Napoleon's Europe Release Schedule (2 Viewers)

[aujj65]

Means nothing without the facts Jeff. Maybe you could provide a link.

Well, the facts are......Mullberry Miniatures made an unlicenced set of Sharpes Rifles and these were the subject of an article in the 2nd issue of TS&MF magazine, the set was also featured on the front cover. Carlton TV who owned the rights threatened legal action and so as I said earlier the unsold figures and magazines had to be destroyed.

See this ,we had a discussion about this some while back............http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1856&highlight=mulberry&page=2

Jeff

 

[maddadicus]

You may not recall but TS&MF magazine and Mullberry Miniatures didn't get away with it!!

Jeff

Not to get him in trouble, but I have one of the original released sets,,Michael

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well, the facts are......Mullberry Miniatures made an unlicenced set of Sharpes Rifles and these were the subject of an article in the 2nd issue of TS&MF magazine, the set was also featured on the front cover. Carlton TV who owned the rights threatened legal action and so as I said earlier the unsold figures and magazines had to be destroyed.

See this ,we had a discussion about this some while back............http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1856&highlight=mulberry&page=2

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. Unfortunately those are not the critical facts. For that you need to read the magazine and see the figures alleged to be offending. Only then can you draw any conclusion about the true nature of the potential infringement claim. From what I can gather so far, I stand by my original assessment. It sounds like they violated the golden rule of not claiming a connection to Sharp. As I said, that would be a problem. That seems confirmed by the figures I found on their site; they are simply not sufficiently detailed to cause a copyright infringement by themselves, unless the Sharpes set was significantly different in that regard.

 

[aujj65]

Thanks Jeff. Unfortunately those are not the critical facts. For that you need to read the magazine and see the figures alleged to be offending. Only then can you draw any conclusion about the true nature of the potential infringement claim. From what I can gather so far, I stand by my original assessment. It sounds like they violated the golden rule of not claiming a connection to Sharp. As I said, that would be a problem. That seems confirmed by the figures I found on their site; they are simply not sufficiently detailed to cause a copyright infringement by themselves, unless the Sharpes set was significantly different in that regard.

That is what happened whether those are the critical facts or not, and having read the magazine and had seen the figures Mulberry Miniatures produced, one can see why Carlton TV got the hump.

In respect to detail, they weren't life like but you could tell who they were meant to be and describing them as such didn't help!.

Anyhow, enough of these matters that happened over ten years ago, it shouldn't distract from the magnificent range of Napoleonics from FL.

Jeff

 

[Spitfrnd]

That is what happened whether those are the critical facts or not, and having read the magazine and had seen the figures Mulberry Miniatures produced, one can see why Carlton TV got the hump.

In respect to detail, they weren't life like but you could tell who they were meant to be and describing them as such didn't help!.

Anyhow, enough of these matters that happened over ten years ago, it shouldn't distract from the magnificent range of Napoleonics from FL.

Jeff

Well Jeff, the critical facts you suggest are that the magazine and the producer made the direct connection between their figures and the copyrighted characters from the TV series. As I keep saying that is clearly prohibited. Making figures that may resemble in some manner the characters is a wholly independent matter and would only be problematic if the figures could not be justified as having been derived independently from some other non protected source. It wasn't that the description didn't help, rather that the description did them in.

So what is the point for the potential of the beloved green jackets in magnificent First Legion style; they should be completely free to do them full justice and that 10 year old matter is of no relevance. Sharpe was based on the 95th and used uniforms and weapons from that unit. Those are in the public domain and can be freely duplicated without concern. Exactly replicating Sharpe or Harper's visage would be an un-necessary risk since it is so simple to make a dashing officer and NCO with more generic features that will do just as well. Bottom line, green light for the green jackets, just don't use the S word.

 

[aujj65]

Well Jeff, the critical facts you suggest are that the magazine and the producer made the direct connection between their figures and the copyrighted characters from the TV series. As I keep saying that is clearly prohibited. Making figures that may resemble in some manner the characters is a wholly independent matter and would only be problematic if the figures could not be justified as having been derived independently from some other non protected source. It wasn't that the description didn't help, rather that the description did them in.

So what is the point for the potential of the beloved green jackets in magnificent First Legion style; they should be completely free to do them full justice and that 10 year old matter is of no relevance. Sharpe was based on the 95th and used uniforms and weapons from that unit. Those are in the public domain and can be freely duplicated without concern. Exactly replicating Sharpe or Harper's visage would be an un-necessary risk since it is so simple to make a dashing officer and NCO with more generic features that will do just as well. Bottom line, green light for the green jackets, just don't use the S word.

Too right! Volley Gun included ...............Tradition of London produce a couple of sets of Sharpe based figures, BUT they had the sense to produce them with Carltons permission, ie. under license.

I agree that these would certainly look the part in FL style, I sometimes wish I hadn't gone too far down the K&C route on Napoleonics.

Jeff

 

[theBaron]

Or a manufacturer could take the same route that Andrea Miniatures does-make the figures, but give them a generic name, like "British soldiers with green jackets"

 

[Spitfrnd]

Too right! Volley Gun included ...............Tradition of London produce a couple of sets of Sharpe based figures, BUT they had the sense to produce them with Carltons permission, ie. under license.

I agree that these would certainly look the part in FL style, I sometimes wish I hadn't gone too far down the K&C route on Napoleonics.

Jeff

Interesting question on the volley gun, if it was documented to have been carried by some real blokes in the 95th it would be safe enough, otherwise it would be in that unwise risk category.

One thing about any of these top line figures, like K&C, if you decide you want to change direction, they seem to sell quite well on Ebay, especially the retired Napoleonics. So it is never too late to change your mind.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Or a manufacturer could take the same route that Andrea Miniatures does-make the figures, but give them a generic name, like "British soldiers with green jackets"

Well as we all know, the 95th Rifles was a real British unit and calling them that or "Wellington's Sharpshooters" or "Green Jackets" is all just fine. I just hope Matt comes back with some good news about their timely release.

Interestingly the only 54mm ish Andrea Miniatures 95th soldier I could find in the online catelogue at their site was S7-F18, labeled "Sharpe". I have no doubt First Legion could do a better looking 95th officer.