The issue of copyright in TS collecting.... (1 Viewer)

[Napoleon1er]

Hi all,
First, I just wanted to state that this is not a place to slam any manufacturer or person, but simply my effort to bring to light a tricky issue that I feel often goes unmentioned.
I think we can all agree that breach of copyright is a bad thing, however, there is a fine line between stealing ideas and mimicking concepts, if you get what I am saying. With no insult intended AT ALL, I think the two major instances where intellectual property has become an issue in this hobby are when:
1. Manufacturers use modified (or unmodified) older figures form other companies, such as WBritains old figures, to produce reproductions or other products. To me, since these are older figures, this is not a breach of copyright.
2. Manufacturers produce models that represent characters from books or films, without obtaining permission from the holder of that copyright. A prime example is the many unlicensed models of Richard Sharpe, Bernard Cornwell's character. This to me is more important, as people like Bernard deserve credit for their work. I mean we are not talking about some distant CEO or something, but I really nice guy who is passionate about history like we all are, and who is kind of being cheated.
Please vote in the poll, and remember; be respectful.
-Sandor

 

[marco55]

I think it's ok to modify a figure for your own personal use.
Mark

 

[maddadicus]

If someone was reselling the above scenarios for financial gain, I have a problem, but the home caster who makes stuff for himself, no foul...Michael

 

[Mitch]

just does not bother me this is a issue between manufacturers and others. Do we now have to have descriptions stating copyright correct on boxes?????

Far from us being respectfull if someone wishes to take the risk without permission then their fair game for the law to come and bite them on backside.
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

You're mixing a few issues here, making your poll confusing.

First, is it legally acceptable to make copies of a figure made by a different person. You would have to inquire if that person (the non-infringer) had copyrighted that idea. If not, perhaps not.

Second, can you make a likeness of a fictional character without paying royalties. Probably not.

Third, same question as two but for an actual person. May depend if the person is alive or dead. For deceased persons, the law used to be that protections ended with the person's death. However, I believe the law is changing in that regard.

 

[Napoleon1er]

If someone was reselling the above scenarios for financial gain, I have a problem, but the home caster who makes stuff for himself, no foul...Michael

I totally agree!

 

[Napoleon1er]

You're mixing a few issues here, making your poll confusing.

First, is it legally acceptable to make copies of a figure made by a different person. You would have to inquire if that person (the non-infringer) had copyrighted that idea. If not, perhaps not.

Second, can you make a likeness of a fictional character without paying royalties. Probably not.

Third, same question as two but for an actual person. May depend if the person is alive or dead. For deceased persons, the law used to be that protections ended with the person's death. However, I believe the law is changing in that regard.

I think your right on this one, but it is more the moral side I am going for, as due to the relatively small market, no one seems to notice the use of copyrighted characters in figures. Sorry for any confusion,
Sandor

 

[Martin Tabony]

Hi all,
First, I just wanted to state that this is not a place to slam any manufacturer or person, but simply my effort to bring to light a tricky issue that I feel often goes unmentioned.
I think we can all agree that breach of copyright is a bad thing, however, there is a fine line between stealing ideas and mimicking concepts, if you get what I am saying. With no insult intended AT ALL, I think the two major instances where intellectual property has become an issue in this hobby are when:
1. Manufacturers use modified (or unmodified) older figures form other companies, such as WBritains old figures, to produce reproductions or other products. To me, since these are older figures, this is not a breach of copyright.
2. Manufacturers produce models that represent characters from books or films, without obtaining permission from the holder of that copyright. A prime example is the many unlicensed models of Richard Sharpe, Bernard Cornwell's character. This to me is more important, as people like Bernard deserve credit for their work. I mean we are not talking about some distant CEO or something, but I really nice guy who is passionate about history like we all are, and who is kind of being cheated.
Please vote in the poll, and remember; be respectful.
-Sandor

I don't think you can copyright an idea only your expresion of that idea. In other words if I make a figure of a ACW zouave charging with a dead turkey on a stick(I'm not going to!) you could say "that's a good idea, I'll paint a picture of that subject or I'll take some miliput and make my own version. What you can't do is say "I like that figure so much that I'm going to buy one and make a mould from it so that I can have lots of them".
As to manufacturers modifying old figure to make new figure. This is still wrong, it's just that in this hobby there are enough people (not just collectors) that will turn a blind eye. A couple of years ago an Australian maker came to a London show to find that an English maker had simply swapped the heads on the Auzzie's figures and was selling them as his own! The Englishman was only told to remove them from the table, I would have banned him from the show!
Only this past week I've had to contact an ebay seller who was trying to sell my figures under a different name!
As to your example of Bernard Corwall in this case he wouldn't be "sort of cheated" he would definatly be cheated that's why the laws exist. If any maker wants to depitc 95 Riflemen from the Napoleonic wars, then good look to them (lots do) But by adding the words Richard Sharpe, (then unless it was done with the permision of the copyright holder) then an unscrupulous manufacturer would be trying to make a profit of the hard work of other, and I do think that distant CEOs have to earn a living, whether a nice guy or not.
I don't think that having a passion for history should be one of the criteria

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

If someone was reselling the above scenarios for financial gain, I have a problem, but the home caster who makes stuff for himself, no foul...Michael

If some one is casting the stuff for himself that is for financial gain. By not buying from the true owner he does not spend therefore gains financialy!

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

just does not bother me this is a issue between manufacturers and others. Do we now have to have descriptions stating copyright correct on boxes?????

Far from us being respectfull if someone wishes to take the risk without permission then their fair game for the law to come and bite them on backside.
Mitch

We do have descriptions stating copyright correct on boxes, it's a small "c" in a circle.

Martin

 

[tdubel]

My only nearness to this issue is a one off commission of a Kelly's Heroes tank that will be done for me and me only. I find no issue with this and will enjoy the piece in my collection without contacting Hollywood to pay royalties!

Ripping off someone's figures and reselling as your own is obviously wrong.

Tom

 

[binder001]

As mentioned, you are covering several issues. If company X uses company Y's figure for "inspiration" but the figure is different, that's a bit lazy but is basically OK with me. If Company X directly copies Company Y's figure for sales then it's immoral at best and illegal at worst. If I make a copy for my own persobal use, then it's OK in my book. When I start peddling the copies, then I have crossed a line.

As far as fictional or real personages - that can get sticky. Try selling a model of the fictional "Harry Potter" and see how long it takes the lawyers to come knocking. Some real personages aren't protected or the protection isn't enforced. However, try naming your figure "Patton" or "John Wayne" and the lightning will strike fast.

The lisencing business seems fairly complex to my non-legal mind. Diamler-Chrysler has trademarked the name "Jeep" even though that name started as GI slang in 1941 - that doesn't seem quite kosher to me. They also trademarked the image of the 7-slotted grill with the headlights. That actually came from an engineer at Ford who found a way to make a stamped part substitute for a welded grill of steel slats. Again Daimler-Chrysler had nothing to do with that development. Several years ago a lot of model railroaders had a big problem that Union Pacific Corp held onto and enforced the copyrights on all the previous logos of the railroads that it had absorbed through mergers. So sometimes the claim to licensing can get too far out of hand.

Gary B.

 

[Martin Tabony]

As mentioned, you are covering several issues. If company X uses company Y's figure for "inspiration" but the figure is different, that's a bit lazy but is basically OK with me. If Company X directly copies Company Y's figure for sales then it's immoral at best and illegal at worst. If I make a copy for my own persobal use, then it's OK in my book. When I start peddling the copies, then I have crossed a line.

As far as fictional or real personages - that can get sticky. Try selling a model of the fictional "Harry Potter" and see how long it takes the lawyers to come knocking. Some real personages aren't protected or the protection isn't enforced. However, try naming your figure "Patton" or "John Wayne" and the lightning will strike fast.

The lisencing business seems fairly complex to my non-legal mind. Diamler-Chrysler has trademarked the name "Jeep" even though that name started as GI slang in 1941 - that doesn't seem quite kosher to me. They also trademarked the image of the 7-slotted grill with the headlights. That actually came from an engineer at Ford who found a way to make a stamped part substitute for a welded grill of steel slats. Again Daimler-Chrysler had nothing to do with that development. Several years ago a lot of model railroaders had a big problem that Union Pacific Corp held onto and enforced the copyrights on all the previous logos of the railroads that it had absorbed through mergers. So sometimes the claim to licensing can get too far out of hand.

Gary B.

I find it interesting that you make a distinction between pirating for yourself and pirating for others! One of the main reasons that small makers go out of business is lack of sales. Being that this is a very small hobby even one person that makes pirate copies can cause this.


Martin

 

[Napoleon1er]

Please note that making copies for ones' self was not included in the poll or in any of my posts, and that I think it would be good if we did not widely discuss it, as it is very controversial, and no one is going to convince anyone that it is wrong or right.
No offence meant,
Sandor

 

[Napoleon1er]

On another topic, what concerns me are things like this (only one figure here is at issue- they may not use the name, but who doesn't know that it's Sharpe):
http://www.firstlegionltd.com/images/newimages/95thrifles.jpg

 

[binder001]

On another topic, what concerns me are things like this (only one figure here is at issue- they may not use the name, but who doesn't know that it's Sharpe):
http://www.firstlegionltd.com/images/newimages/95thrifles.jpg

Well, that sort of thing has benn going on a long time. It's sort of like skirting the issue. One of the earliest metal figures in the old (1970-ish) Squadron/Rubin range was "US Tank Commander" - one had to be ignorant not to realize from the face and the pose that it was Humphrey Bogart out of "Sahara". A few years ago Conte released a figure of a US partroop officer titled "On To St.Mere Eglise", it was quite obviously John Wayne's character from "The Longest Day". Several plastic models of jeeps now only refer to the model being of a "US 4X4 utility truck". The image is usually not as protected as is the name.

Gary B.

 

[Martin Tabony]

On another topic, what concerns me are things like this (only one figure here is at issue- they may not use the name, but who doesn't know that it's Sharpe):
http://www.firstlegionltd.com/images/newimages/95thrifles.jpg

My understanding is the original sharpe books are copyright, therefore you aren't allowed to copy the actual physical books themselve e.g photocopier. The words in the books are covered by plagiarism laws. Granada TV payed for the rights to produce feature films based on the caracters in the books, therefore you can't copy the films e.g dvd recorder. This doesn't mean that any of the historical facts can be copyrighted, Napoleonic wars, rifle regiment uniforms, human anatomy and the craft of sculpting miniature figures are all in the public domain. So a miniature figure of a human, in a rifles uniform, depicted during the Napoleonic wars, is not a breach of copyright. You ask who doesn't know that it's Sharpe, I don't know. I grant that it is a nice figure and the face does resemble someone familiar. But Sharp is a caracter from a book and feature film not a miniature figure unless called that, and I don't see the name anywhere! They may be on shakey ground if they gave the figure equipment that wasn't issued to rifle regiments but is mentioned in the books, like the heavy cavalry sword or the volley gun. If the figure resembles a well known actor then perhaps he could complain about his image being used. I believe Tradition of London payed for the rights to make figures of Sharp and the gang. If some one put those figures in a mould and cast them that would be a breach of copyright.

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

Airfix Multipose 8th Army sculpted by (I believe) Ron Cameron. Mountford Indian medical orderly sculpted by (again, as I believe) David Love. A variant also showed up in SoldierPac's Pioneers range. The famous Bill Horan makes use of other peoples' kits (usually heads and hands) to construct his prize-winning figures, and he does sell these. Bill Hocker started by modifying old hollowcast Britain's figures, sometimes only slight changes. ^&confuse I've been using plastic kit parts as the basis for some of my figures- if I cast the figures for sale, am I breaking copyright?

The simple answer is yes. I know the old argument goes that if you only use a small part it doesn't count, well if you only need a small part make it yourself, or buy the number of parts you need! Try telling that to The Rolling Stones, 5 seconds of one of their songs was "sampled" but they succesfully sued. Or Mike Batt who only mentioned another composers name in the title and then was suprised when he lost the court case.
This is a very small hobby and most manufacturers don't have the funds to persue someone through court, instead they simply lose money and fold the business.
I know there is at least one person on here that believes I think badly of collectors. That's not the case. A couple of years ago I tried to get an organisation started to help stop piracy, because of that I heard some real horror stories, in fact I still hear these things.
If as collectors and hobbyists we want to see small diverse companies survive we have to support them. I've heard people says they thought something might have been a copy but it was a few quid cheaper so they bought it, eventually when all of the originators are pushed out by the pirates, who will make the figures to copy?
By the way you mention Bill Horan, it is true that he converts figures and sells them but I believe he buys all of the parts that he converts he doesn't take a head (for instance) make a mould from that head cast it an then convert it. That would be piracy, not converting a piece that he's bought.
You've mentioned some name. If ANYONE physicaly copies another makers work, that is, makes a mould from something that is not their property, that IS piracy! By property I don't just mean that you own the single figure. When you buy a single figure you do not somehow aquire the rights to reproduce that figure.
If they simply take the idea of a pose, a uniform etc. and then make or have made an original figure that is THEIR property that is NOT piracy.
I also realise that nothing I say will stop someone who wants to copy figures and that most collectors wouldn't want to!

Martin

 

[jazzeum]

It's the same issue with Cd copying. If you buy a cd but then burn a copy for a friend, the artist (and most are not well off) have lost a sale. If this process repeats itself, then the artist will have to find a new line of work.

 

[Napoleon1er]

What about if the figure is an 100 year old Britains figure? Does copy write still apply? If it does, then I can name around 3-5 large manufacturers offhand whho have done this....^&confuse^&confuse
-Sandor