The whole process is very political. The major Hollywood outfits can afford expensive lobbyists to push through very one sided legislation and the attorneys to enforce claims. Sometimes, these claims can be rather outrageous. (I remember the "look and feel" litigation of a few years back.)

In many cases, the parties doing the creating do not reap the financial rewards. Artists, authors, software designers are often on salary and do not reap the profits of their work. Now I understand the argument that they have sold their services and received the compensation they bargained for, etc., etc. But from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, this is a classic example of exploitation. In fact, tt fits into Marxist theory quite nicely.

Now perhaps this response belongs on the current affairs thread, except that nothing in Marxist Lenninist doctrine is current.

And this thread is no indication that I am in anyway approving of Marxist Leninist economic doctrine. (I do not.) However, it is important to recognize that a large portion of the world's population does not recognize the validity of IP protection. (Assuming one can consider China, Russia, and the former Soviet Block, as well as the majority of the third world, a significant portion of the world's population.)

It probably also explains why this is such a problem when dealing with the Chinese (no one ever speaks about the Russians). They simply do not get it, and the whole notion of copyrights runs contrary to their basic education. While we are not happy with their allowing the copying to take place, their natural response would be to say that we are the victims of a false consciousness created by the capitalist control of the superstructure (i.e. government).

It all depends on where you come from.

He (Tucholka) did take legal action. IIRC, it was settled-out-of-court, but there was a stipulation that he was to never sue again. Little did he know they had plans for a TV series.

"However, it is important to recognize that a large portion of the world's population does not recognize the validity of IP protection. (Assuming one can consider China, Russia, and the former Soviet Block, as well as the majority of the third world, a significant portion of the world's population.)"

You are probably generalising a bit too much here. There is copyright and other IP legislation in a number of those countries (you might want to check WIPO website if it has list of countries that have joined Bern convention). However, they are not always enforced very sternly due to the law enforcement lacking resources or interest (or being too corrupted).

At least all the central and eastern European countries that joined European Union this year should have proper legislation on copyright, trademark, patents and so on - and as far as I know their enforcement is getting stricter too.

Griefbringer

"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."

I am still to see a law that gives any rights to fictional characters. If you know a one, please inform me.

That said, the copyright still can be applied in this case to the appearance and shape of the particular scifi-Egyptian uniforms, as while copyright protects the form (not an idea) it is not necessarily tied to the media of the original expression.

However, as for the normal human characters, I am not sure their uniform would be original enough to qualify for copyright protection (isn't it just composed of pieces of normal modern military wear?), and the facial appearance of the actors involved _might_ also require the permission of the owner of the said face (though his/her mother bears no copyright to it).

Griefbringer

I wonder if I could convert my 28mm sockpuppet and glue on those little plastic rolling eyes. Hmmmmmm…….

The imagination is starting to work on that idea, and that's a SCARRY prospect.

Sorry…cannot sell on Ebay. "Sock Puppet" is already trademarked…that would be an IP infringement!!!

auction

LOL…OMG. I just fell off my chair laughing…

Just as an update to this thread...

I just saw a post by Dragon's Hoard/MJ minis and they have been contacted by the StarGate folks, and have ceased production/sales of the Space Gaet line of minis. Since Eureka's, and GZG's minis look even closer than MJ's did you can expect them to go bye bye soon. Buy 'em fast, while you can.

"I am still to see a law that gives any rights to fictional characters. If you know a one, please inform me."

Damn, are you a Law Student or something :)? By rights "to" fictional characters, do you mean a law that allows the creator of a character to copyright it, and sell/transfer rights to said character? If so, ANY fictional character is automatically copyrighted by its creator, it's part of a work of fiction after all. That includes books, screen plays, short stories... blah, blah.

So all copyright law would protect fictional characters by default. Also, I believe that there are additional steps that corporations can take to protect specific characters (i.e. Mickey Mouse), but you'll have to look those up.

"Damn, are you a Law Student or something"

Actually engineering student, but I happen to take some basic courses on law and have a general curiosity on some areas of legislation. In case I haven't mentioned it I am from Finland, so I am not much educated in details of US legislation, but those parts of legislation that are based on international treaties (like Bern convention) tend to be rather similar across various countries.

In these days lawyers have the tendency to send all sorts of threats that sometimes have very little basis on any actual law, but people get scared by the prospect of a costy lawsuit and give up to the demands - I don't find that development perfectly healthy. That is why I want to see an actual law to try to figure out myself if an actual infringement has happened or if someone just is trying to play a bullyboy. (These are general comments about myself, not about any case or poster on this thread - so don't get insulted.)

As for copyright, it protects form, not ideas or abstract concepts. As far as I know, fictional characters tend to be more in the realms of abstract concepts ("ideal world" if you are familiar with a certain classic Greek philosopher), with author giving a specific form to a particular ideal archetype.

BTW: I could point out that there is no possibility to perform an action of "copyrighting" a piece of work (at least in a country that has signed to international treaties on copyright), since a copyright is automatically created at the moment of creation.

Griefbringer

You're pretty sharp for an engineer ;)

"As for copyright, it protects form, not ideas or abstract concepts. As far as I know, fictional characters tend to be more in the realms of abstract concepts ("ideal world" if you are familiar with a certain classic Greek philosopher), with author giving a specific form to a particular ideal archetype."

Fictional characters are protected by copyright, I didn't mention archetypes and wasn't aware that you were referring to those. "Captain Kirk" is a fictional character protected by copyright law, however the captain of a spaceship is an idea that isn't. However, if I were to create a mini that was substantially similar to the graphic representation of Capt. Kirk, The Starship Enterprise, whatever... I could be in violation of copyright laws (and/or trademark laws), even if I named it differently than the original. Similarly, specific forms and characters in Star Gate are protected by copyright, which is why MJ minis ran afoul of copyright law, by copying them so closely. The standards for determining whether or not one work is substantially similar to the graphic representation of another differs by law (copyright, trademark and patent law for example).

"BTW: I could point out that there is no possibility to perform an action of "copyrighting" a piece of work (at least in a country that has signed to international treaties on copyright), since a copyright is automatically created at the moment of creation."

Not entirely accurate, you do have to register a copyright within three months of creation(in the USA at least) in order to sue for damages, and attorney fees. Merely creating the work doesn't allow you to do so. Also the copyright begins once the work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression.", i.e. written or recorded, there are also provisions regarding published and unpublished works. You may have created a poem, song, story, etc... in your head, but until you produce it in tangible form it isn't protected.

he won ...

Patrick

Uchronies- Who won what?

Pandinus: "Fictional characters are protected by copyright"

Is fictional character a form of expression? I can agree that the external appearance of the said character is protected by copyright, but is the character itself protected? Or is a character considered to be naught more than an appearance and name?

Pandinus: "However, if I were to create a mini that was substantially similar to the graphic representation of Capt. Kirk"

But isn't it just the graphic representation ( external appearance ) of the character that is being violated in this case, not the character itself.

As a counter-example, let's assume that there is a fictional character presented only in a verbal form ( published as a written text or as a radio play ) . Let's also assume that after hearing the radio play or reading the text, sculptor X decides to sculpt a figure that looks like what he thinks the character looks like. Later on he puts this figure for sale ( using some generic name, that bears no resemblance to the name that the character had in the said text/play ) . Has there been a copyright infringement?

Pandinus: "Not entirely accurate, you do have to register a copyright within three months of creation( in the USA at least ) in order to sue for damages, and attorney fees."

Outside US, such a registration process is rather rare. As for US, to quote from link : "If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner." And you still have the copyright even if you don't register it ( and only the copyright holder can register one ) .

Pandinus: "Also the copyright begins once the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression."

True – I guess I should have spoken about moment of physical creation and not just creation.

Griefbringer

just give a look at eureka web site :-((

seem's that someone used some yahoo group links in some kind of IP enforcement .

Patrick

and if I wrote what I feel about that I'd be dawghoused for sure. Grrrr. I hope someone's enjoying their thirty pieces of silver.

Now if the suits in questions had even the smallest ounce of sense they could realise that there is a demand for these minis and license someone to make them, maybe someone with a proven ability to produce said minis who might just have suitable moulds already available ;-)

Just a beginning .

Some times a big company will claim IP on any historical stuff . And small ones will die . Sharks helping big money against small one .

A shame . just for some hundred dollars .

Not entirely accurate, you do have to register a copyright within three months of creation(in the USA at least) in order to sue for damages, and attorney fees. Merely creating the work doesn't allow you to do so. Also the copyright begins once the work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression.", i.e. written or recorded, there are also provisions regarding published and unpublished works. You may have created a poem, song, story, etc... in your head, but until you produce it in tangible form it isn't protected.

Well said, though in most european countries registration is not necessary to start legal action.

About the Eureka figures: personally I would find it very sad if the mini's were taken out of production because of a relative small copyright infringement. On the other hand most copyright laws are quite clear: usually a producer of movie or a TV-serie gains the rights of all copyrighted material, including the guy/girl therefore that designed the Egyptian line of uniforms, which is copyrighted material, (it's probably protected by other IP laws as well).

On the other hand, didn't GW once copyrighted or trademarked the name/marks 'Orc' and 'Elves'? A bit too far off, in my humble view.

Ok, I know that tv/file corporations always want to protect their IP/images/whatever, even if they don't do anything with it. Eureka is not big enough to be considered for giving a license, so they were probably zapped because otherwise the stuff might become public domain(you don't protect it, you lose it).

But, are there any licensed figures in the pipeline which might explain this action? Otherwise it is just a waste of nicely sculpted figures.

GW can register Elf all they want to...LOL..

They will lose. It was in the public lecixon LONG before that. I have a dictionary from 1954 where "elf" is listed. LOL. Sorry, they lose on that front.

I think Dragon's Hoard has more problems than just their Space Gaet line. Their server is off line now.

35 pieces of sivler huh... excellent reference. Anyway, I agree with you completely Steve. Hopefully the suits can allow Eureka to make the miniatures one way or another. If not, it is a waste of an excellent set of molds. My only hope, to the demise of Eureka, is that MAYBE Stargate Reps are planning a line of Stargate models and that is why they have just issued these cease and desist orders.

"GW can register Elf all they want to...LOL..
They will lose. It was in the public lecixon LONG before that. I have a dictionary from 1954 where "elf" is listed. LOL. Sorry, they lose on that front."

I can't find any proof that GW actually ever did this, they did try and register Dark Elf, but that was in use by TSR, way before GW existed. If they did try and do it, it has no merit at all, as you said elf has been in the English language forever, and even in the context of gaming (which is what matters) it existed before GW. Anyone would beat them in court on this one.

"My only hope, to the demise of Eureka, is that MAYBE Stargate Reps are planning a line of Stargate models and that is why they have just issued these cease and desist orders."

I heard a rumor that the original complaint came from a Mongoose Rep., but it's just rumor and speculation from a gaming buddy. If so, maybe mongoose is planning Stargate minis in the future.

"Ok, I know that TV/file corporations always want to protect their IP/images/whatever, even if they don't do anything with it. Eureka is not big enough to be considered for giving a license, so they were probably zapped because otherwise the stuff might become public domain(you don't protect it, you lose it)."

Yours is the most plausible reason. While a copyright can't be lost for lack of enforcement, things like trademarked images, characters, etc. can be. However, allowing this sort of thing to go on causes two major problems: it makes it harder to collect damages, and the production of knock offs eventually grows out of control. They probably saw all of the manufacturers producing knock offs and said "crap, this is getting out of hand".

The amount of the money involved has very little to do with anything. If you steal a candy bar from Walmart, they are going to bust you just like if you had stolen a watch. They have to deter the behavior or else more people will steal and then 1,000 candy bars becomes a problem. If just Eureka were making knock offs, they might not have even noticed. Add MJ, who advertised their minis here and in magazines (STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!) and it gets their attention.

Eureka sent an email out to customers who were trying to order the minis in question. They said they were exploring licensing. You're wrong about Eureka's size having anything to do with licensing. If they had a good marketing plan, and with the quality of their minis, they could easily compete for a license to produce Stargate minis. The cost of the licensing would be determined by the size of the market (small), the ability of the licensee to meet the demand (good), the projected revenues(small), and so on. However, producing minis illegally has probably hurt their chances somewhat.

Griefbringer-

"Is fictional character a form of expression? I can agree that the external appearance of the said character is protected by copyright, but is the character itself protected? Or is a character considered to be naught more than an appearance and name?"

Yes a fictional character is a form of expression, how could it not be? Fictional characters are created as part of a creative work, like a novel, play, movie, comic book, etc. Even when separated from the original work, the creator still owns all rights to the characters that he or she created.

"And you still have the copyright even if you don't register it (and only the copyright holder can register one)."

I never said otherwise.

"But isn't it just the graphic representation (external appearance) of the character that is being violated in this case, not the character itself."

In the case of a character in a movie, TV show, or comic book, the graphic representation is part of the characterization of a fictional character, which is why it's protected, so the character copyright is being violated. For example, Superman's costume are as much a part of his fictional character as his name is. If I make a toy wearing superman's costume (the toy is wearing it, not me :P ) I've violated DC comic's superman character.

"As a counter-example, let's assume that there is a fictional character presented only in a verbal form (published as a written text or as a radio play). Let's also assume that after hearing the radio play or reading the text, sculptor X decides to sculpt a figure that looks like what he thinks the character looks like. Later on he puts this figure for sale (using some generic name, that bears no resemblance to the name that the character had in the said text/play). Has there been a copyright infringement?"

Nope, if the character were only described in writing, i.e. Gandalf or Bilbo Baggins, and you created minis of an old wizard and a "halfling" and did not use the character's actual names, you would be fine; You would not have violated the copyright. This is why there are so many LOTR type minis available. As long as their wizards aren't named Gandalf they're ok.

It's even hard to protect the graphic representations of the LOTR movie characters because a wizard, orcs, etc are all archetypes. You'd have to be pretty darn close to the exact design of the movies characters to have any problems.

I'm done with this thread. Why don't we all just go play some wargames :) I'm going to figure out how to convert some Egyptian figs into Jaffa, using greenstuff :P

Just my tuppence worth.

Remember, in the case of producing figures based on a TV series / movie; for example, producing figures of the SG-1 team for gaming Stargate, these are not just representing fictional characters, but real actors, and requires their permission.

A related example. Michael Biehn (Hicks in Aliens), was not cast in Alien3. The film makers did, however, use a picture of Hicks in the film - without the actor's permission.

He sued them for using of his face without permission - to which he owns copyright, as it's part of his profession as an actor - and ended up earning more for that single photo than he did for the whole of Aliens...

Pandinus: "Yes a fictional character is a form of expression, how could it not be?"

I guess we are having a problem with definition of a character here. I cannot see a character as a specific form of expression that would be covered by copyright. Visual appearance would be a form of expression, textual description would be a form of expression - but the character itself as a whole still remains an abstract concept in my opinion.

Pandinus: "For example, Superman's costume are as much a part of his fictional character as his name is. If I make a toy wearing superman's costume (the toy is wearing it, not me :P ) I've violated DC comic's superman character."

Actually, you don't need to involve any characters here. The superman costume (the visual appearance of) itself can also be seen as an independent piece of work (protectable by copyright) that is being violated. So the copyright infringement could claimed to be on the superman uniform (no need to start involving any character there).

Earthquake: "He sued them for using of his face without permission - to which he owns copyright."

You cannot own a copyright to your own face - since it is not a result of your creative work, but something you were born with. To protect your name or face you have to look for rights other than copyright.

Griefbringer

"I guess we are having a problem with definition of a character here. I cannot see a character as a specific form of expression that would be covered by copyright."

Well that is your opinion versus international copyright law. Try telling any author that their characters are not a form of creative expression.

"You cannot own a copyright to your own face - since it is not a result of your creative work, but something you were born with. To protect your name or face you have to look for rights other than copyright."

Yep, these are protected by privacy and publicity rights.

"You cannot own a copyright to your own face - since it is not a result of your creative work, but something you were born with. To protect your name or face you have to look for rights other than copyright."

I guess that would depend on how much cosmetic surgery is involved... :^)

Pandinus: "Well that is your opinion versus international copyright law."

True about my opinion, but I am trying to find a part of international copyright law that could be used to interpret a character as a form of expression. If you know a one, then pleast point it out. Alternatively, supreme court decisions on various countries on the issue could be interesting.

Wulfric: "I guess that would depend on how much cosmetic surgery is involved"

Doing cosmetic surgery on oneself might not be all that recommendable... at least check your medical insurance conditions before trying it at home.

Griefbringer

Those of us with 25= years in the gaming industry remember that this is not a new issue. The Task Forse 'Star Fleet Battles' and GameScience plastic mins and RPG systems in the Star Fleet universe were developed before Paramount enforcement. So they kept the products. Paramount lost and they also had to delay the production of a Fantasy movie because a gaming company had trademarked the title for a miniature range.

As the story goes to my memory, In the late 1970s, I knew of a miniature company that had produced a great line of Star Wars 25mm minatures. I saw the masters and was impressed (though 25mm and RPG was not my interest). I am told that The scupltor presented them to the Star Wars producers for approval but was denied because of the Kenner contract to prodcue plastic action figures.

I am told that late as alterations the 25mm metal castings again came on the market as part of a new casting company. I still see 'Storm Trooper Bunnies' at some flea markets.

So this is an old story. The movie companies began to regard gaming castings as another form of merchandising and now show more interest in controling the market upon initial release of their movie/ TV show.

In regards to intellectual property. Many ideas about alternative history and SciFi based Colonialism and WW2 among other eras have found their way into books. Do we only consider 'SuperBlockbusters' as able to defend their products or should less successful writers be able to do so as well?

Where would it end? What property or concept is not a revision or expanded idea that can be found somewhere else?

Would a alternate HY WW2 range be a rip off of Turledove who may have used historical tendacies to project a timeline?

RudyNelson: luckily, ideas as such are not protected by law (not that it has stopped lawyers from claiming all sorts of things).

Griefbringer

correction = I am told that later after alterations to the 25mm metal castings, they again came on the market as part of a new casting company. I still see 'Storm Trooper Bunnies' at some flea markets.

Does the Catholic Church have the IP on the image of Mary and Jesus? If so, maybe they can collect from that guy who sold the cheese sandwitch!!! :-O

I have a waffle with an image of the Pope on it. Is that worth anything?

Depends on the Pope.

"Does the Catholic Church have the IP on the image of Mary and Jesus?"

Which one of them? There are quite a many.

They should be able to own copyrights the same way as anyone else, though the copyright exhaustion (70 years from authors death) does away with the older ones.

Never heard of them trying to claim any trademark on it...

Griefbringer

I would imagine that most of the Jesus and Pope images would be part of the Public Domain rule.

Brings up another question. While famous paintings (hundreds of years old) are by artists long dead, are their IPs the property of their family or public domain or the people who bought the artwork?

If the IPs are the proerty of the owners of the artwork (which is as Griefbringer mentioned earlier an idea though now expressed on canvas instead of in writing), then a can of worms is wide open in regards to new sculpting/castings based on expressions in other mediums?

"While famous paintings (hundreds of years old) are by artists long dead, are their IPs the property of their family or public domain or the people who bought the artwork?"

Copyright only lasts for 70 years from authors death - after that nobody possesses a copyright to the work. However, if you make copies of old famous paintings, don't try to pass them as the originals (that is a felony).

As for those with copyright not exhausted, the ownership of the copyright might either be with the original author (or his heirs) or the buyer of the work, depending on the terms of the trade. I am not sure what are common practices on such deals.

Griefbringer

The work in a different medium than the original projectseems to be the point of concern. Should a project done in a medium such as print or film control any work done in another medium such as art or sculpting?

I have a GI Joe sized "Pope John-Paul II".

made by "Blue Corner" out of Cincinnati, Ohio.

I cannot find them on Google. :-( Wonder if they paid a royalty to the Vatican for the "likeness" of the Pope...

LOL..

ps. I'll take a digital photo if anyone is interested.

"Should a project done in a medium such as print or film control any work done in another medium such as art or sculpting?"

Well, copyright explicitly gives for the author the sole right to the production of copies of the said item, in the original or another medium.

"Wonder if they paid a royalty to the Vatican for the likeness of the Pope..."

Alas, there is no copyright on Pope, and no trademark either - imagine always having to talk about Pope(TM).

Griefbringer

LOL...

that was a little Yank humor there...

nothing serious.

Goodness knows, I don't need any ADDITIONAL time in Purgatory at this point!!

"Goodness knows, I don't need any ADDITIONAL time in Purgatory at this point!!"

Are you sure that it is not a registered trademark, ie. Purgatory(TM)?

You might have Purgatory Inc. lawyers on your heels faster than you could guess.

Griefbringer

BTW: how big is that Pope model - I haven't seen any of those GI Joe toys so have no idea. Would it go well with Tamiya T-rex?

Griefbringer