Re-posting (slightly amended) here from the Magnificent Seven pages: https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/heroes-for-gordon-part-3-scale-1-9.124255/

I've thought in the past about (commercial) figs based on films etc: are there legal/copyright ramifications... is a royalty/license fee paid?

I would imagine Disney would come down like a pile of bricks if you tried an Elsa or Mickey Mouse, but how about an oldie like Steve McQueen on his motorbike or somesuch?

Or a living person?

Or a commercial/press photo?

Or a ref book plate (eg Osprey)?

eg. I remember seeing a sculpt of Viv from the Young Ones somewhere on these pages... was a fee paid to BBC?

PS: I've noticed several others, eg DDL: from Last of the Mohicans and both JW and JB from the two versions of True Grit (all superbly painted here: http://paintedheroes.blogspot.com/)

Yes, I know lot's have (I seem to recall a fig of Saeed Jaffrey defiantly wielding his kukri as Billy Fish from The Man Who Would be King, so that must have been the late 70s)... but the legal position remains unclear.

Anybody know and have any cases been brought?

Yes, there absolutely are copyright ramifications, depending on which country we are talking about. In the US, there are strict laws. In major markets, licensing fess will have been paid (for example, a scale model of a B-25). There is usually some indication on the package if the product is officially licensed.

The laws do apply to figures, but the market may be too small for a studio to notice or care. Examples abound. There is a particular company in Korea that frequently releases movie-based figures. I am certain they do not pay any fees to the studios. Now the laws in Korea may be different from US law, and maybe that's how they get away with it. Or it could be too troublesome for the studio to go to court in Korea to get them to stop.

There is a exception called fair use, but it does not apply to commercial undertakings.

Then there is the matter of likeness rights, which fall under privacy, not copyright. They are the the rights of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. These rights would belong to an actor, not the studio. For example, a beer company started an add campaign that featured the character Spock from Start Trek. The beer company got permission from Paramount, but failed to get permission from Leonard Nimoy.

Another example was a model kit company releasing a Bell X-1, the plane in which Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. The package featured Chuck Yeager's image and name, but they did not get his permission to use it. He got them to stop. Now the company has released the aircraft kit without Chuck's name and image.

Thanks Hypertex.

I did a little googling*and came to the same conclusions although (in USA at least) there are some complications around the delineation and centrality of the character to the story (the 'Sam Spade' case)... but otherwise I suspect that all studios will (c) and/or TM their main characters.

Ref individuals: as you say, privacy laws apply (in US counter-intuitively called Right of Publicity) and for the UK the EU ECHR privacy regulations that so many of Brexit fans seem so keen to abolish (apologies if I step on anyone's political toes).

As you say, perhaps the miniature world is too small (LoL) for the BigCos to worry about (tho' Disney is notoriously litigatious).


*technically a TM busting term and 'brand genericide'

BTW: don't know why I didn't try googling in the first place

As far as I know Andrea had to pull one figure for once: Their "space invader" had to be withdrawn due to violation of copyrights of "Predator".
Royalties for producing a film hero are usually insane - the same goes for images from paintings - ask Mr. Don Trojani who stopped Warrior Models producing figures like General John B Gordon taken from one of his paintings without his permission.
Still companies like Knight Models paid royalties for producing Lord of the Rings and Star Wars-Minis for a while - so getting a permission and paying for the right to release characters with a copyright seems not to be totally out of scope for producers.

Thanks Martin: interesting to hear about Andrea.

Yes, I suppose most figure Cos are far too small to pay for licenses, though some larger ones such as Games Workshop must also pay for their LoTR figs (looks like to the film Co not the Tolkien estate).

A garage kit manufacturer of large book ends of "Capt Jack and Davey Jones" and a SBS in "Amazing Figure Modeller" prompted me to try and get the figures but upon inquiry Disney had come down hard and all products were removed from sale. So I missed out.
Cheers
John

Sometimes a sculptor does a (one off) sculpt of a figure which is fine a shows the world but if you are in the know these figures are often sculpted with the intent of being sold or asked to be sculpted in the first place with the intention of doing limted runs, like the old garage kit days not meaning "recasts".
This was to stay under the radar or by the time they were found out about the kits were all but sold.
Not to start a fight or get into trouble here but some of the best sculpted statues I have seen are the ones that haven't been licensed and are just done out of passion by the sculptor. We are not talking recasts here!

Garage kit days... do you mean like these?

https://www.summergardenbuildings.c...yk0ROKVJ6Tyob9yOsAArxhotdFrdrxCRoCWygQAvD_BwE

Must use a lot of resin

As mentioned above, the plastic airplane model kit folk were faced with this issue a few years back. If Minicraft (just as an example) wanted to make a kit of a B-17, Boeing wanted a license fee for every kit manufactured now, in the future and the past. The owners of now defunct Pan American Airlines' name wanted a fee for Pan Am decals on an airliner. Modelers successfully communicated with members of congress to get the license fees issue included in a defense appropriation bill regarding planes built for the government. Cannot say about Pan Am, etc.

As far as today's figure sculptors, they produce remarkably likenesses of famous individuals -- JFK, Marilyn Monroe, MacArthur, Lincoln, Jefferson and film actors galore. I admire their talent and skill and hope the hobby/industry can avoid a big legal morass.

Some years ago, Early 90s, I and E Miniatures released 3 Busts from the Film Dracula, with Gary Oldman, BUT they couldn't name the film, or the Actor, however, they were instantly recognisable. I seem to remember the most popular one was called, "A Victorian Gentleman". Ray

Hi Nap,

Having read around it a little, I suspect that both the reproduction of a character (clothes, styling, make-up etc) and an actual person (recognisably, say Johnny Depp) would be illegal under US law (and as PotC is a Disney property you can be sure that they would pursue the case).

I wonder how that 'Magnificent Eight' (I assume the naming is an attempt to get around (c) on TM7?) will get on ref this? https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/the-magnificent-8-1-9th-busts-pavol-ovecka.125909/#post-961873

With my clear mind, when you speak garage kit, I see usualy this

The company behind that Kickstarter are constantly breaking Intellectual Property rights and copyright. How Disney haven't issued a C&D on the Pirates I have no idea. But as you can tell from the lack of official names or images they have paid for zero rights just like every single bust and figure they have ever created.