Discussion in 'Transformers 3rd Party Discussion' started by daimchoc, Jul 12, 2014.
Yeah. It's cool, but if they make an Impactor remold of it, there is no way I'll pass it up.
This has "Impactor-ready" all over it.
I think I'll get one.
Yeah, bulk and posture.
Add a cannon arm and change the chest and I can definitely see Turmoil.
MMC Turmoil just isn't hulking? enough. Like most people I see Impactor more.
I'm not seeing it personally.
Agreed that this could be a decent Impactor remold. Just glad that MMC is dialing back the vent detailing from a 10 (on Hextatron) to about a 3 here.
Think these might be nice to go with Commotus...
This is not a yes.
This is a HELL YES.
Now an Impactor I can most definitely get down with though the details would need to be real good.
I think this is amazing. Honestly, Turmoil isn't nearly an important enough character for alt mode inaccuracies to matter. That metal slug tank is pure gold, and bot mode looks great. This just looks like a really fun toy. Sold!
Don't know who the character is or suppose to be and don't care. I'm in for cool looking bots and this is one of them.The face sculpt on this looks amazing. Will be keeping an eye on this unless its scheduled for 2016 and I forget about it.
Just a few thoughts on this, since it's a complicated issue. The terminology can get confusing for people, and it's a fuzzy issue, but for the handful of people legitimately interested in this particular legal aspect, I figured I'd make a note regarding this particular point, since it's been raised. Obviously I'm simplifying it somewhat, but hopefully this will help those curious about it better understand the issues involved.
First off, copyright is actually the lesser of the two principle legal concerns here. Hasbro can, and apparently often does, decline to pursue their copyright claims against derivative works. A derivative work is something that seems like a copyrighted work, but is still a new thing. That runs a wide gamut of possibilities - Predacons vs MMC's Feralcons, Superman vs Shazam, Batman vs Moon Knight. Not all derivatives are actionable, and the further afield from the original that the derivative work goes, the harder it is to prosecute. Worse, once the decision comes down, even if it comes in Hasbro's favor, it can define limits to the copyright in ways Hasbro would prefer remained vague, so it's generally a difficult (expensive) area of law to enforce.
When it comes to the symbol itself, copyright is specifically awkward to enforce as well, since it's enforced as an 'expressive work', and its impact in an overall work in which it is referenced is limited. It's do-able, but the recovery would be limited to the portion of the end product which was copied, so the judge would be called upon to decide what portion of Tarn's value came from his face... it's a weird mental calculation and an awkward standard for all involved, which is why not a lot of cases proceed in that way.
The bigger issue is trademark. A trademark is anything (usually a symbol or set of words) identifying the source of goods or services. In this case, the Decepticon symbol identifies various things that Hasbro sells as items sold by Hasbro. Unlike copyrights, a company MUST pursue trademark violations or risk losing their rights of exclusivity. The relevant standards here are whether a mark is (1) confusingly (2) similar, (3) when used in commerce.
Number 2 is the easy part... I don't think there's much argument to be made that the symbol and Tarn's face, or Panda's tail thing are not similar. The arguments here would revolve around 1 & 3 - whether it is 'confusing' and whether it is 'used in commerce'.
A thing's ability to be confusing is gauged by the market in which it is sold, and whether someone in that market would reasonably (for someone in that market) believe the mark indicated that the seller was the same or otherwise authorized to use the mark. Hasbro would argue the market was buyers of toys, who are largely children, and that children seeing that sign would believe it was an official Transformers product. The 3P here would argue that the relevant market was not ALL buyers of toys, but rather collectors thereof, who have greater expertise in identifying the goods and are a more discerning audience who would instantly recognize based on price and availability that the goods were not Hasbro's, but rather a 3P product.
The issue of 'use in commerce' rarely comes up this way in practice, but this is an unusual situation so it's worth mentioning here. A trademark is only able to restrict confusingly similar use in commerce. So if a football team owns a registration for the mark RAVENS, that doesn't mean that they can take the name of a particular bird out of common parlance. Instead, they just get to keep confusingly similar things (sports teams and related merchandise) from being sold under that name. The issue here would be whether the symbol in question was being 'used in commerce' from a trademark perspective. In this case, the symbol is on a product, but if it's not marketed as a symbol denoting the producer of the product, then there's an argument to be made that it's not actually being used in commerce. To give a related hypothetical... Lego bricks, for example, can be used to build the Decepticon logo, and are toys, clearly competing with Hasbro's branded goods directly to children, who are not considered a sophisticated audience, and thus could be easily confused... every aspect favors trademark infringement except that Lego bricks aren't advertised in that particular configuration, even though they're capable of it. In the 3P situation, where a symbol is arguably only being sold to a discerning and sophisticated audience who would not take it as an indicator of the source of the goods in question, it is arguably not being 'used in commerce' as a trademark. It would be different if it were being advertised under the mark, or if it were being sold in regular toy stores where children might see it and purchase it... but limited distribution and careful advertising can help prevent that situation, making a trademark case more difficult for the owners to pursue.
Thanks Lodril - very informative/interesting.
I don't see it as misproportioned. Just makes him more of a mortar vehicule than a proper tank.
I never realized Turmoil's chest was a face till I saw this.
I hope mmc is paying attention to all the impact or requests in here. Personally, I could care less about turmoil, but an impact or using this mould would be brilliant!
I'm less certain it'd make a good Impactor. There are other, Impactor-specific molds in the works elsewhere, and a simple repaint of this wouldn't do it for me. The chest and abdomen match pretty closely, but the shoulders and legs don't, and of course Impactor doesn't have a giant tube for one arm, he's just missing a hand.
The basic engineering might work, but at a minimum it'd need a new head, a new right arm, a new top of the chest (to get rid of the missile pod things and leave room for the shoulder cannon), and of course the shoulder cannon. With all that done it'd probably be great, but unless they've started on it already, my guess is the various Impactor-specific figures may be out by the time this thing is ready for all that.
Quite excited !
I'd bite on this anytime but the pics on the front page...not really feeling it.
What other impactor moulds do yo know of?
Separate names with a comma.