you have a point there, i never thought of it that way. theres no autobot logos. so its not illegal after all. well then. i guess im buying the pink robot from china right?

 

Well I didn't say they were definitely legal either. It's a grey area really. And I should really have said trademarks when talking about names and symbols, not copyright, but I'm not a lawyer (if there is a lawyer here I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm talking out of my ass.)

Interestingly, in US copyright law, you can make a three dimensional copy of a two dimensional piece of art and that doesn't violate the copyright. So if Hasbro had Arcee artwork copyrighted, it's legal to make a three dimensional copy of the artwork. Which is strange, but that's how it works.

 

I thought that as long as they don't use the name "Transformers" or "Arcee" or any other words Hasbro has trademarked, they'd be ok. Then I was told about this thing called IP. Intellectual Property. That basically, any figure based on a character or look that Hasbro owns would be a violation of that. However, I hope you are right Galva-Cannon because I am working on something for Botcon and I don't want to invest every dime I have to receive a C&D and be finacially ruined.

 

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

If anything, these third-party products are a sign that Transformers as a hobby is maturing. We have something that's grown enough to have spawned a boatload of products and services, both official and unofficial. You can look down on the unofficial toys, conventions, add-on kits and whatnot, but it's all part of a fandom that's growing.

 

As far as I understand intellectual property law, it's not a separate area, but just the sum of all copyright, trademark, patent laws etc. but when they are specifically dealing with abstract ideas. So in order to violate somebody's intellectual property, you'd still have to be violating copyright, trademark or something else that they've registered, or claim through common law.

In the case of this "Arcee", they aren't violating any trademarks and I doubt Hasbro has a patent on the mechanism or a design patent on the aesthetics of a toy that they never made. So I'd guess any potential violation of intellectual property would fall under copyright law, specifically the Arcee design in print or TV media, like copyrighted comic books, artwork and the G1 cartoon series. But copyrights in the US don't apply to media beyond which the original copyright was issued for, so a physical, three dimensional copy of the cartoon/comic design probably isn't illegal, in the US at least. And the physical Animated Arcee toy is substantially different in design to this Impossible Toys "Arcee". That's the argument that I'd want to use anyway, but you'd really have to go to court to test it out. And I think that courts tend to rule in favour of the supposed copyright holder, if there's any doubt, I guess to dissuade people from trying to breach copyright.

It's interesting stuff at any rate.

I'm just glad that somebody is making a toy that so many people have wanted for such a long time. I just hope that it's affordable and a lot better quality than that ARC crap.

 

I refuse to get exited by this. Their suppliers haven't heard anything from them since August last year, they're not responding to e-mails, they have never released the Spike/Daniel Exo-Suit and their website is down. I'll care when it becomes available for sale, up until them I'll assume it will never be released.

 

Since I got Animated Arcee, this is a lot less exciting. I know she's not the same character, but that itch is pretty well scratched at this point.

 

You wont get an OFFICIAL Arcee figure that's more accurate to G1 than the Animated version..
Gief, I still dont have it  

 

i'm with you on that to man Animated Arcee is the best

 

looks badass.

I would prefer it to fit with G1 , to hell with everything else

"my classics shelf, my city commander, my etc" whatever, this shit is to finally fill a G1 missing piece, like the Quints (very very awesome)


That said, I wonder how tall she is, hopefully not too tall. Also I dont care about the articulation, I would rather she be able to stand like most G1s. Most other lines, you have to pose and balance. Thats not my preference.

I need that broad to stand next to Blurr an Springer, Rodimus, etc.

Thats all its needed for at this point


Looks awesome, damn I need a new job quick!!!

PS, I guess I will wait on repainting a G1 Blurr into her..........
(thats also what her face looks like on that cg they showed)

 

Liking the looks of this IT version of Arcee. Also like and own the first four Quints they came out with. Lost a wrench belonging to Spike or Sparkplug. Just wondering if Quint 5 and Firebird are coming out soon. I canceled my pre-orders because I grew tired of waiting for them. Not really interested in the Spike or Daniel Exo-Suits. And I have no desire to buy the TFA figures. The other new figures - Guardian, Alpha Tryon, Kranax, and Arbilus - are probably still in the works. Wish they could re-post the pictures they had of AT. K and A.

 

It's still IP infringement. No different than if third parties made other toon figures without licensing them. As has been seen happening to samus aran, among others that have been stopped by legal action. The fact they use TF music and backgrounds to do so is just kinda proof of their intent. The fact of the matter is, Arcee is Hasbro's IP. Their character, their likeness rights. If this was a close facsimile but not her per se(this means more differences than just logos and names). Then it could skate. But they are attempting direct accuracy. Thankfully this is hasbro though, not Disney who'd even go after a daycare.

China has different laws, and things can skate there. Just like the DS devices R4 M3, etc. Which stores have been fined for selling outside of china. Even though the device itself isn't exactly illegal it's the usage of it that is.

Fans Project has yet to release a self contained robot that didn't require a purchase of a Hasbro toy. (This'll change come springer.) So in theory they enhance the sale of Hasbro toys. (Speaking of which... Where's my autobot matrix of leadership already! And an IDW like Brawn head for ROTF Brawn? Hmm FP? And why not a new mold CliffJumper kit too while at it.)

I have animated arcee, and will probably get this if the price is right, but it really depends on what generations shows off at the upcoming cons. If this time the lines stick around instead of shuffling them like they have, I could see hasbro filtering out more and more nods to their own characters and likenesses. Drift's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Hasbro hasn't dropped the ball on anything, they are just spacing things apart for best returns with everything else they are juggling series-wise.

My only complaint is if a company plans to make money on these things by directly marketing them to transformers fans, it'd be nice if they got the license from Hasbro to do it. Or at least an endorsement.

It'd be like if you designed a character that was used in a cartoon, and then someone skimped out on the merchandising rights by just going about it without your consent. You could do legal action, but you also have to juggle the fan backlash if you do. Therein lies the quandry. Piss off all the die-hards, or let another company make money from your IP without your consent. Dollar store toys are questionable as well, but they aren't directly marketed at transformers fans, it's just convenient for us. Those aren't exactly legal either though.

Even for free it's questionable. Look at fansubs for example. Is it legal? Oh hell no, but people do it and enjoy it anyway with or without the creator's consent.

Personally I'm undecided on this. Looks cool, but I'd have to see the figure first before a final decision. I will laugh though, and laugh HARD, if after all these are made, and sold, hasbro releases their own in TFG for cheaper destroying the resale market on the third party ones. That way it's win win for everyone. Japan at least has a way around this at Cons, since products can be made by third parties to be sold at them.

Buy it or don't, your choice if you like it, but don't whine if Hasbro does make one too and you can't get what you spent back in the aftermarket eventually.
Fans Project at least seems to be anticipating this just in case by offering Die-cast within the springer figure. Something hasbro won't be apt to do for Classics/Generations. Always remember 'No immediate plans' doesn't mean never. It just means it's not slated yet but could eventually.

Immediate satisfaction is what the internet has created. Which if hasbro ever does make one now, watch the many posts going on about how they shouldn't bother because IT or FP already has. =/

Is it legal? No.(it is indeed IP infringement) Will Hasbro attempt to stop it? Probably not. (Fan Backlash) Is it the same as FP? No. (not until springer comes out, but again Die-cast!)

Do fans care? Do they ever so long as they get what they want whether it hurts the brand or not?

It's a circular argument that never goes anywhere, and will only eventually be solved by when hasbro makes one or takes action, in which case what I said above will probably happen or the aftermarket for these guys will nose dive.

Does it hurt the brand? Yes and No. In theory that's however much someone spent on one figure that could have gone to hasbro figures, but on the same token, that's assuming all that money would have gone to hasbro goods instead. It also questions the viability of these molds being made by hasbro eventually as fans will have their fill from the non-licensed made ones. So then it becomes even more of a risk for them to bother if the products don't look like they'll move. So essentially we're shooting ourselves in the foot. I just hope they don't view it that way, and do them anyway eventually.

At this point, it's kind of moot until hasbro finally says enough is enough. It's their property, so just enjoy it while it lasts. Don't kid yourselves either about it though. The legality is very much questionable, just no one cares anymore till hasbro themselves do something. Even then, watch the fans backlash against hasbro for doing what's within their right to protect their properties. It's a no win scenario.

 

Thundercracker... Legal / Not Legal... KO's...

Transformers is a "name brand" of "borrowed concepts" from other IP properties. Robots turning into vehicles was NOT something the Transformers line invented. In fact, toys turning into other toys have been around LONG before Transformers came along and "repackaged" that ideology. Transformers was originally compiled of "failed toy lines," or "borrowed" molds (more than one toy line) that had that one common denominator: Robots that turned into other vehicles. So, the only reason Transformers existed to begin with, is because they "borrowed" from other toy lines. Such as Macross (Robototech), Diaclone, MicroMan and many, many others. Some characters, such as the original Shockwave and Jetfire, won't see "legal" reissues because of IP infringement or restrictions.

GoBots were released in the United States BEFORE Transformers. So, because GoBots came first-does that mean Transformers are just KO's of GoBots? Hell, Transformers even "swooped" in and borrowed names from "failed" toy lines such as GoBots after sales failed and the line was cancelled.

And the other thing...

This isn't Junior High School. You cannot collect something without the Transformers logo on it? Seriously?

You sound disgruntled because your mom never bought you Nike's and you were picked on at school. It's not only funny to have that mindset, but the mentality behind it is hypercritical considering the source material of Transformers only exists because it stole-sorry, "borrowed" from other toy lines.

By your definition of KO, Transformers are ALL KO's.

So, you should probably stop collecting Transformers, or at least, stop lecturing others about your backwards mentality on the issue.

 

1: Ofc not. I collect real Transformers, not knock-offs.
2: Never brought me Nike's? If only you knew..  
You dont even know me, so cut the smartass attitude.

Is it really this hard to respect my oppinion on knock-offs?

And as Deadend said:
"My only complaint is if a company plans to make money on these things by directly marketing them to transformers fans, it'd be nice if they got the license from Hasbro to do it. Or at least an endorsement."
Exactly my point. Making money of a brand they dont own disgusts me.

Anyways, Im done here.

 

The idea of IPs is likeness infringement. Not transforming robots.
You're argument is just pure fail. Anyone can make transforming robots.
It's when you infringe upon the likeness of previously established characters without deviation that it becomes an issue. Keep in mind hasbro is now a character rights company for their IPs, not simply just a toy manufacturer anymore(happened back towards the 2007 movie). Their characters are theirs. Pure and simple. Which includes likeness rights. Since this takes no deviation from what Arcee looks like, it's susceptible to that, and hasbro could easily win just by producing scenes from their original cartoon. If sideshow collectibles and minimates have to get the rights before they act to do it legally, why shouldn't third parties?
This is one of the reason Sideshow and Diamond can sell their stuff in stores. And third parties have to stick to the internet only.
Hasbro also owns Gobots now btw. They bought tonka, so they have the rights to all of Tonka's library of names (if still available, that goes back to their toymaker days and length of time without a product with that character's name though since the changeover to having character rights, in theory they can find a way around) and likenesses, just not the molds. This is why Machine Robo, a Bandai Japan line, can't come stateside. Hasbro has the Gobots likeness rights here in the US.

It's considered a Knock Off because it infringes on their image rights, logos or not. Even if it is an original third party product that has potential to be amazingly cool.
Hasbro paid good money for the likenesses of the figures they first made. They aren't knock offs, because they LICENSED them for usage, and have contract rights to those toys originally for new fiction and usage. Entirely different scenario. They went about it the legal way. Just like party favors and such have to do to use IMAGE rights. IT is just infringing without gaining the rights or contracts to do so which is what makes it illegal outside of china.

It's the same as to what Power Rangers toys are. Are they knock offs of Super Sentai likeness rights? No, because Bandai has the rights to both for one, and two Disney/saban who makes the show got the rights to do so in the US from the original company. If someone managed to buy the Power Rangers toy rights from Bandai, they could make the toys without worry of likeness infringement, but only in the areas they are licensed to distribute them.

Is cloverfield a knockoff of godzilla? No. It's an entirely different likeness, different story, and therefore a new IP. It's not the same just because they are both giant monsters. Now if it looked like Godzilla without gaining the rights, that'd be a different story. Being inspired by, and direct adhesion are two different things entirely when you don't have the rights to something. Direct adhesion to create a facsimile is infringement without the rights, an inspired by figure would be the same as like Ben 10 which draws heavily from Dial H for Hero, but does it differently with NEW designs. That's inspired by, as opposed to infringement, when dealing with things similiar. Ben 10 can't make a dial H for hero figure without gaining the rights, so all theirs must be different than the Dial H likeness rights. This is why we get many DC nods in new designs, but no direct adhesion to a DC character's appearance.

Want proof? Look at the Nintendo letters to people who attempted to make Samus Aran figures without the rights. Or any other attempt to make a likeness infringing property not sold at a con. Hasbro seems to be the only company that lets this slide without doing anything. But see my post above for more details on that.

The backwards mentality of the issue is "I want it now, so I deserve it. Rights be damned." Which it seems you sir, among many others suffer from. To the point you guys even rationalize what it is. Love it or hate it that's your choice, but stop calling it what it isn't. It's likeness infringement pure and simple, no backwards logic to that, that's fact. Deal with it. Learn to do research on the matter instead of stating opinion as fact.

Also those lines you claim failed? Never did. They were just Japanese lines never released at the time in the US.
The figures came from Microman, Macross, among other HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL lines that to this day still exist. Back then, Hasbro licensed the figures, and got contracts to make them for the US due to their popularity abroad. The fiction came later to help sell the toyline. Now Hasbro is a character rights company which includes that fiction of their characters depicted. It's no different than someone making a Dragon Ball Z figure or Naruto figure, and just calling it super warrior or Ninja Academy. If it still infringes on the likeness, it's IP theft without licensing it for distribution. This falls into different areas of problems since China doesn't have those laws.

This is why G1 Jetfire's figure will never be reissued, whoever has the robotech line now, has those likeness rights, and toy rights. THAT would be a knock off if hasbro decided to just do it anyway, but they won't because they abide by making their properties LEGALLY. So instead we got the amazing Classics Jetfire. A new mold that closer adheres to their image rights. It's the same reason why the cartoon character skyfire doesn't look like a veritech fighter. It'd be infringing on the Robotech line that preceded it. The difference with the toy being that hasbro was able to contractually get the rights to produce the toy for distribution in their line abroad. Hasbro is also still partnered up with Takara Tomy, so we can get reissues of those figures from the microman line.

Because of this, the only thing hasbro can do is bar it from being sold outside china, or sold anywhere they have their likeness rights in place at. Which is why we'll never see these in brick and mortar stores. Nintendo and other companies have been lobbying for change in china's law so they could take action to prevent it. If that ever goes through, it can be stopped at the source instead of halting outside of china distribution.

There's no defending it. Just buy it if you like, don't if you don't. But don't kid yourself about it either. It is what it is, pure and simple. Likeness Rights Infringement.

Springer can skate in theory because he doesn't have direct adhesion to any character models hasbro has(this includes toys, animation models, etc). It deviates from the original design. That's an entirely new can of worms. This on the other hand, doesn't deviate at all from the artwork. If it deviated from the character likeness then it wouldn't be infringement, or at least would fall more into a grey area, but that goes against what IT wants to make.