Yeah,sorry, I realized after posting that I needed to see the whole rest of the thread, including the comments over in the other thread, and that I was merely.....pirating, your point

I agree with you, though I have refrained from bringing it up and stirring up a hornet's nest. I think that many people who decry figure piracy, think nothing of copyright infringement. But intellectual property theft is intellectual property theft, no matter how big or small the perpetrator and the victim are in relation to one another.

Prost!
Brad

Fine, fair enough and to each his or her own.

BTW: I've yet to raise my paint brush above the parapet (after c40 years not modelling), but I hope I can reach your standards.

BoL,

Neil (also from NW but many years ago)

Paul I find myself at odds with you on this matter. I find myself completely captivated by this subject and have given up painting for the foreseeable future. I am as we speak instructing my lawyers to pursue Google Maps for the unauthorised use of images of my house, trees and car.
Well if the Royal family has this level of protection I don't see why I shouldn't

Classic Marx brothers

I assume that your comment is sarcastic, and you may know that you can get Google to blur out your house?

But seriously, cctv, mobile and online tracking and surveillance are rather frightening... all very 1984.

If they blurred out my house I'd never find my way home

Looking at your glasses, your eyesight is continually blurred anyway

I've been blurred out of me head and always managed to find my way home..... well, almost always.

I need to get some of those glasses if they'll make me paint to Del's standards then. And Rog you sail on boats for a living no wonder your always blurred it's the up and down of the waves.

The up and down's ok, the side to side is what does it.

Ever forget where you parked your car at 3:00 in the morning, and call and wake up your wife and tell her your car was stolen and to come and pick you up?And then while waiting for a half an hr. you find it; just as she is pulling down the street to pick your sorry ass up? And just as you're ready to drive away you roll down the window and wave at her with that shit eat'n grin...………..Now that's what I call character piracy.

What glasses ????????

Roger The Early Years

All I can do is to add some personal observations on I.P. Some years ago, when I was part of I and E Miniatures, we were offered a series of Busts of Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, from the film. We contacted the film Company, and were told we couldn't imply ANY connection with the film, without paying a ridiculous amount of Dollars, so, after speaking to our own Solicitor, and taking his advice, we marketed the figures as " A gentleman of Transalvania" which met the criterion of no connection to the film, apart from a very good likeness to the actor. This is still happening now, Ninth Gate produce 2 Holmes and Watsons, and a Poirot and Hastings under the titles of The Private Detectives. So, unless you actually call them by their charactor's names, you're within the law. What the situation is with figures depicted in Paintings is, I don't know, and I do wonder how many of the many Game of Thrones busts are licensed? Ray

I must've have been in a couple of years then, they wouldn't have a sprog with anything as technical as a stick and a hoop.

Yes, I think that's a common strategy: whether it would actually hold up in court I don't know (Martin 64 previously reported that ' Andrea had to pull one figure for once: Their "space invader" had to be withdrawn due to violation of copyrights of "Predator"'. which rather suggests that it's sailing close to the wind.

Regarding copying from paintings, last time we discussed this Martin also cited the case of: 'Mr. Don Trojani who stopped Warrior Models producing figures like General John B Gordon taken from one of his paintings without his permission.'

Is that a MkII stick or the MkIb with the 12mm extension fitted?

I know that this is boring to some, but I've been digging deeper into the whole IP bog (is using both 'boring' and 'digging' a mixed metaphor?)

I found some interesting (to me at least) articles on the copyright vs trademark issues with character protection here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/03z7d1h2 (warning: it's 1999, USA and at times quite heavy going) and here https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol6/iss1/3/ (still USA but more up to date: as with all law works, there's a lot of duplication of cases etc).

Neither deal explicitly with figs but the following extracts may be of interest and seem to pretty-well destroy any defence of the 'well it's just a C18th pirate who just happens to look like Johnny Depp (or Keef?)' ilk.

First, bear in mind that there are two different protections involved: copyright which expires 70 years after the creator dies and trademarks which last indefinitely (as long as they are in commercial use). There is also the right to publicity which protects the use of an individual's image whether in character or not (as does EU privacy legislation).

Del may need to click on the thumbprints

This covers the use of component parts/elements of a character (BS-D's top hat and tinted specs?)


This is about the actors' rights to their image



This covers various aspects of costume and appearance



This is about how an out of copyright character (eg Dracula) can be re-born and enjoy new life due to subsequent, new, development


And, just to show how complex this can get, take the case of King Kong (M C Cooper originated the character):



BTW: I think you'll find that the above extracts count as 'fair use' of (c) material

I have never quite understood the whole Don Troiani thing.
General Gordon is an historical figure, his image is a matter of documentation, and there only so many ways the human body can stand, sit, run etc. How can anyone lay claim to that.
OK, if the company refers to it as based on a Troiani painting or indeed copies a scene fair enough.
Other than that how can he lay claim to a pose, historical characters face or uniform that is a known historical fact.

The issue is that the historic (or indeed fictional) person is subjected to a new and novel artistic or creative treatment, in this case DT's painting. As an original work this is subject to copyright protection and hence any commercial work based on it is in breach of that. Private/personal interpretations and educational use are usually OK under the 'fair use' rules.

It relates to the Dracula and King Kong extracts above:





So, a fig merely representing a dead person* such as Gen Gordon (or whomsoever) or a fictional character (such as Dracula, whose not undead in (c) terms**) is fine. One clearly based on DT's painting or GO's version of Dracula are not.


* living people are protected under US rights of publicity and EU privacy laws (except Queenie who allows her image to be used as long as '....it's all done in the best possible taste' ).

** Bram Stoker died in 1912 so his copyright on Dracula, who don't forget was also a historic figure but was re-invented (re-incarnated?) by BS, ran until 1982 (ie. 70 years after his death). So, now Bram Stoker's Dracula (c) is dead, not undead... except for the later re-creations by Oldman et al who's (c) are still undead as their creators aren't yet dead


Clear innit

The upshot is that a figure sculptor decides to sculpt a figure of a character from a current and popular movie, and doesn't give a second thought to asking about acquiring a license so that the owner of the intellectual property receives appropriate compensation.

Or he may give it a thought, in that he chooses to market the obviously recognizable character under a generic name, so as to avoid having to pay the IP's owner. Let's say he sculpts Chris Pratt's character from "Jurassic World" and calls him, "Dino Hunter".

But that same sculptor will holler as if he were stung by a hornet the minute the Red Chinese copy one of his original works and flog the copies on eBay. In this example, both the sculptor and the Red Chinese have engaged in theft of intellectual property.

As you said, Neil, there's no such thing as killing someone just a little.