Treefrog and Minutemen No Longer Carrying Country Honour (1 Viewer)

[Wraith]

The suggestion in the phrasing of the initial post and the wording in the TF newsletter seems to point at it not being a copy of a pose, but a copy of some parts of the sculpt, which I read as being they have taked a figure (presumably FL), dismantled it and used parts as a master for their own production runs.

 

[johnnybach]

We don't know the full facts of the situation nor its legal implications. Moreover, just because I'm a collector or member of this Forum I don't feel that entitles me to an explanation.

Agreed - we don't know. That's why I asked a question about the legallity of showing a picture. I'm not a lawyer - nor would I want to be one - but the whole thing has aroused my interest ( and it looks like others too) - and I'd like to see for myself what it's all about - that's all.

If no pictures are available - it's no big deal. Johnnybach

 

[trooper]

As a matter of law, that's not correct. A pose is a type of sculpture and sculptures are protected by copyright law. Copyright generally protects creative works and this is a creative work.

Pose in this context means position,ie sitting, standing, charging, firing etc. and position CANNOT be copyrighted. A sculpture will be protected by law, the position, or pose, of that figure cannot. Also I respectfully disagree with your definition of pose being a type of sculpture. According to my dictionary it is defined as "an attitude adopted to allow the person to be drawn,photographed or painted", in other words a position, not a sculpture. Trooper

 

[jazzeum]

Trooper,

I'm sure we could go and on about this but it's a creative work and creative works are protected.

Brad

 

[trooper]

Trooper,

I'm sure we could go and on about this but it's a creative work and creative works are protected.

Brad

Fair enough. Fifty years ago I made a figure standing firing. Can you now guarantee me compensation from every maker who has made a figure in that position since? If you can I will cut you in for 50% of the total. Of course you can't, BUT you could if someone took that figure of mine, put it in a mould and reproduced it as their own. You are correct in saying that a creative work is protected, but only the original work not the POSITION of that figure. If that were true then the model soldier industry would have only existed for less than a year. Trooper

 

[jazzeum]

Fair enough. Fifty years ago I made a figure standing firing. Can you now guarantee me compensation from every maker who has made a figure in that position since? If you can I will cut you in for 50% of the total. Of course you can't, BUT you could if someone took that figure of mine, put it in a mould and reproduced it as their own. You are correct in saying that a creative work is protected, but only the original work not the POSITION of that figure. If that were true then the model soldier industry would have only existed for less than a year. Trooper

How much are we talking? I'm always looking for some extra compensation :smile2:

Seriously, I do see your point as how many possible poses can there be. Thus, it must be the pose plus something that to the naked eye suggests copying. Not very lawyerly I know. Many years ago Justice Potter Stewart (of the United States Supreme Court), in an obscenity case, said something to the effect that he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it.

Brad

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

How much are we talking? I'm always looking for some extra compensation :smile2:

Seriously, I do see your point as how many possible poses can there be. Thus, it must be the pose plus something that to the naked eye suggests copying. Not very lawyerly I know. Many years ago Justice Potter Stewart (of the United States Supreme Court), in an obscenity case, said something to the effect that he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it.

Brad

I don't follow your thinking. Have you ever seen obscenity precident applied to copyright law? FWIW, Stewart's observation is just as wrong now as it was then. I think Trooper is completely right, it must involve some casting made of an original or stolen molds to make any sense.

 

[jazzeum]

My comment was only made for comparison, not for any precedental value.

As far as discussing the merits of Mr. Justice Potter Stewart's reasoning, I don't believe a toy soldier forum is the place for that. Are you a constitutional attorney?

 

[Mitch]

if its down to pose then actions could be brought against many manufacturers including K&C for the shown similarities from the airfix models including the new EA figures.

My Early Konigstiger from K&C has a driver that showed up in the NMA Lynx same figure and, the figure for the sturmtiger of NMA is the same figure in the winter SL tiger .. go figure!!

So, clearly, its more than pose and, I am unable to find such copyrights on a standing, kneeling or pointing figure so, clearly its not that or all we would be talking about is the legal actions within the hobby.

I think this hobby does itself no favours when half messages or cryptic ones are thrown out. It allows the conspiracy theorists, be it true or not, to run riot. Not that I think much of this is in that category at least yet. I also think the manner of the statement allows reasonable questions from intelligent people asking why this has happened and what is involved. If you don't want people to question things don't put them on in such a manner that will warrant a questioning mind to ask for further clarification and, ask questions that seem unwilling to be answered
Mitch

 

[Mascleo]

The issue of liaibility and copyright infringements and whether or not Country Honor can be sued is way out of the scope of this forum and should probably not be discussed. I think I see the problem as: Company A says that Company B (the new company) is copying their material and in order to maintain good relations with company A or becuase of ethical grounds, some sellers may have decided not to do business with Company B.

Here is one sample of a figure both companies produce:





Are they similar enough or do you think they are just variations on a generic pose?

Also, if multiple figures are similar, does that make a difference?

Ken

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The issue of liaibility and copyright infringements and whether or not Country Honor can be sued is way out of the scope of this forum and should probably not be discussed. I think I see the problem as: Company A says that Company B (the new company) is copying their material and in order to maintain good relations with company A or becuase of ethical grounds, some sellers may have decided not to do business with Company B.

Here is one sample of a figure both companies produce:

View attachment 114470

View attachment 114471

Are they similar enough or do you think they are just variations on a generic pose?

Also, if multiple figures are similar, does that make a difference?

Ken

The poses are very similar - but it is not a unique pose. If you look closely, there are some big differences between the sculpts. The FL figure has grey pants and a bit of a pot belly. The CH figure has a kilt and stockings and sporran. The jacket facings are completely different. The tartan sashes are different colours and are draped differently on the figures. The hats are different - one has a peak. The epallettes, collars and cuffs are sculpted and painted differently. The shoes are different - one has buckles. The FL sword is a straight sword but the CH sword has a bit of a curve like a sabre. The pointing arm and the position of the heads are slightly different. The faces don't look like they are twins. The rear views of the figures are on the manufacturer sites and show additional differences.

I see a lot of differences between the sculpts and in no way would consider them to be copies. I cannot believe these two figures are the cause of the problem. The complaint has to be based on something else.

Terry

 

[Mitch]

the pose is similar but, that's about it. I could put several pictures right now that were far more culpable in terms of what you could say were blatant copies and nothing has been done from several manufacturers.

Could this be that one company is making well done figures much cheaper than another and some gripe being aired to stop sales?? From the figures I have looked at from the dealers still selling or stocking they seem to be pose similar not exact copies

They are to me different enough not really to be at the crux of this matter anyone got any pics of the other figures they have done and had pulled to add to this discussion??
Mitch

 

[FirstLegion]

Just to put an end to the speculation that is going on, yes, it is First Legion who Country Honor has stolen from. They are a mainland China company and we have had business dealings with them in the past when they operated as a trading company and produced figures for various figure companies. We ceased working with them several years ago because of serious quality and integrity issues. They had several of our figures including the one shown below (which they didn't produce for us) and have taken it upon themselves to mold it, cast it, use our production figure as a paint master to attempt to copy our painting, and release it as their own product. This is in direct violation of our copyright on a number of different levels from the sculpture to the artistic expression of the painting. Various parts of this figure were used across their WWII figures and these figures have been removed from their website over the last few days which speaks volumes as to the veracity of our claim.

We take our copyright extremely seriously as the entire value of our business is derived from our intellectual property. We will pursue all legal avenues open to us to prevent figures such as this being made and sold. Thankfully none of our dealers want to do business with a company so obviously lacking in ethics.

There is more to it than this, but as this is a private matter, this will be the only public statement I will make regarding this issue and I'm only doing so because I was asked to by our dealers who are getting inundated with questions. I do hope this discussion can be put to rest now.

Best,

Matt
First Legion

 

[johnnybach]

Thankyou Matt - that's a good enough answer for me. Best of luck with your case. Johnnybach

 

[mikemiller1955]

he definitely stole your figure...thanks for the proof...

 

[Mitch]

Interesting comparison shots and, had heard it was WWII that was the problem. all around the doors when it could have been stated easily and without any of the alleged legal issues right at the start.

On a note about the figure that helmet and schmeisser alone should warrant legal action!!!LOL

 

[jules118]

Fair enough. Fifty years ago I made a figure standing firing. Can you now guarantee me compensation from every maker who has made a figure in that position since? If you can I will cut you in for 50% of the total. Of course you can't, BUT you could if someone took that figure of mine, put it in a mould and reproduced it as their own. You are correct in saying that a creative work is protected, but only the original work not the POSITION of that figure. If that were true then the model soldier industry would have only existed for less than a year. Trooper

In Australia (and the concept is the same in the USA and UK) the underlying principle behind our copyright laws is that copyright does not protect an idea but rather, the EXPRESSION of that idea. So, for example, I may have an idea for a figure of an officer of the little known but very colorful 3rd Left-handed Lesbian Rifles holding his sword above his head and rallying his troops to charge. That is an idea and is not protected by copyright. But, as soon as I produce the sketches or prototype sculpt, I have expressed the idea and that expression of the idea is subject to copyright protection. Now Joe Bloggs can come along and decide that it's a good idea for a range and produce his own version of an officer for the 3rd Left-handed Lesbian Rifles sword in hand, rallying his troops and there may not be any copyright issues as long as the way he has expressed the idea in his sculpt is sufficiently different to mine.

IF I claimed that there is a potential copyright violation and it goes to court, the judge will consider what the similarities are between my sculpt (expression of the idea) and Joe Blogg's sculpt, not that I had an idea to create an officer of the 3rdLLR rallying his troops. What the court looks for is the similarities between how the idea has been expressed and if the quality of those similarities is sufficient to see how I originally expressed my idea (via my sculpt) in the work that Joe Bloggs produced. That's how copyright law works in Australia (I teach it to photography students at college so have a basic working knowledge of it btw).

Based on the pics shown in the thread thus far, I can see enough similarities to think that there could well be a case. And I do also agree with Mitch re the early K&C figures and the Airfix Afrika Corps models I had when I was a kid. I often wondered about those, but it does not mean that anything sinister has occurred because the owner of copyright can transfer ownership or give third parties an exclusive or non exclusive licence to use their copyright material. Because ultimately, copyright is an economic right. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

jules

http://www.juleswings.wordpress.com
A site for collectors of militaria and travelers interested in military history.

 

[Warrior]

all around the doors when it could have been stated easily and without any of the alleged legal issues right at the start.

It was stated easily Mitch and in the initial statement, there was no mention of any alleged legal issues, a forum member threw that out there, not Shannon.

Why don't you go back and read the first comment in the thread.

I hope everyone can come in off the ledge now that the cat is out of the bag and the photographic proof everyone was asking for,or should I say demanding to see is now out there.

The evidence was there right from the start as when this thread first started, their WWII Germans were on their site, then they were pulled, BINGO, there is your evidence, but many of you Charlie Chans, or should I say inspector Clouseaus completely missed it.

The issue was with sculpts, not POSES, naturally as a manufacturer you can't complain about poses, why that was thought to be the issue is beyond my comprehension.

Unreal.

 

[Mitch]

Don't need to read the first post and, the absurd legality issues raised added only to more confusion (and, note I did not say Shannon at all) than the initial post did for many. so, I hope your post applies to everyone who posted here????

The only point I agree about in your post is ''unreal'' but, all of this could have been avoided had this point been made at the very start. I can't see your submitted astonishment at the way this has unfolded having been on forums as long as you have. So, the making of the mountain out of the molehill came from other sources not the responses from the collectors. I think the responses on both forums mirror this point that regardless of whether its any collectors business or not it will become so when such comments are put on an open forum and, people are then able to respond in the manner they feel appropriate based on the information or, lack of supplied.

If people don't want to see similar in the future then understand the audience accordingly
Mitch

It was stated easily Mitch and in the initial statement, there was no mention of any alleged legal issues, a forum member threw that out there, not Shannon.

Why don't you go back and read the first comment in the thread.

I hope everyone can come in off the ledge now that the cat is out of the bag and the photographic proof everyone was asking for,or should I say demanding to see is now out there.

The evidence was there right from the start as when this thread first started, their WWII Germans were on their site, then they were pulled, BINGO, there is your evidence, but many of you Charlie Chans, or should I say inspector Clouseaus completely missed it.

The issue was with sculpts, not POSES, naturally as a manufacturer you can't complain about poses, why that was thought to be the issue is beyond my comprehension.

Unreal.

 

[Warrior]

So, the making of the mountain out of the molehill came from other sources not the responses from the collectors.

Wasn't it you that threw out the theory that this was a manufacturers way of derailing a small manufacturer who was making quality but inexpensive figures?

What did you base that on, facts or some cockeyed theory?

Nothing like fanning the flames; so do you walk into crowded theatres and yell fire because a guy standing in front of the theatre is having a smoke?

Instead of guessing, assuming, conjecturing, throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks, why not wait until the facts come out, isn't that a better coarse of action instead of leaping before looking?

Shannon and I had the photographic evidence, at the time neither of us were at liberty to show it, Matt had to step in and do so as this whole thing was getting out of hand.

When someone is charged with a crime and goes on trial, ALL of the facts are presented and then the jury decides if the party is guilty or not, that's the way the legal system works in this country the last time I checked, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.