GI JOE 30th Anniversary

[lerath666]

Kitbashing and mass producing parts for retail aren't exactly similar endeavors.

Only, under copywrite law they are.

if you use someone else's IP to turn a profit, without the express permission of the IP owner, you are in violation of copywrite law.

That's the reason that making and selling customs on this board, for example, is a sticky subject for Dave.

The thing is, in the case with hasbro, they (Hasbro) don't care.

 

[Niltusk]

Only, under copywrite law they are.

if you use someone else's IP to turn a profit, without the express permission of the IP owner, you are in violation of copywrite law.

That's the reason that making and selling customs on this board, for example, is a sticky subject for Dave.

The thing is, in the case with hasbro, they (Hasbro) don't care.

You mean copyright laws?
I'm no lawyer, but you do have a right to modify property and you do have a right to resell and thats why Hasbro doesn't take people to court over this crap. Again, comparing reselling something you modified to someone mass producing someones intellectual property is fairly idiotic.

 

[thenammagazine]

You mean copyright laws?
I'm no lawyer, but you do have a right to modify property and you do have a right to resell and thats why Hasbro doesn't take people to court over this crap. Again, comparing reselling something you modified to someone mass producing someones intellectual property is fairly idiotic.

Only if it's "significantly different" than the original piece. If you can look at it and tell what the original piece was, it's grounds for an infringement suit. Things that wouldn't be "significantly different" would be like adding a goatee to HT's Sam Jackson head, changing the hair on an existing headsculpt or snipping the tops off of boots.

 

[Niltusk]

Only if it's "significantly different" than the original piece. If you can look at it and tell what the original piece was, it's grounds for an infringement suit. Things that wouldn't be "significantly different" would be like adding a goatee to HT's Sam Jackson head, changing the hair on an existing headsculpt or snipping the tops off of boots.

No its not. I don't have to change one thing about a toy to resell it legally. Doesn't mean jack or ****. I'm not claiming I own the property. You can sue anyone for anything, this Jin guy could get sued, but it doesn't mean anything beyond that and its still not the same as mass producing a companies properties.

 

[thenammagazine]

No its not. I don't have to change one thing about a toy to resell it legally. Doesn't mean jack or ****. I'm not claiming I own the property. You can sue anyone for anything, this Jin guy could get sued, but it doesn't mean anything beyond that and its still not the same as mass producing a companies properties.

To reproduce and sell, yes you do.

 

[Niltusk]

To reproduce and sell, yes you do.

Hes not reproducing, hes hacking bits and making new ones which he purchased from those making the originals, if anything he could cover himself not only under fair use, but parody. Its hard for a company to pursue fan artwork due to that,which the fan is not even originally buying a legally marketed product, how the **** do you think they're going to do anything about this? Again, could they sue? Sure, you can sue for anything, but as far as legality... Think about it.

 

[thenammagazine]

Hes not reproducing, hes hacking bits and making new ones which he purchased from those making the originals, if anything he could cover himself not only under fair use, but parody. Its hard for a company to pursue fan artwork due to that,which the fan is not even originally buying a legally marketed product, how the **** do you think they're going to do anything about this? Again, could they sue? Sure, you can sue for anything, but as far as legality... Think about it.

As long as they're all one-offs, he's okay. But if he produced two identical ones, or even a slight variant of one he'd already produced, there's ground for legal action as at that point, artistic license no longer applies.

 

[Niltusk]

As long as they're all one-offs, he's okay. But if he produced two identical ones, or even a slight variant of one he'd already produced, there's ground for legal action as at that point, artistic license no longer applies.

So... you just can't follow a simple thread. Thats exactly been what I've been saying the entire time. Comparing a one off artist to a company mass producing bootlegs is ridiculous.

 

[thenammagazine]

So... you just can't follow a simple thread. Thats exactly been what I've been saying the entire time. Comparing a one off artist to a company mass producing bootlegs is ridiculous.

Yes, but you were generalizing in the initial statement I quoted.

 

[lerath666]

You mean copyright laws?
I'm no lawyer, but you do have a right to modify property and you do have a right to resell and thats why Hasbro doesn't take people to court over this crap. Again, comparing reselling something you modified to someone mass producing someones intellectual property is fairly idiotic.

Pardon my typo.

Long story short a friend of mine IS a copyrite lawer. He's the one who explained to me.

In laymans terms:

Lets look at those two figures dprime got right there in specific.


he used hasbro products to make those customs.
He paid Toy-r-us/walmart/whoever for the original figures.

IF hasbro cared enough ( and they don't) Hasbro could say that they were unfairly compensated for them based upon what they sold for, and could pursue it.
But they won't, becuase they don't.
They would, however, be well within their rights to do so.

EA games (I think those are army of two figures) Did not give him permission to reproduce the likeness of the characters, NOR to sell those reproductions for profit. They Most definitely COULD sue him, and COULD win. He might even serve jail time for IP theft. Depends on how hard they wanted to go after him.

Additionally, the cobra bat? they could do as little as serve him a cease and desist letter ( marvel did that to him with the 1:1 scale deadpool belt buckles a few years back). Or they could do more.

The thing with customizers, is generally, they're "small time" and not worth the trouble.

Falling behind "fair use" as a defense is not a good idea. most well paid corporate lawyers can and will shatter that if they want to. Copyrite laws have become very very strict in recent years, mostly due to internet piracy. And they almost exclusively favor the IP holder.

 

[Niltusk]

Pardon my typo.

Long story short a friend of mine IS a copyrite lawer. He's the one who explained to me.

In laymans terms:

Lets look at those two figures dprime got right there in specific.


he used hasbro products to make those customs.
He paid Toy-r-us/walmart/whoever for the original figures.

IF hasbro cared enough ( and they don't) Hasbro could say that they were unfairly compensated for them based upon what they sold for, and could pursue it.
But they won't, becuase they don't.
They would, however, be well within their rights to do so.

EA games (I think those are army of two figures) Did not give him permission to reproduce the likeness of the characters, NOR to sell those reproductions for profit. They Most definitely COULD sue him, and COULD win. He might even serve jail time for IP theft. Depends on how hard they wanted to go after him.
Additionally, the cobra bat? they could do as little as serve him a cease and desist letter ( marvel did that to him with the 1:1 scale deadpool belt buckles a few years back). Or they could do more.

The thing with customizers, is generally, they're "small time" and not worth the trouble.

Falling behind "fair use" as a defense is not a good idea. most well paid corporate lawyers can and will shatter that if they want to. Copyrite laws have become very very strict in recent years, mostly due to internet piracy. And they almost exclusively favor the IP holder.

You're a liar or your friend is a piss poor lawyer. This guy has done nothing to be placed in jail.

There are many case precedents beyond fair use that defends artists, but of course your friend should have explained this to you. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know this much. This has been tried in courts for everything from fan paintings being sold to OOAK Barbies. Companies don't pursue this crap due to the fact that its not as black and white as you (or your "lawyer" pal ) seem to think it is. Fan art is a hard subject for legal scholars (ie original works); resold toys with modifications are in a league of their own. "Well, your honor, he cut up a toy he bought off of us and resold it..." LOL, your lawyer friend sell fries with that? Cause again wtf is a copyrite lawyer?
Yes! If they sent him a cease and desist and he continued then hes wrecking most of the defense he would have. Again, that still doesn't place him in league with bootleggers.

 

[Niltusk]

Falling behind "fair use" as a defense is not a good idea. most well paid corporate lawyers can and will shatter that if they want to. Copyrite laws have become very very strict in recent years, mostly due to internet piracy. And they almost exclusively favor the IP holder.

Not to over analyze this, but ridiculous point. He didn't steal the parts that went into this and hes not trying to pass off that he made this or created any of the characters.

 

[DPrime]

You're a liar or your friend is a piss poor lawyer. This guy has done nothing to be placed in jail.

There are many case precedents beyond fair use that defends artists, but of course your friend should have explained this to you. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know this much. This has been tried in courts for everything from fan paintings being sold to OOAK Barbies. Companies don't pursue this crap due to the fact that its not as black and white as you (or your "lawyer" pal ) seem to think it is. Fan art is a hard subject for legal scholars (ie original works); resold toys with modifications are in a league of their own. "Well, your honor, he cut up a toy he bought off of us and resold it..." LOL, your lawyer friend sell fries with that? Cause again wtf is a copyrite lawyer?
Yes! If they sent him a cease and desist and he continued then hes wrecking most of the defense he would have. Again, that still doesn't place him in league with bootleggers.

To be clear, my position is this - no, he's not doing anything that should put him in jail or otherwise suffer legal consequences. I fully support what he's doing... I mean, I've purchased items from him, so obviously I don't have a problem with it.

BUT neither is it as black and white as the "white knights" who are against third party Transformers make it out to be, either. Those companies go to great lengths to avoid trademarked names, Autobot and Decepticon logos, and so on. They resemble the G1 characters on the old Sunbow cartoon, yes - but technically only superficially so. There are enough details that they're able to get away with it - after all, they're DRASTICALLY different from the old G1 toys, and cartoon models are rather simple by their very nature.

If it were illegal, they wouldn't be able to get away with it (though admittedly, the fact that they reside in China for the most part makes it difficult for Hasbro to wield the legal hammer).

The fact that one example is being mass produced while another is not is irrelevant - the argument could clearly be made that both are using IP without permission... though I wouldn't care to make that argument. I'm just glad I get the stuff I want.

 

[DPrime]

Kitbashing and mass producing parts for retail aren't exactly similar endeavors.

Not really my point. He's still cashing in on someone else's properties, whether legal or not.

And personally, I think those who immediately denounce third party TFs as "illegal" are full of ***** themselves. They're getting away with it, after all... and if they had any legal ground to do so, Hasbro could easily have incoming shipments intercepted.

The only time Hasbro has every successfully done anything against third party TFs was at the last Botcon, but that's only because it's an "official" convention and obviously they had a lot of clout.

 

[Niltusk]

Not really my point. He's still cashing in on someone else's properties, whether legal or not.

And personally, I think those who immediately denounce third party TFs as "illegal" are full of ***** themselves. They're getting away with it, after all... and if they had any legal ground to do so, Hasbro could easily have incoming shipments intercepted.

The only time Hasbro has every successfully done anything against third party TFs was at the last Botcon, but that's only because it's an "official" convention and obviously they had a lot of clout.

But if his position is not to like their product whoop dee doo, it did take some time for third parties to get any credibility, its not like he was alone in the community on that stance. Just because he makes money at kitbashing its still not the same as mass producing pieces, wtf? And you're correct, going after a company in China is a way to piss your profits down the drain in the form of legal fees super quick. Other large companies have tried.
I'm not saying your wrong cause its your opinion to think they're full of ****, but that guy being a kitbasher doesn't make his opinion of mass market bootlegging any different from anyone else, again what they're doing is night and day. One is a guy cutting up and gluing pieces of action figures the other is a manufacturing company. Like trying to compare a guy who sells cars on ebay to Ford.

 

[lerath666]

You're a liar or your friend is a piss poor lawyer. This guy has done nothing to be placed in jail.

There are many case precedents beyond fair use that defends artists, but of course your friend should have explained this to you. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know this much. This has been tried in courts for everything from fan paintings being sold to OOAK Barbies. Companies don't pursue this crap due to the fact that its not as black and white as you (or your "lawyer" pal ) seem to think it is. Fan art is a hard subject for legal scholars (ie original works); resold toys with modifications are in a league of their own. "Well, your honor, he cut up a toy he bought off of us and resold it..." LOL, your lawyer friend sell fries with that? Cause again wtf is a copyrite lawyer?
Yes! If they sent him a cease and desist and he continued then hes wrecking most of the defense he would have. Again, that still doesn't place him in league with bootleggers.

So, first you're not a lawyer, now you are? Which is it?

Super short version.
He.
Does.
Not.
Have.
Legal.
Permission.
To.
Use.
Those.
Characters.
To.
Make.
Money.
Period.


How hard is that to understand?

This makes using them without permission illegal.

The simple fact that hasbro has not chosen to peruse it is irrelevant.

My point is they COULD if they wanted to.

Would they win? Honestly, with the American justice system being what it is, it depends who has the better lawyer.



Edit: some clarification. I don't think he deserves jail time. I don't think he is in the same league as bootleggers either.
I also don't think that people should do jail time for doing any illegal drugs either. ( though selling is a different story)

But the law lumps things together in some cases.

My point is, in the eyes of the law toy customizes and toy bootleggers are the same thing. They both make money off someone else's Intelectual property without express permission of the ip holder. This qualifies as infringement, and the ip holder can garner some form of legal restitution.

 

[EVILFACE]

COBRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

 

[CelticPredator]

Jin Satom...whatever...

 

[Niltusk]

Only, under copywrite law they are.

if you use someone else's IP to turn a profit, without the express permission of the IP owner, you are in violation of copywrite law.

That's the reason that making and selling customs on this board, for example, is a sticky subject for Dave.

The thing is, in the case with hasbro, they (Hasbro) don't care.

So, first you're not a lawyer, now you are? Which is it?

Super short version.
He.
Does.
Not.
Have.
Legal.
Permission.
To.
Use.
Those.
Characters.
To.
Make.
Money.
Period.


How hard is that to understand?

This makes using them without permission illegal.

The simple fact that hasbro has not chosen to peruse it is irrelevant.

My point is they COULD if they wanted to.

Would they win? Honestly, with the American justice system being what it is, it depends who has the better lawyer.

Kitbashing and mass producing parts for retail aren't exactly similar endeavors.

Thats all I wrote sport.
IMHO if you think that someone who cuts up toys to support himself for resale on Ebay is the same as a company manufacturing toys in a factory for mass market, then you're an idiot, I don't care if your friend told you that he could go to jail, your mommy told you that, or some psychic vibes you get when you take off your tinfoil hat. No two ways about it. This actually has nothing to do with law, your friend, Hasbro, etc... YOU are the one who thinks the two are the same. You brought the rest of the crap in to support your stupidity. I'm not changing my opinion that a guy who reassembles GI Joes and paints transformers is not only not in the ballpark hes not in the same league as a manufacturing company, so if you don't like it, piss off dip****!

 

[lerath666]

Follow up. Re-reading your post.

The legal claim would go more along the lines of

" wellyour honor, the defendant created a three dimensional piece of artwork of a character who's likeness we own the rights to, without our permission. He then sold said artwork for a considerable sum of money. This is how the defendant makes his living, by illegally using our Imtelectual property, and the Intelectual property of others to make a profit."


His defense would be " I cut up toys to make new toys"

The winner would be whoever had the better legal team.


Super short version.

Sell a custom figure of an original design that is completely his, no legal problem.

Sell a custom figure of a character that someone else created?
Copyrite, likeness right issue.

Thing is, hasbro will NEVER pursue this. The will never pursue it becuase customizing action figures has been a huge part of gi joe toys since forever. And if they did, this would massively piss off the fan base, something they know would hurt their credibility to said fans if they did.

And becuase they won't pursue that, they will not, at the same time, go after 3rd party companies legally either. Becuase to do one, they would be legally obligated to go after the other. Or else, they would be creating places for one or the other to hide in/behind legally.

Shorterish version.

They go after everyone, or they go after no one.

So instead, they try to beat the 3rd parties to the punch, and bar them from their conventions. Little things, instead of big things.

Does this make more sense to you?