Here is a quote about IP laws from user Protectron Prime.

“OK, so I went over this once and it got deleted in some kind of mass posting purge in another thread. So I'll do it again.

I'm an actual, real life lawyer. Like, for realsies. I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do look at the general rules/regs for fun because I'm a sick man. The readers digest version is this:

IP isn't a monolithic thing. Each item comes with a bundle of rights. As a result, whenever I make a thing, absent any other arrangements to the contrary, I own all parts of that thing. Let's say I make a rock star doll that is thematically related to a series of horrible diseases. We'll call her "Germ".

I now own:

* The right to use the image of the Germ doll;
* The right to copy and manufacture a Germ doll;
* The right to use the Germ doll itself;

In addition, if I decide to make a Germ cartoon/comic, I also own:

* Any related images of the Germ cartoon;
* The right to display Germ in a variety of media;
* The right to copy any of my Germ related media;

Also, if I'm a smarty pants, I will also TRADEMARK Germ. Trademark and copyright is different. Trademark means that certain images are protected as a significant portion of my brand and is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods.

So in addition to any rights to copy/manufacture Germ, I also prohibit anyone else from using Germ's image/name as it's connected to the Germ concept. So while someone might be able to advertise a brand of disinfectant called Germ Death, nobody can advertise a doll as Germ, even if it's clearly not a Germ doll.

And so on and so forth.

In many cases, this is all insular. Most companies either make their own toy and hang on the rights or contract the design of a toy from someone and immediately exercise contract rights to own the thing manufactured. At that point, the company then can license off bits of their product to others as they see fit. This is usually done by allowing others to use certain images for branding - in essence, trademark crap. That's where all these Germ pencil boxes and backpacks and stuff come from.

So why is Transformers kinda special?

First off, Hasbro never owned Transformers lock, stock and barrel. Takara invented the toys and to date is still the owner/manufacturer of most (all?) of the molds. As a result, their capacity to enforce copyright is truncated, largely because the ability to COPY is also held in the hands of a whole other non-Hasbro-controlled entity. In the 80's Hasbro had no idea what it had on its hands. As a result, it never took the proper legal actions to secure better rights over molds. In addition, Hasbro sucked at trademarking too. That's why we get characters whose names suddenly change (Traibreaker to Trailcutter, for example) - Hasbro failed to or could not obtain (or maintain) a trademark.

As a result, while it's not 100% clean, Hasbro's capacity to enforce copyright and trademark is limited to whatever their licensing contract is with Takara, and whatever names/images they've trademarked. That's actually not as boundless as a lot of people think it is. The bottom line is that an original work (as opposed to a straight copy or a related derivative work) has a pretty dinky threshold.

The US Supreme Court is extremely liberal as to what is considered a unique work, largely due to the fact that it does not want creativity to defined by judges or lawyers. That's not a joke. This is actually the reasoning for the low standards.

So what this means is that Third Parties can come along and make stuff that looks a LOT like Optimus Prime. However, the trademark claim is going to be a little tenuous, as the name is what's trademarked. That's why so many Third Party toys have dumb names like Optometrist Praline. It's not bullet proof, but makes stuff a little harder. Per US IP law, there's an argument that nobody is going to confuse Optimus Prime with Optometrist Praline.

Attempting to chase down copyright also is a little difficult. 3Ps have transformation and design schemes radically different than official toys. Those unique design aspects is what makes the case a whole lot harder for a lawyer. The biggest problem Hasbro/Takara has is this: there are no "screen accurate" toys aside from the MP line. When most 3Ps do a MP style figure, there is actually no real toy they're copying. As a result, it's a little disingenuous to say that HasTak is being infringed. That said, as you approach screen perfection, there MIGHT be a suggestion that the image of the figure might infringe on Trademark because now your toy looks like the trademarked image.

Another issue that's there is HasTak also dilutes its own brand. What IS Optimus prime? Classic G1? Ginrai? Primal? Animated? The UT version? RID01? RID15? TFP Prime? Every blue and red truck can't be Prime. If someone else comes out with a blue and red robot truck, it's not fair play to bash them in the face because ALL BLUE AND RED TRUCKS = PRIME because that's frankly a little insane.

Finally, Hasbro has been letting 3P run rampant for a long time now. There's a possible laches argument - i.e. failure to exercise a right suggests you don't have it anymore.

The bottom line is that this is an incredibly complex, nuanced area of law and for a good reason. You don't get to run into the courthouse with Maketoy's Downbeat and scream "LOOK AT IT. IT'S JAZZ. CLEARLY IT IS JAZZ. zOMG" and expect to win. However, this is sadly how many people seem to think it works (or should work). This is because the United States wants to protect creativity. It's why you can buy an Ikea stool and paint a cat on it and sell it at your local craft fair and not have to worry about Ikea sending a fleet of viking attorneys to come to your house to rape your cat and burn it (the house) to the ground and issue you a summons and complaint.

So that brings us to the question: What about FansProject and their CD stuff?

In the US, people sue other people over the stupidest bologna ever. There's no threshold to sue aside from filing fees. As a result, there are zero things stopping Hasbro from trying to sue aside from the subsequent litigation costs. On a cost benefit analysis, I'm sure some highly paid corporate lawyer has crunched the numbers and decided it's not worth it. Either they're concerned about losing, or don't see the benefit in winning.

A case against FP and their stuff is much, much weaker than the latest Magic Square's attempt at Optimus Prime. FP's designs are unique, share no images or names, claim no association to Hasbro/whatever.

This is also why straight KOs - knockoffs of actual Hasbro/Takara controlled molds, get horribly attacked. This is the easier of the things to enforce. It's a straight copy (or cheap copy) of an actual, tangible thing.

Hope that helps.”