"Reporting IP Infringement?" Topic

"If it was Wizkids who did the deed and Coppelstone who allegedly infringed on the IP – Go Coppelstone!"

I really believe many of you would have a different opinion, if you had created the Predator. If it was you who were paying your mortgage, health insurance, vacations, pensions etc…off roylaties from this design. If someone came along and started making money off your creation-I find real…real…real hard to believe that you all would simply say…Go Coppelstone!! I just don't believe it. Not one bit-sorry. These companies have to protect their IP. You would do the same, if you invested 100 million dollars in a product line.

On the same token, I understand what many of you are saying. Not to long ago, I encountered am alleged recaster. It didn't bother me, for some reason-emotionally, that he was recasting Gw stuff.(eighty copies of the same pose-tons of auctions with figures with the same exact pose-either he bought a 100 models exactly alike-or he was recasting) When I saw a small companies product line I got angry, because a recaster could sink a small company. I know ethically-I should care about GW, but I really don't. I can't lie.

Where I think I part company with the clear majority-I can't slam a company for defending their product/investment. I just don't get what you guys think they should do? Just let it go? Legally-it has been pointed out-they have to defend their IP. Wiz Kids pays a huge license and they should be cool about others profiting in the same market for free? Honestly-you'd be Ok with that, if you owned Wiz Kids and dropped maybe a couple million on a license? Really?

Responding to JLundberg:

There is a difference, although not a crisply defined one, between a figure that is inspired by Predator and one that's just a ripoff of Predator. On which side the Copplestone figures fall, is a matter open to debate (as we have already seen).

sounds like something a non-IP owner would say. if you own IP and somebody "infringes", it seems a lot more like a burglary than a mugging.

Yep, I'm a non-IP owner. And I still don't see any reason to go around tattling on miniatures companies (Unless Mark Copplestone steals my kid's bike and lays me off from my job at GM).

As I said in my original post, the owners have the right within the law to protect their intellectual property in court. That's what the courts are for. Why should I be involved with their dispute? Is 20th Century Fox going to help me out if I have to take my neighbor to court over a property line dipsute?

Bottom line is that the producer of these mini's has broken the law…whether or not the Owner of the IP is producing a line of minatures based on that property or not is irrelevant. NO LICENSE was granted the maker to produce these and therefore the IP owner is in the right to pursue all legal actions…I see a cease and desist and a potential lawsuit on the horizon…sad that someone had make this mistake and what's more unfortunate is that he chose to steal IP from the industry that is so ferocious in it's pursuit of infringers.

"Honestly-you'd be Ok with that, if you owned Wiz Kids and dropped maybe a couple million on a license? Really?"

If the "infringer" made a better product than the one made by the one holding the "liscense?" You better believe it!

Let reprhase that last post: If I were the consumer and my choice were between a superior "prirated" product than the one produced by the lapdog holding the liscence. You better belived, I'd be "OK" with WizKids losing their money.

Of course, if I were owner WizKids, I'd make damn sure I'd produce a product that was superior to the "pirates" so that the consumer wouldn't look twice at anything else.

Of course, since WizKids is only going interested in producing pre-painted, collectable, plastic CRAP to cater to the lazy slugs who won't paint, that's not going to happen. In which case… LONG LIVE THE PIRATES!

Is this point where I restate my desire to see the moral judgements removed from this argument? ;)

For those of you that want to know, it's this Drew Williams, not to be confused with Drew Williams from DragonForge, who's been in the industry much longer.

_________________
Drew Williams
Professional Miniatures Sculptor
Satyr Studio
satyrsculptingstudio.com

I often weigh in on these matters. I like to think I do so with the best interests of those contemplating infringement in mind. In cases involving copying, or outright piracy, my focus is on the interests of the designer. I am conscious of the frustration caused by my comments to those desiring to undertake all of the above activities. In the case of outright pirates, I have no sympathy. I frequently find myself torn between posting what I feel is correct and what is legal.

A prime example is when Cacique Caribe was considering a partial casting of the Reaper miniatures woolly rhino creature from the Reven faction of the Warlord line. What he wanted to do is to make a dead and scavenged version for his prehistoric gaming. He wanted to make something that is not available for purchase, by incorporating a partial casting of an available miniature, so as to achieve consistency between the live and dead versions.

In the end, I gave advice that he not do so, and suggesting he instead buy another of the miniature and convert it. This was based upon not wishing CC to get himself in trouble, and to protect the designer's potential to provide us with more miniatures.

While that might sound like an unlikely link, consider that those buying two of the miniature; one to convert and one as is, represent sales numbers that are more likely to convince the person in a company that makes such decisions, that more commissions for that designer would be profitable for the company.

That said, I kind of hope that Cacique went ahead with his plan, if he couldn't afford a second miniature. But, I couldn't in good conscious recommend he do so.

In the instance of the Hunter Aliens, it is, to my eyes an infringement. A well executed infringement, and so; not damaging to the franchise's value, as long as no licensed version existed. Still not, technically, the right thing to do, just not harmful. That has now changed with the Wizkids announcement of acquiring the license.

That said, if I can afford it, I will buy some of those miniatures before they disappear because I like the sculptor's style. Finances allowing, I'll also get the Horrorclix ones, if they are true to the movie's imagery and well executed. If I can only acquire one or the other, my preference of the sculptor's style will most likely win out. While the law can influence my purchases, it doesn't control my preferences.

In the absence of a higher quality option, a licensed producer has only a need to field a line just adequate to satisfy the IP holder and generate sales. I'm reminded of the initial Mage Knight figures. They were a mix of ex-Ral Partha sculpts and some newer sculpts that made the old and horrible figures, that came with the 1950's Renwall models, look like anatomical models.

This is the system the corporate world likes, where the next years' models need offer as few improvements as will generate additional sales. It is my opinion, that this mentality is what facilitated the success of the Japanese import car in American markets, and that the oil embargo only made the imports that much more attractive. I think the American auto industry was, and is, a victim of it's own complacency.

Unfortunately, the current trend in copyright and intellectual property laws perpetuates this complacency, and by extension, mediocrity at the expense of the consumer, not to mention innovation. Ironically, it's probably this very over-protection that results in the ability to charge high prices, indirectly bringing about the profitability of piracy and infringement they were meant to combat.

Ken

Whilst it's not something I'd have done as I think it's between the two companies involved, if saw someone pirating figures I'd be on them like a shot.
However, the movie company stated they aren't interested in pursuing IP rights unless the other company is making more than $200k per annum from the product, so in reality no damage was done.

I do think the "let's penalise the grass" game has gone far enough though.
By checking on another companies IP rights Drew's damaged his own reputation and is going to be boycotted by some members?
This doesn't seen fair to me.
I can't see why there is a need to try and damage Drew's business, as he hasn't done anything illegal.
I very much doubt anyone will dare question any IP ever again after all this!

Thought I'd better rewrite the first sentence as it wasn't as clear as I'd have liked :-
"Whilst reporting IP infringement is not something I'd have done as I think it's between the two companies involved, if saw someone pirating figures I'd be on them like a shot."

If the so called infringement affected my company directly then I would have reported them.

Otherwise I might issue a cease and decist order just so it didn't affect the possibility of my future earnings

By checking on another companies IP rights Drew's damaged his own reputation and is going to be boycotted by some members?
This doesn't seen fair to me.

sort of…. i think his reputation (or motives) were called into question because he announced his actions, not necessarily the action itself.

his sales may slump for a bit, but they'll be better off in the long run. most of those who would boycott obviously don't respect IP laws (or the sanctity of the product). maybe a few are even "closet re-casters". it has been my experience that businesses don't mind losing customers like those. a business has a right to refuse service to anyone…. so you lose the sale of one or a few figures? if that "customer's" sale may cause the loss of even more revenue, the vendor really can't afford to fill the order.

Here's a Novel Thought: suppose Drew had contacted Mark, and offered to buy the Masters at the rate given to Sculptors for a commisioned sculpt? Given the situation, it would have been the best of all possible worlds-
No one questions WizKids right to purchase the License, Mark is well known as being a phenomenal sculptor: It could have been settled with integrity and honor for all-
Nope:
Litigation first, Mutual Respect to the Rubbish Can.

This is why I occasionally chant to myself:
"Down with the Industry: Up with the Hobby!!"

"Of course, if I were owner WizKids, I'd make damn sure I'd produce a product that was superior to the "pirates" so that the consumer wouldn't look twice at anything else."

It doesn't work that way. Taste is a very personal thing. There are people who love Rackhams style-some hate it. They hate oversized weapons. Sexed out ladies. Some people love figures like that. My point stands, if you invested money/time in a license-you wouldn't allow someone else to profit off it. Unless you were someone who wanted to be out of business right quick. Drew did nothing wrong. If we aren't going to get upset with this infringement, why get upset with recasters? Whats the big deal? Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, but Drew did. I just don't get why everyone thinks he did something wrong. Honestly, I don't think alot of the people who have posted are even remotely trying to look at this from the IP owners/licensee perspective. I do think Coppelstones figures are sweet…I woudln't mind having a few.

"most of those who would boycott obviously don't respect IP laws (or the sanctity of the product). maybe a few are even "closet re-casters"

Ah so it could have all been a cunning ruse to lure out the re-casters so we can boycott the boycotters!
You have to have a well developed Machiavellian mind to keep up with this thread ;-)

I should add-I do think there is a line as Miller Bros points out where protecting IP can go too far. Where it can hinder innovation-and creativity.

I am no recaster, but Copplestone provided a product that I very much desired. And as no one else saw any money in it, I went along and got some.

So now Wizkids has a license for the IP. That's prefectly legal, however I don't like the way Wizkids markets and distributes their merchandice. So I could careless if they collapsed. I'm not into buying a box of random miniatures and get some I don't want, that's for morons and general shallow gene-pool people to do.

I only support the licensed products if they do a good job of it, and I have a very large collection of legal anime to prove that much. I will need to see what Wizkids does with the Predator first, but I'm not having a very high expectation of their work.

"should add-I do think there is a line as Miller Bros points out where protecting IP can go too far. Where it can hinder innovation-and creativity."

not that easy to tell really. i think IP enforcement CAN be taken too far. IP infringement already HAS gone too far and IS hindering creativity and innovation. there actually would be MORE, not less, to choose from (and at better prices) if everybody who wanted to make an honest buck didn't have to be aegis and worry about being taken advantage of.

You know, I'm surprised Dances with Words hasn't spoken out about this…this time:D…

Look at it this; have you been to a dollar stores 'toy section'…of COURSE you have, you're mini-gamers/gamers-in-general ("this will be perfect for terrain…", "these cars fit the scale and style of my game…"). Anywho, ever look at their action figures? How many one-offs/knock-offs can you spot? Power Rangers, check…Star Wars, check…Harry Potter, check…Spider-Man, check…

What I'm trying to get to is, MANY/MOST of of the afore mentioned IPs have ACTUAL toy lines, but these 'other lines' still exsist. Why? Because dispite what SOME IP holders/creators (would) claim, a few knock-off (esp. if sold in 'off markets') will NOT break the profits of an IP.

Or to put it another way: a number of years ago I ordered a bunch of…knock-offs from a company, which no longer is around. I ordered two 'Hover-Bots' ("Black Hole"'Vincent's), a 'Pulp Space Adventurer w/sword' (a classic "Flash Gordon"), and a "Alien Huntress" (a female "Preditor"). NEVER ONCE did a think/question "Gee, I wonder if this would hurt Disney's 'bottom line'?" I DID however think "It's about time someone made stuff like this…" I also thought/wished they made a B.H. Maximillian too, but I digress.

Brambledemon (and those who argue FOR the IP rights) your arguments have merit, however the "Predator" IP has been around since 1987. The first 'knock-off' minis came along (that I saw) around late-mid 90's. Meaning, 'they' (the IP holders) had about ten years (give/take) time before the miniatures came along to make profit. And I seriously DOUBT those afore mentioned miniatures hurt that profit margin, if anything, they wouldn't even been a blip on the radar.

I guess what I'm getting to is, sooner/later you or someone is going to see/read about/hear about 'something' (a character, creature, vehicle); and a thought will spring up in your head 'Hey, he/she/that would perfect for my game'. But, if the IP holder/creator hasn't/won't create(d) a miniature line (or contracted one), then what? I don't think a few 'knock offs' hurt the industry, anymore then those who hold IP so tightly they it can't 'go out and play'.

Why I think it was wrong to report in this case: It seems to have been done for personal profit. How long had he known about these models and made no move? And then when his own comparable models in the pipeline, then he reports. As far as I can see, that wasn't a move based on right vs wrong, or illegal vs legal (two very different arguments). It was a move based on trying to take out the competition.

"been done for personal profit."

I can see how people could think that, but there's another way of looking at it.

MC makes the figures for yonks, and no-one's bothered much. Neither is the studio, it would appear — they're not in that market, the money involved isn't enough to be bothered about.

WizKids bought the licence to make Predator figures in 28mm. They probably paid money for that. They'd probably like to make that money back, and to do that they feel they need to guard that marketplace.

The whole thing about whether their figures are worse or not is completely irrelevant. A miniatures company has bought an exclusive licence; they want it to actually BE exclusive.

I kind of think his route was a rude, but that's a whole other conversation.

Actually, since I've never seen the licensing agreement in question (and would probably be lucky to understand one word in three if i did), I wouldn't assume too much. Just how tightly is it defined?

It might seem unlikely that the contract would draw a line between (for example, completely at random) a 28mm, unpainted, metal, non-random model and a 32mm (scale guesstimated from Heroclix and Mageknight figures on hand since I couldn't find an official one), prepainted, plastic, 'collectable' model.

But consider this. McFarlane, Kenner, Palisades, Sideshow, Mezitz and Micromen all make AvP toys of one sort or another, which I presume are fairly carefully delineated in their respective agreements with Fox. Consider also who was more likely to dominate negotiations: Fox or WizKids.

Maybe Copplestone isn't even treading on WKs toes at all, legally.

Just Fox's.

Anyway, even if he is, I'd like to draw your attention to something you said yourself: "WizKids bought the licence to make Predator figures in 28mm." Read it again.

WizKids. Not Drew Williams.

WizKids didn't bitch to Fox. Drew Williams did. That wasn't WK protecting their investment. If WizKids had been involved, they would have brought lawyers, not sculptors.

That was Williams being a .

On the Frothers thread that started all this, Drew Williams said:

"I mostly asked about that Predator IP just to get a solid answer from what I felt to be the source. Not much different than what this poll thread is here to do. It was manufacturing research. Desperate curiosity and a mistrust of second hand rumors. If I should want to make a series of figs myself, which is more than possible, I would want to know what the boundaries are. "

"I sort of tried to feel the guy out on the issue "hypotheticaly" before ever revealing the URL."

"I can't really remember whos figs they were. Copplestone? I don't think so"

Somehow, on TMP, this becomes "Williams snitched on Copplestone and tried to put him out of business because Williams is a so lets boycott his work. "

I don't think Copplestone's Hunter Aliens are an IP infringement at all. They are similar sure, but not copies therefore no IP-infringement.

On the same line Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema did not infringe IP on Copplestone's Half-Orcs he sculpted over ten years ago for Grenadier: link
They are similar, sure but not copies therefore no IP-infringement.

An Orc technically speaking is an infringement of IP owned by Tolkien Estate. In fact most fantasy and Science fiction miniatures are based on other peoples work quite clearly without and rights ever paid.
What do you moral paladins suggest? All producers of Orcs should get a Cease and Desist letter. ASAP!

The Hunter Alien, and similar other figs by other manufacturers tap inspiration from collective pop-icons that have become part of modern culture, just like Elvis.

OK, I have had about enough of all this BS.

Let me say that there was never any mention from Drew that he had spoken to anyone concerning Copplestone's figs.

If any of you had bothered to read the thread on Frothers you would have seen that Drew spoke about a "predator" range (as Killer Bob kindly posted just above me) and IT WAS ME, Marquis, who simply posted a picture of the Copplestone range to illustrate a point.

Whichever moron started this thread simply failed to read the Frothers thread and jumped to an assumption. And we all know that when you assume things you make an ASS. of U and ME.

So, for the love of Jebus, can you knuckleheads PLEASE read what was in the original thread before you compound this stupidity. Debate is a good thing, but try and get the facts straight first.

And I will take this opportunity to apologise to Drew. I did not think that by using an illustration on Frothers, it would then blow up out of all proportion, due to the ignorance of folks who cant do a little basic reaserch. I am sorry Drew.

Just a question, how does this effect any one that doesn't do 28mm games and does 15mm instead? Does scale change everything?