"Ouch! MicroFleet taken down by ADB!" Topic

It's funny, but after surviving a takedown order by CBS, I thought the MicroFleet ships on my Shapeways store were safe. Not so, apparently. Amarillo Design Bureau sent Shapeways a takedown notice that resulted in nearly everything I had listed that had even vague similarity to any of ADB's stuff being removed from my Shapeways store. Naturally, I'm going to challenge the takedown, but it's still annoying. It also es me off that Shapeways took down all the stuff that ADB couldn't possibly claim copyright infringement on, like the Motion Picture stuff, the Next Generation stuff, and the Kzouti.

Ironically, it was the overpriced, poor-quality minis from ADB that inspired me to pursue the MicroFleet project in the first place.

*sigh*

I know there are plenty of folks here who will say I'm getting what I deserve or something, and I'm not looking for sympathy; I just needed to vent.

Thanks,
jav98

"We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?" -Jack Burton

They had good reason to be scared. It was a great product line. Sure beat the pricier geometric shapes sold elsewhere.

Ironic given the underhanded manner in which they obtained their license to create products in the Star Trek universe over the studio's objections.

Now, now, they've made nice with them. No use dredging up old history.

No matter how often I've said the same thing.

jav98: You maybe should think about a defense fund. Let us know if we can hack up some Paypal.

Doug

LOL Ought to talk to IIRC Ray Kellogg's daughter about that situation . . . she actually owns the rights to TOS designs her dad made and helps out low-budget companies when Paramount et al get heavy with IP they don't actually own :)

BTW Javelin, have you thought about trying again with the terminals and vending machines in 6mm again? say as separate sprues, or simpler formats?

Ironic given the underhanded manner in which they obtained their license to create products in the Star Trek universe over the studio's objections.

No kidding.

So what is the story on ADB and the license?

Vulcan death grip, judiciously applied.

Javelin,

I am under the impression that they are contractually obligated to report anything that they encounter that might be an IP violation to CBS/Paramount. They don't seem to go to the effort to seek out possible violations, but once you posted it here, right under their noses, they probably had no choice but to report it.

And it's likely to be an uphill and expensive battle to fight it out with CBS, which probably has dozens of salivating lawyers just waiting to pounce on the hapless "IP violator". It's too expensive to fight it out with a mega-corporation after all. :(

Certainly ADB has gotten more aggressive in protecting their IP against what they believe is objectionable. A while ago, I got a little too enthusiastic about doing a Full Thrust version of some SFB ships and got smacked down for it. It's no fun going to the work of doing a well-done conversion and not being able to use it outside of my basement, so I gave up on it.

Yeah, they've re-done their ACTA:SF rules, which is what I had gotten my 150+ ship minis for. But frankly, after the troubles the game had, and near-extinction of it's player-base, and some other behind the scenes llama drama with Steve Cole (which I won't get into, don't ask), I find that I have little interest in Trek gaming anymore. But I have a ton of ship minis that I have no use for as well. I guess I could sell off some of the minis, and only keep the ones that represent ships in The Original Series, not ADB's version of the history (which probably would mean I'd get rid of 90% of my collection), and carry on with gaming, but I dunno, it just doesn't appeal to me anymore.

I am really into Full Thrust at this point, and I probably could come up with some ship designs that aren't "too close" to what ADB claims as their own IP, but frankly, why bother? I don't need the headache and worry that I'll get a C+D letter from them, or even worse, a lawsuit. They've pretty much chased me away from the Trek universe quite effectively, I'd say. And I was at one point an ACTA:SF fan-boy…

How can they stop you from doing a fan made creation for free?

It isn't hard to claim that you are affecting sales of their products. In my case, I did stray over the line into too close to what they were doing. I don't blame them for being upset over it. But I am VERY reluctant to try again and hope it isn't "too close" to their IP. Lots of wasted work potential.

> How can they stop you from doing a fan made creation for free?

How does this "doing it for free is ok" myth keep perpetuating itself?

He wasn't recasting ships. He was creating fan based gaming material. If he was directly copying artwork, charts, diagrams, etc, I get it. Even GW is somewhat flexible about fan created material. ADB is not flexible it would appear?

Thanks,

John

Years ago Steve Cole banned me from his web forum, labeled me a thief and accused me of wanting to pirate his products and destroy his livelihood because I asked if SFB products were available in .pdf format. He is the reason I sold everything I owned from ADB and will never play or buy another ADB product again. I have heard similar stories from dozens of other gamers as well over the years.

"He was creating fan based gaming material."

Expanding upon an existing IP is still not allowed. Some companies are OK with it and others are not. This is one spot where George Lucas was great – in general SW was allowed a good bit of fan based extensions. Star Trek not so much…

That's not entirely true. If you take your statement that expanding upon an existing IP isn't allowed to it's logical extreme then no one could create any spaceships at all. You can't copy characters or names or specific designs, including minor changes to a design that remain substantially the same as the original design.

Some companies are aggressive in their IP assertions and will claim that anything with a saucer and two pylons violates their IP, which isn't true, but they know they have deeper pockets and can intimidate people into backing down from their overreaching assertions of IP.

Battlestar Galactica is a good example. When the show came out Lucas sued claiming that everything about it was a straight up rip off of the Star Wars IP. He ultimately lost the legal battle and the courts ruled that nothing in Battlestar Galactica violated the Star Wars IP.

That just goes to show you how stark the difference can be between what a company thinks they own the rights to and what they actually do.

> no one could create any spaceships at all.

Way beyond silly assertion. I've said my bit, anyone wants to lawyer it up with Paramount/ADB on an obvious extension of their IP be my guest.

It's not a silly assertion. It's a legal test used by the courts in evaluating a claim. If taking a claim to it's logical extreme yields a ridiculous result the claim will have limits placed upon it. Yes, I realize this is a simplification of a more complicated issue, but it's an accurate enough summary for purposes of this discussion.

@Billclo Why not stat up your ships for Full Thrust?
Were you planning on selling them?
Why would you let one person sour you on a franchise that you loved at one time?

Don't let the terrorists win!! Fight the man!!

Play your game, host your Full Thrust game RIGHT next to ADB at Origins. Don't let one person ruin for what was a lot of time and effort to paint and base 150 ships.
Play your game and have fun with it!!

Inari7,

I can't justify risking a lawsuit that might cost me 5 or 6 digits in dollars to defend myself, all over a game, and just a hobby at that. Lose my house or retirement funds over a game? No thanks. Practically, no one can afford to fight CBS/Paramount. It's far worse than David vs Goliath. And they know it.

Apparently not selling anything makes no difference; I guess it's the claim that it cost them sales that's actionable. Again, I don't hold a grudge over it with them. It wasn't that that caused me to lose interest in the game; it was a bunch of stuff that happened behind the scenes with ADB and Mongoose that was the final straw.

I decided to give my money and efforts to Full Thrust, a game system in which the designer gives the rules away, and makes his living off selling you miniatures. And he doesn't care if you invent/publish your own materials (as I have with my Insectoids, and another faction in the works). Jon is very easy to work with and he is rather pleasant. Night and day difference in their respective business models.

So you were planning on selling them?
That's a different story.
The hobby is to have fun with, I say stat up your ships for full thrust. There is no way they will send you a C&D for that.
Don't work or associate with people who you don't like its not worth it.

After taking a look at your Microfleet Leeran thread I can tell you that advertising your design is based on ADB's design and calling it the "Leeran" fleet is asking for trouble.

If you had made a spaceship design inspired by the P-61 aircraft or a catamaran hulled sailboat and not associated it with ADB's product you would have been much better off.

Inari, I don't see where you are getting the idea of my selling anything. It was a fan based product, totally free.

Same as my Full Thrust stuff. Done purely for the love of the game.

How does this "doing it for free is ok" myth keep perpetuating itself?

Well, Paramount allows Star Trek fan films as long as the creators do not profit from it, sell tickets, or sell merchandise for their films. It's bleeping amazing what is being done.

"Star Trek Continues" is excellent. startrekcontinues.com

"Prelude to Axanar" is just mind-blowing good. I can't wait for the full film! YouTube link

But, Mister Tibbles, did you notice that "Star Trek: Axanar" has now officially changed its title to just "Axanar"? A curious detail, but interesting…

This is always going to be a minefield for wargamers; we come from a standpoint of changing and adapting historical rules for our own purposes, (and there's little anyone can do in claiming IP over history, although some have tried), and assume that it is ok to do the same with licensed systems. It could be argued, if it's done purely for fun, with no intention of profiting, where's the harm?

Harm, unfortunately, is often in the eye of the offended. Although I can appreciate that ADB need to be very, very careful with their licence; one angry Paramount/CBS executive later, and their entire business collapses.

Personally, I love writing rules and ideas and making miniatures for Trek. If they're skirting the fringes of IP, so be it. I do it purely for my own enjoyment, don't sell to anyone, I'm not willing to let the fear of lawyers stop me from having fun.

Here's a thought: If I sculpt and cast a bunch of not-Klingon ships (only for my own use), which do not directly resemble anything in the SFB stable, could ADB issue a C&D, based on the idea that I should have bought their miniatures, rather than make my own, on the grounds that by doing so I have denied them a sale?

@MacrosMartin
I've scratch built my own fleets for a heap of different universes, even posted on SCN showing how I do so. No ones sent me a C&D yet so I imagine you'd be pretty safe with that. I think it's the commercial model of shapeways that triggers them.

Robert

You cannot legally copy or substantially duplicate anyone else's artistic work, not to distribute for pay, for free, or really even to use in your own basement. Why? Because it's their work. They get to decide when, where, how and to whom it will be distributed, whether for pay or for free, or even if it will be distributed at all. Period, end of discussion, no debate.
"But it costs too much," is irrelevant. (So does a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't mean you get to just take one.)
"But I'll only use it at home," is irrelevant. (Just parking the Mercedes in your garage doesn't mean you get to take it, either.) Besides which there's no way to ensure that you will just use it at home, right?
"But it's not available," is irrelevant. If they don't want to sell it, they don't have to. (You don't get to take a Mercedes Benz concept car, either, no matter how cool they look.)
"But I want it," should obviously be irrelevant, but alas, I've encountered way too many people who can't seem to grasp that simple fact.

Here's some telling question that can guide you:
1. Could they sell it? If so, that's a sign you can't duplicate it.
2. If it were cheaper, would you buy it? If yes, that's a big sign to you personally that your integrity is on the line.
3. If it were free, would you accept it? Same deal, really.

But the truth is, even if you think it's the ugliest piece of junk ever molded and you wouldn't take it if somebody paid you, you still can't copy it. Not even to torment bad guys with the sight of it.

Here's a good standard: if the average person would look at it and say that it is what (or who) you are trying to resemble, then you're on shaky ground. If they would say that it looks kinda like what you want to resemble, but acknowledge that it's not that thing or person, then you're on better standing, though you still might be pushing it. But even on the latter case, don't be surprised if you get the C&D.

BUT an original interpretation of a general concept is perfectly fine. Only a specific artistic work is copyrightable (though the copyright does cover artistically derivative works). So in the case of the Klingon vessels, a spaceship that has an extended cylindrical neck that flares into a large structure on the front and is attached to a flatter "winged" structure in the rear, with the wings bending downward to hold two smaller cylinders or long rectangular structures, in and of itself is probably too generic a concept to violate the copyright on Klingon vessels. Similarly, a saucer stuck on a wide cylinder with two smaller cylinders stuck on pylons is also probably too generic. It's the details of those structures that will get you in trouble.

To be frank, I was always a little nervous that someone would come calling with a C&D (which CBS did last year). In the case of CBS, it was the name of the product -- "MicroTrek" -- that was the target of the C&D. So I changed it to "MicroFleet". Shapeways was satisfied and CBS never said another word about it.

On the designs themselves, I was indeed selling these for profit. Granted, it was a measly buck (which is my markup on nearly everything I make) per pack, but still -- it's for profit. So on that front, I'm guilty as charged. Even if I wasn't selling them for profit, Shapeways almost certainly is adding their own markup, so someone was making money off of them.

That all being said, I still think I'm going to challenge the takedown order. These designs were all my own work, even though some of them resemble ADB's minis. Many of them, in fact, don't resemble their minis, so those should be a no-brainer. I happen to think that my Kzouti designs are much nicer than their Kzinti designs, for example. If the name is too close, I'll rename them the Nivenii or something.

"But it costs too much," is irrelevant. (So does a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't mean you get to just take one.)

I don't disagree with your point, but your analogy is inherently flawed. No one is stealing ADB models, they are building their own.

Stealing a Benz from the dealership is indeed different than building a car yourself that looks like a Benz. The law recognizes this.

Copyright and IP law is a murky and subjective business. If it weren't, it wouldn't be changed, challenged, and litigated constantly. No room for moral high-horses here, for sure.

You might want to check on what percentage of changes need to occur to a design to not infringe on the copyright of others.

I think it is only like 10% – 20%, or so.

Just look at all those cars that look the same, now.

darthfozzywig, I noticed that too, but I believe that Parzival was going for the "effect" of what he was saying, not the details.

> Well, Paramount allows Star Trek fan films as long as the creators do not profit from it, sell tickets, or sell merchandise for their films

Just have to note – thank Paramount/CBS for that, they do not have to allow such things.

Copyright and IP law is a murky and subjective business. If it weren't, it wouldn't be changed, challenged, and litigated constantly. No room for moral high-horses here, for sure

Never said the analogy was perfect, but the concept remains the same. If someone else owns it, you don't get to take it, whether it's an object or an intangible artistic design or a patented process.

The murkiness you refer to is largely either people ignoring the law (and the integrity of the issue) and being rightly brought to court, or people claiming something that they don't own (such as a general concept, like "space marine"). The changes in the laws typically favor IP holders and producers over infringers, so that's really not much of a relevant point in your claim (for which you gave no examples, by the way).

But I'm not on a high horse (which ironically is typically the accusation of someone who's trying to justify their actions). I'm just stating the current laws and the underlying philosophy behind them.

Finally, the "all the cars look the same" issue is irrelevant. While cars do have aesthetic components, they also have practical limitations that dictate certain aspects of engineering. A sedan has four doors, four wheels, a hood, and windshield, a rear window, side view mirrors, a roof, a trunk, and bumpers, and these days there's generally streamlining. None of those aspects are either artistic nor patent worthy. The areas of artistic difference are subtler, but still evidently distinct. So it's really not a valid comparison to more distinctly different artistic creations.

In the case being considered, by the way, I'm not certain ADB has that much aesthetic claim to stand on, as the microfleets to me look fairly generic. But at the same time it's also clear that they were intended to mimic ADB designs and play off the interest in their products, so a claim of infringement on their end is not entirely without merit. Let's face it, if the Lyran faction with its rather unimaginative spaceships didn't form a part of ADB's SFB products, would anybody really want such a microfleet? Maybe, but the appeal is clearly derived from ADB's IP. But I think the Lyran appeal only exists because ADB shoe-horned them into a Star Trek universe in order to have something else to sell. The real appeal is Star Trek.

It doesn't matter if you are selling them, giving them away, or paying people to take them. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Also there is no minimum change to make it a new thing. That is a myth.

Looking at MicroFleet, and especially the "Leerens" I was honestly surprised that the C&D took so long to be issued. SVC and ADB know they are shakey ground as far as their license go. This is why they have to so aggressively chase down any and all SFB IP infringement. If they don't Paramount could take away the whole thing.

If the judge looks at ADB minis and looks at MicroFleet and says "These look like those" that's all she wrote.

By the way, I want to be clear that I'm not attacking nor accusing anyone here; my comments are meant to be general statements.

I did leave out a very important exception: parody. It has long been ethically and legally understood that parody requires a significant level of similarity, if not outright duplication, in order to be effective as parody. But of course, parody also demands the intent to be humorous (or at least satirical). I note that intent would be the standard there; actually being funny is not required (boy, is that ever true…).

Would this also apply to the people who make FASA Star Trek ships that FASA NEVER made?

Also does FASA still excist?

By the way, I want to be clear that I'm not attacking nor accusing anyone here; my comments are meant to be general statements.

Agreed. Nor am I.

The legal murkiness is actually more significant than most people may understand. Both artistic and technical creation and innovation are driven more through liberal interpretation of "inspiration" (theft) than 100% original flashes of unique genius. People are inspired by images and ideas and improve upon them. That's how things have worked – very effectively, mind you – for thousands of years, up until the last couple of decades.

In the US (and by legal force of arms, the Western world), the law is currently swinging in the favor of large, lawyered-up corporations. While justifiably interested in protecting their revenue streams, they are also taking advantage of a system they have engineered to defend empires built on other people's ideas and technology during times of looser IP and patent enforcement. The risk is stagnation through threat of legal strangulation. That results in a further consolidation of market power in fewer hands, and those hands are inherently risk averse. Fast and Furious 7, anyone?

On the tech front, Apple is notorious for this. In the entertainment business, Disney, for example, aggressively pursues anyone making Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Aladdin, etc products, none of which were originally Disney stories. Because the characters are in the public domain, Disney cannot prevent someone from producing a Little Mermaid story, but they are standing by to make your life miserable.

In games, WotC got a sweeping patent that, among other things, allows them to sue anyone making a game where you change the physical orientation of a card. (Disclosure: I was engaged as an expert witness researching holes in that patent.)

GW is a crowd favorite here for attacking anyone making "derivative works" despite the their "original IP" being obviously derived from other IP.

And yeah, there's no end to the irony of ADB suing anybody. :)

None of this is to say I think it's "ok" or ethical or "puttin one over on the man" in this or any particular case. I don't like people making money off my ideas, even as I recognize my ideas have been inspired by the works of others.

It's just a more complex and far-reaching issue than "hey, it's empirically immoral to make knock-off spaceships that look like these other guys' knock-off spaceships" or "hey, if I want to sell my own 32mm Imperial Stormtroopers, screw them, it's a free country!"

And yes, I think it sucks that MicroFleet were taken down. I was just looking at them and thinking about ordering some. ADB minis are almost as ridiculously priced as SJG's Ogre minis. Maybe they really do cost the company that much to be worth doing, but it is more than I am willing to pay.

I get ticked off at IP infringement and outright theft as I have been victimized by it personally. It is not fun to see your stuff in print and realize that not only were you not asked permission, but the other guy is making money from your work to boot!

link

Interesting that Steven Cole himself says that he doesn't hold an "official license" with CBS/Paramount. Has anyone ever actually seen a copy of the original agreement he had with CBS/Paramount?

I've gone ahead and sent my counter-takedown notice to Shapeways, so we'll see what they respond with. I'd be happy to discuss this with Mr. Cole, if he's willing to be reasonable, but since he had them take down all the designs based on The Next Generation and Starfleet Command PC games, it seems to me that reasonableness might be too much to hope for from him. I guess we'll see!

javelin98 I checked out the link you provided and read it but it seems that he left out stuff as to how he acquired Task Force Games from the 2 owners.

But then there's a lot of people you don't think much of Steve Cole and I've talked to a few and I'll leave it at that.

In my experience SVC is not very reasonable.

As I understand it, ADB never had a license agreement with CBS/Paramount and instead obtained a license from the author of a "Ships of Star Trek" type of book (Joseph Franz, maybe?).

If i recall, CBS/Paramount sued claiming the author could not "sub-license" someone else, but there was an unintended loophole in the author's agreement that allowed him to do just that. I don't recall the specifics, but think it had something to do wiyh the author retaining control of his own original designs that he created for the book. This is all ancient history, by the way.

@Daricles: Yeah, that was Franz Joseph.

It sounds more like his "licensing agreement" with CBS was more of a "do whatever you want with the pre-1979 stuff and we won't sue you into a sub-technological state" thing, rather than an exclusive license. Otherwise, how could Galoob, Mattel, AMT/ERTL, Polar Lights, etc., all be producing their model kits and die-cast toys?

That's my understanding, that the license only applies to the original series and the animated series – and only to ships, empires, races, etc – not characters. Pretty limited, but as far as I know there is no expiration date! You never find that with today's licensing agreements.

Jav, too early for an update on your struggles?

Doug

"but your analogy is inherently flawed. No one is stealing ADB models, they are building their own."

this is absolutely, positively not true. by making your own you are stealing from them the right to sell them…..

i'm amazed how much bald faced thievery there is in this hobby. no one is making a fortune selling this stuff, they make it at (at most) a modest profit so we can have models to play with and enjoy. then people come along and steal that too….

i think depriving hobby producers the right to sell stuff is really wrong. they are only making a few bucks and working hard to get those bucks.

i have to ask javelin98, what's your day job??? do you create and sell things for a living??? im guessing the answer is no, because if you did you would not be so cavalier about selling model designs that adb has a right to sell to gamers, and actually have the audacity to be fussing about it here….

It's kindergarten level stuff, don't take things that belong to others. The designs are theirs.

Anyone can copy someones work, doing so takes no skill.
Design your own stuff, there are no issues with that and others will recognize you have some ability.

On one side there is stealing someone's design by producing copies and selling them and on the other side there is claiming anything with a catamaran hull violates your IP rights. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides of this issue.

TMP link

@Daricles: Based on the pics in this thread, he'd have had to have done a bit more work before we could claim that ADB was pretending "anything with a catamaran hull violates their IP rights."

I agree to a certain extent. See my posts about that above. My last comment was directed at the issue at large and not necessarily this specific incident. However, ADB and SVC have a reputation for being overly aggressive in asserting their IP "rights".

After looking at ADB's designs and Jav's, I think that ADB is pushing things on the IP claim. Jav's designs are minimal in the extreme, containing little detail (no offense). To call these simple ships a violation of anything is an error. If they are copies, then ADB's Lyran designs are copies of every "spaceship" ever drawn by every 8 year old boy. They're just too generic.