Assuming HASTAK owns the copyrights to all of their original characters (and unless they've sold them, they must, right?)...

... why doesn't HASTAK reverse engineer designs they like from unlicensed companies, and produce the ones they deem viable themselves?

Free designs and a solid FU to 3rd party companies, no?



(Apologies if this had been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't remember reading it before).

 

Production costs and target market.

I.E. They could never do the famous City Commander trailer armors from FansProject because those are merely upgrades onto an existing figure but the complexity of engineering and materials means it's more expensive than producing a whole separate figure.

Also, the need for verification for child safety.

 

I thought about this a lot as well. especially when Hercules got released. If anything, they should at least hire these 3rd party designers. with the factories and other resources that hastak has they could make these awesome figures for a lower price.

 

totally forgot about the child safety laws.

 

1) They don't have the legal right to do that without permission. Though, I'm sure they could coerce the companies into agreeing.

2) 3rd party toys don't follow the guidelines that Hasbro/Takara insist upon. Typically, transformations are too complicated, the toys are too delicate and ignore safety standards, and they use far more plastic and weigh more than Hasbro allows.

 

Yeah. Hasbro has legal right to the characters. But the toys are another issue entirely. The 3rd party companies likely have patents and such on their molds and such so doing so would be a bad thing for Hasbro to do. Having copyright of a character does not mean having copyright of a toy. You have to prove that everything in there is yours, and Hasbro can't do that.

 

They have. CHUG Cyclonus is a copy of Jizai's design. (The guy currently designing the FP Headmasters)

 

The vast majority of 3p products don't meet safety standards and are too complex or require more care when handling than children are capable of understanding.

Not to mention HasTak is going in the total opposite direction now; much simpler and cheaper made toys.

 

No it's not. There's some similarities because they're both based on the same character and G1 toy, but that's it. Sculpting is completely different, and the transformation has dramatic differences between the two.

–³“GŠÍ‘à: •ÏŒ`ƒoƒJˆê‘ã￾IƒWƒUƒCƒgƒCƒY

 

EDIT: this

 

Actually, the answer is sort of buried in your question! The characters and the designs are actually separate things. Having the rights to one does not automatically grant rights to the other.

KFC has proposed an interesting mix that illustrates this point very well. Their lion-tape was suggested with a color scheme matching the David Willis's illustrations of the SG version, which was based on Voltron's color scheme. Hasbro does not own Voltron, nor does KFC, nor does KFC own the underlying tape character. I'm not sure who owns the SG version... depending on the agreements, it might be Hasbro, FunPub or even Willis.

A single item can contain many overlapping types of intellectual property. Imagine a knock-off of Pepsi Prime, but with two smaller Pepsi logos immediately above the main Pepsi logo. Now you've got Optimus (Hasbro), the Pepsi logo (Pepsi) arranged in a pattern of circles that will immediately call to mind Disney's mouse ears (Disney). If you wanted to go further, perhaps it has a sound chip in it that plays Beyonce's 'Single Ladies'. Does it make sense? No, but the point is, you've got a single product that steps on a lot of toes.

This works in reverse as well. Suppose there's a new item based on a classic character. Hasbro may own the character, and Hasbro's designs may be so similar to the new item's that it could be considered infringing upon their rights. Despite that, Hasbro didn't design the new item. The work that went in to translating the specific updated character design into a toy shape, the engineering in allowing its transformation, and even the engineering in making it possible to mass produce, all that is someone else's work, and Hasbro can't just claim that for free. It doesn't mean that the person can produce infringing products if Hasbro objects, but similarly, Hasbro cannot produce products that infringe that design.

So Hasbro has it within their power to chase down the 3rd party manufacturers if they chose to do so, but, as a professor of mine once put it, it's like chasing cockroaches. You turn the lights on, and they all scatter. Plus, the best you can hope for at the end is a squished roach you have to clean up. They would win, but it's usually not worth the investment.

Were Hasbro to copy toy designs from 3rd parties, however, they have a different problem. They still don't own them, and then the 3rd party can sue for the value of their rights. It doesn't matter that the 3rd party could not have produced the toy because of Hasbro's objection, Hasbro is still in the same position. If they both object, then NEITHER party can produce the toy. Hasbro, having much deeper pockets, and selling far, far more toys than any 3rd party company, would be a ripe target for a big money lawsuit. That's why you see things like Harmony Gold's lawsuit; even if the claim is weak, they can still pursue something 'colorable' enough to go to trial, and so deep pockets will usually pay a settlement just to avoid the nuisance.


Part of the test for copyright infringement is that you have to show that the infringing party actually saw the thing they're accused of copying. If two people make suspiciously similar songs at the same time, but the second one never heard the first song, then it's not a copy, no matter how similar they are. Therefore, companies like Hasbro generally instruct their employees in the design process to NOT look at any 3rd party designs, or fan custom toys, so that they can then honestly swear in court that they've never seen whatever they're accused of copying.

 

Hmm.

Make licensed versions of unlicensed figures. Would that make the licensed figures the knockoffs? Or would they be copies of unlicensed figures which are based on licensed designs?

I'm not sure if this question deserves an Exzibit or an Inception picture in response.

 

If for no other reason, simply because they don't need to. They don't pass on certain characters because they can't figure out how to make them work... In general, they're plenty capable (though I do think for a period not too far back figures took a big dip when the new design team took over,) but the biggest reason they sometimes don't turn out as impressive as 3rd party figures is due to child safety, target audience, and cost of production.

 

We need Exzibit in our Inception so we can have Exzibit in our Inception while we have an Inception.

 

3P designs are not cheap and cost-efficient... I'd HATE to see Hasbro's version of any 3P mold... it'd be crap.

 

(But, seriously, thanks for the awesome response).

 

Shut the thread down. This is now all I can think about.

 

This. It was never even remotely a matter of HasTak not being capable of designing a great transformer.

 

Yeah... they CHOOSE not to!  

 

Never said they weren't cheap bastards at times! lol