Kopeerite? I mean: copyright? Sorry...
- Thread starter Infidel Castro
- Start date
Legacy Account
Active member
How do you know they don\'t have permission? 
A bit slow off the mark there Phil.
That was added to the store on 7th February 2004.
Besides it\'ll be classed as \"Interpretation\".
That was added to the store on 7th February 2004.
Besides it\'ll be classed as \"Interpretation\".
I\'m not a lawyer. But there is not much here to really get a good copyright on. It\'s a short ugly guy with fish. Given that there is a whole lot of significant variation on the theme to possibly get it out of the copyright problem, but then again only a couple of lawyers at 50 paces armed to the teeth can settle that issue for an unreasonable sum.
(You know if you paint the mini orc green then the whole issue becomes a non starter ... it\'s an ugly goblin with a fish ... case closed.) lol
(You know if you paint the mini orc green then the whole issue becomes a non starter ... it\'s an ugly goblin with a fish ... case closed.) lol
Infidel Castro
New member
What the feck are you on about? Have you missed the point entirely? Are you being ironic? Have you ever seen a little film about little folk? Lord of the Rings? I\'m assuming you\'re being ironic. I hope you\'re being ironic. But I would also say you\'re catching me cold there, because i haven\'t seen much irony coming for Tzorland before lol
Mike, I\'m slow! And I ain\'t painted much recently. I was looking at the Wyrd line. I found this and I thought HOLD ON! That is not just some ugly creature with a fish! That\'s a particular Gollum-type figure as seen in LoTR and manufactured by everybody\'s favourite games company. Spaemunkie\'s stab may be right (though surely he knows it\'s not), but why call it something other than Gollum if he had permission?
Am I being over-sensitive (again)? ???
Personally I dont give a toss.
My opinion on the copyright though is that if GW saw it I think they would have it stopped.
Im sure GW will own the rights to reproduce a Gollum figure and this is obviously Gollum. Im sure they will have stopped others that are less obvious.
Apparently there has to be 7 major differences to get away with copyright issues like this.
Like I said though...
On a personal level I dont give a monkeys chuff.
My opinion on the copyright though is that if GW saw it I think they would have it stopped.
Im sure GW will own the rights to reproduce a Gollum figure and this is obviously Gollum. Im sure they will have stopped others that are less obvious.
Apparently there has to be 7 major differences to get away with copyright issues like this.
Like I said though...
On a personal level I dont give a monkeys chuff.
Dragon Forge Design
New member
Welll untill they get a ceise and decist letter..its all fair in love and war. This sort of thing is done all the time in the garage kit industry..do a knockoff and hope you can make your money befor the laywers send you they \"Hey quit that\" letter.
No, I\'m not being ironic. There was a discussion on this in the Reaper sculpting board where one suggested that the standard is if you change more than 15% you are good. Whether this is the case here is really hard to tell. I think it\'s borderline. I\'m looking at the images side by side (movie gollum and the fishing creature) and the latter has a number of changes from the movie creature, most of the features are more pronounced, ears eyebrows and especially nose. Fishing creature has thin peach fuzz hair, fishing creature is bald save for two pieces of kelp. Gollum\'s chest cavity is larger and his arms are thinner.
Compare to this graphic of the movie Gollum.
Of course the real question is moot. It\'s not about whether you are right or wrong. Even if they are right the mere threat of lawyer\'s expense will force them to stop it. Considering this is the TOLKIEN estate, I\'m surprised this hasn\'t happened already. Clearly the estate that caused the acronym THEY SUE REGULARLY (clearly old Gygax got taumatized by the vicious attack of the \"hobbit\" killing lawyers of the Tolkien estate, resulting in the anexoric hairless halfwit halflings of modern d20) has gotten soft.
Or IF the lawyers get a hold of it. Considering the rather small market for such things, maybe its not even an issue. The legal fees may be more prohibitive than the loss of revenue the owner of the IP may suffer.
I know its a quite common practice, especially in \'garage kits\'. I think Andrea has more than their share of them...they have a \'mountain man\' that looks just like Robert Redford\'s Jerimiah Johnson, and I recall a \"caped crusader\" which is nothing more than Batman sans the bat symbol on his chest.
Even Copplestone has some \'hunter aliens\' that look remarkable like the Predator.
Ah...pics too!
\'caped crusader\' NOT BATMAN
\'Hunter Aliens\" NOT PREDATOR
vincegamer
Active member
I love Copplestone\'s stuff.
Didn\'t they also do a Vampire Hunter a while back?
Then there are the \"Terminator robots\" that look a lot like, well, the Terminator.
Didn\'t they also do a Vampire Hunter a while back?
Then there are the \"Terminator robots\" that look a lot like, well, the Terminator.
Legacy Account
Active member
GW have done it for years. Check out their Froud rip offs, Terminators, Mechs, Bespin, Klingon Birds of Prey, Aliens drop ships, Aliens themselves! etc,etc....
They have plundered the visual archives of popular culture for yonks. I certainly don\'t begrudge Masquerade selling their \'Gollum\'.
They have plundered the visual archives of popular culture for yonks. I certainly don\'t begrudge Masquerade selling their \'Gollum\'.
Infidel Castro
New member
As Mark says, it ain\'t a problem. Couldn\'t give a rat\'s arse either. I was just a little surprised that\'s all.
Copyright smells anyway, it\'s just that I\'m quite naively excited about these occurrences.
Copyright smells anyway, it\'s just that I\'m quite naively excited about these occurrences.
\"Space marines\" trademarked? There is no way they can keep that up in court. It\'s a generic description and has already been used as a non GW related movie title and it\'s also in common use in the Aliens movie, toys and whatsnot.
As to those near copyright figures, well, it often depends a bit on whether the copyright owner will bother to expend any energy on going after these cases. That\'s what one company owner (who had such figures) told me.
As to those near copyright figures, well, it often depends a bit on whether the copyright owner will bother to expend any energy on going after these cases. That\'s what one company owner (who had such figures) told me.
