19 replies to this topic

[SuomiWarder]

The ScyFi network has a game called Mecha Galaxy running - which is no big deal by itself. But the Facebook ad has a computer model of a Timberwolf (which I assume is a copyrighted image of the B Tech franchise IP owners).

[Imperius]

SuomiWarder, on 17 January 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

The ScyFi network has a game called Mecha Galaxy running - which is no big deal by itself. But the Facebook ad has a computer model of a Timberwolf (which I assume is a copyrighted image of the B Tech franchise IP owners).

I dont see this on their Facebook

[Lykaon]

SuomiWarder, on 17 January 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

The ScyFi network has a game called Mecha Galaxy running - which is no big deal by itself. But the Facebook ad has a computer model of a Timberwolf (which I assume is a copyrighted image of the B Tech franchise IP owners).

Similar to but legaly distinct from "timberwolf" .

it's a biped mechanical walker with reverse jointed legs a "jetfighter" like cockpit and boxy weapony thingies on each shoulder.

A similar thing happened to FASA waaay waaay back. The toy company Playmates was manufacturing mecha toys for the cartoon show Exo Squad and there were a couple of toys that looked sorta Elementalish and Madcaty.

The resulting law suit ended up bringing an army of Harmony Gold USA's lawyers (HG had partnered with Playmates to make Macross based mecha toys under the title of the Exo Squad branding in addition to toys based upon the actual cartoon Exo Squad)

The end results were FASA was bled for a lot of money in legal fees and had an out of court settlement with Harmony Gold that ended up with the whole "Unseen" issue.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 January 2016 - 03:12 PM.

[sycocys]

Timbersauraus Rex

[Tarl Cabot]

Mean this one?

[Lykaon]

Now that I get a better look at it it's more catapultish than Timberwolfy.

[Khobai]

its not a violation of copyright if its an image they created themselves and isnt stolen from a battletech source. Derived works 100% legal as long as they possess some element of originality.

its also not a violation of trademark unless 1) it bears an undeniably resemblance to a timberwolf/catapult, AND 2) its called a timberwolf/catapult.

Quote

A similar thing happened to FASA waaay waaay back. The toy company Playmates was manufacturing mecha toys for the cartoon show Exo Squad and there were a couple of toys that looked sorta Elementalish and Madcaty.

The resulting law suit ended up bringing an army of Harmony Gold USA's lawyers (HG had partnered with Playmates to make Macross based mecha toys under the title of the Exo Squad branding in addition to toys based upon the actual cartoon Exo Squad)

The end results were FASA was bled for a lot of money in legal fees and had an out of court settlement with Harmony Gold that ended up with the whole "Unseen" issue.

Yeah ive seen exosquad and there was absolutely no legal basis for a lawsuit. Yes one of the toys resembled a timberwolf, but it wasnt being called a timberwolf, so no trademark was infringed. Which is exactly why FASA lost the case.

Similarly, Games Workshop tries to sue other companies all the time for making miniatures that look like space marines. And courts have ruled that its not trademark violation because theyre not being called space marines. Its not against the law to create a copycat product. You just cant pass it off as the official thing.

Unfortunately companies like Games Workshop often bury smaller companies in legal fees. So even though theyre not technically doing anything wrong they still get bullied out of business.

Edited by Khobai, 17 January 2016 - 04:56 PM.

[CycKath]

There was a Facebook Mecha game that did use the front on Mad Cat image from TRO:3050 in an advertisement, but that was chalked up to an overzealous and clueless advertising company. This seems more like just shared similar silhouette to Catapult rather than knock off of it.

[Mech Jager]

Most of these problems have a cease and desist step, and then it may go to a legal battle.

A simple flyer or advertisement where somebody did a cut and paste of someone else's work is usually not worth the effort after the template cease and desist is sent. If it is a "derivative" use of the original the burden of proof is very tricky. Most companies will be more lenient here unless the newer image has an identifiable financial impact. Sometimes individual artist or small businesses will go after a big fish who had a lazy employee/dept, that tried to save some time.

I have worked as a Web/graphics designer, and this issue has come up many times. Even with a decent exposure to the process, I tell client's to weigh the cost of lawyers against the possible financial loss. Also "stolen" ideas can still build recognition for the original owners product.

[Helsbane]

I just saw the add for this game on my FB feed, and the mech they're using is a straight up Mad Cat. Decent 3D render of the 3050 TRO too.

[Troutmonkey]

Khobai, on 17 January 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

Similarly, Games Workshop tries to sue other companies all the time for making miniatures that look like space marines. And courts have ruled that its not trademark violation because theyre not being called space marines. Its not against the law to create a copycat product. You just cant pass it off as the official thing.

Unfortunately companies like Games Workshop often bury smaller companies in legal fees. So even though theyre not technically doing anything wrong they still get bullied out of business.

Games Workshop are the biggest mob of scumbags around. I believe they tried to copyright the generic term "Space Marine" and then started going around throwing lawsuits everywhere. Outside of that they ruined a good hobby for me by locally pricing themselves out of business and then banning imports into Australia when nobody wanted to pay their ridiculous prices.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 17 January 2016 - 10:32 PM.

[Bonger Bob]

Troutmonkey, on 17 January 2016 - 10:30 PM, said:

Games Workshop are the biggest mob of scumbags around. I believe they tried to copyright the generic term "Space Marine" and then started going around throwing lawsuits everywhere. Outside of that they ruined a good hobby for me by locally pricing themselves out of business and then banning imports into Australia when nobody wanted to pay their ridiculous prices.

yup, IP issues and blatant price gouging forced me out of GW stuff. The space marine copyright attempt made them come off as total cu*ts and i think cost them more than they would have every seen from a win in a legal case.

I really hate to see BT try it again, it stalled things for years.......

[Ghogiel]

Bonger Bob, on 17 January 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

yup, IP issues and blatant price gouging forced me out of GW stuff. The space marine copyright attempt made them come off as total cu*ts and i think cost them more than they would have every seen from a win in a legal case.

I really hate to see BT try it again, it stalled things for years.......

I heard GW lost a bunch of these claims and those 3rd party mini producers won a case so they can produce 40k shoulderpads and head swaps for space marines and stuff.

[TexAce]

Tarl Cabot, on 17 January 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Mean this one?

Is this a Hamsterpult?

[Tarl Cabot]

TexAce, on 18 January 2016 - 03:27 AM, said:

Is this a Hamsterpult?

THAT is what it looks like, doesn't it? ROFL

[Felio]

Khobai, on 17 January 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

its not a violation of copyright if its an image they created themselves and isnt stolen from a battletech source. Derived works 100% legal as long as they possess some element of originality.

its also not a violation of trademark unless 1) it bears an undeniably resemblance to a timberwolf/catapult, AND 2) its called a timberwolf/catapult.

Not true. I took a course on copyright law in college.

Derivative work means the opposite of what you think -- it is a violation, not a protection. In fact, a work only needs bear a "substantial similarity" to be considered for violation. The defendant also needs to have had a reasonable opportunity to view the copyrighted work.

It's sticky, though. The courts have not found a completely objective way to test for substantial similarity.

[Khobai]

Quote

Derivative work means the opposite of what you think -- it is a violation, not a protection. In fact, a work only needs bear a "substantial similarity" to be considered for violation. The defendant also needs to have had a reasonable opportunity to view the copyrighted work.

Thats not true at all. A work can be derivitive but be original enough that its not a violation.

For example the games workshop vs chaperhouse lawsuit. chapterhouse was basically making their own warhammer 40k models. It was ruled that chapterhouse was allowed to make their own models as long as they didnt tie them specifically to 40k models.

[RoboPatton]

Tarl Cabot, on 17 January 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Mean this one?

That looks like a voyeur photo of a catapult "doing its business".

Edited by RoboPatton, 18 January 2016 - 01:02 PM.

[Felio]

Khobai, on 18 January 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Thats not true at all. A work can be derivitive but be original enough that its not a violation.

For example the games workshop vs chaperhouse lawsuit. chapterhouse was basically making their own warhammer 40k models. It was ruled that chapterhouse was allowed to make their own models as long as they didnt tie them specifically to 40k models.

You are right that being original enough is an exception. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant by "some element of originality."

I'm not sure what you mean by tying them to 40k, though. Names have their own copyrights (or in some cases trademarks), and changing the name doesn't change a violation.

It looks like the case in question was very, very complicated and had a lot of split verdicts before they reached a settlement, for whatever that's worth.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by tying them to 40k, though

basically chapterhouse was creating alternate heads and shoulderpads for GW models and saying they were specifically for those GW models. they were tying their product to GW models and making it seem like it was an officially endorsed product. the court ruled that it wasnt allowed because it was violating GW's trademark.

the court also ruled that chapterhouse could create their own 40k inspired models as long as they werent in any way tied to 40k and werent direct copies of existing models (i.e. they had to have some form of originality to them). In other words GW can trademark "space marines" but they cant trademark the idea of gothic shootymen in powerarmor.

Although GW's claims to trademark ownership of vague and generic terms like "space marine" and "imperial guard" has been repeatedly challenged. Which is why GW has started renaming a lot of things in their universe to more obscure terms they can more easily control. Like GW has renamed imperial guard to "astra militarum" now so they have absolute control over the trademark lol.

Edited by Khobai, 18 January 2016 - 03:18 PM.