|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
09-16-2015, 10:23 PM | #21 |
I LIVE!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Altus, OK
Posts: 6,087
|
Several issues I'm seeing:
Does the copyright refer to the GI Joe BRAND, or merely to product style, and are those even separate entities? If the copyright includes derivitative works, does that still apply to the "A Real American Hero-3.75 inch" segment, which has been the brand's workhorse for the better part of the past 30 years? If the case can be made, I could see Hasbro "giving up" the 12" rights, given its relative non-factor for the past 15-ish years, so long as they get to keep the branding and the ARAH mythos. One potential outcome is that the brand could be SPLIT by this decision, with Hasbro keeping the post-12" brand iterations, with the 12" GI Joe brand being relinquished to Sam Weston or his heirs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealDubya
Any sort of panic at this stage is just pure unsubstantiated reptile brain stem fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokePants
This is why companies are secretive -- because we all want the truth, but most of us cannot handle it.
Last edited by Steevy Maximus; 09-16-2015 at 10:33 PM.. |
09-16-2015, 10:31 PM | #22 |
Overlord of Evil
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Philly
Posts: 11,489
|
Quote:
Several issues I'm seeing:
Does the copyright refer to the GI Joe BRAND, or merely to product style, and are those even separate entities? If the copyright includes derivitative works, does that still apply to the "A Real American Hero-3.75 inch" segment, which has been the brand's workhorse for the better part of the past 30 years? If the case can be made, I could see Hasbro "giving up" the 12" rights, given its relative non-factor for the past 15-ish years, so long as they get to keep the branding and the ARAH mythos.
__________________
|
09-16-2015, 10:36 PM | #23 |
I LIVE!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Altus, OK
Posts: 6,087
|
Quote:
Even if Hasbro only were to lose the 12" side they would still loose the name G.I.Joe and by default would lose it all right? I guess we will find out many years from now after it all plays out. Meanwhile we the fans of G.I. Joe have the potential to be the monkeys in the middle for a long time if it does not get settled quickly.
Weston and his heirs get "GI Joe: The Movable Fighting Man" and the associated 12" rights Hasbro gets to keep "GI Joe: A Real American Hero" (and Extreme) and those associated rights. Again, given how irrelevant the articulated, outfitted 12" GI Joe has become in the past decade, I'm not sure Hasbro would shed much of a tear in such a situation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealDubya
Any sort of panic at this stage is just pure unsubstantiated reptile brain stem fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokePants
This is why companies are secretive -- because we all want the truth, but most of us cannot handle it.
|
09-16-2015, 10:38 PM | #24 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Extensive Enterprises Executive Airfield Boca Raton
Posts: 3,423
|
I read the article earlier and it specifically mentions that the name "G.I. Joe" was in fact a Hasbro creation, that Mr. Weston brought forth the modern military action figure concept. So, I'm not sure if the name is in any trouble, but then again, our courts have been doing some pretty weird stuff lately.
|
09-16-2015, 10:42 PM | #25 |
I LIVE!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Altus, OK
Posts: 6,087
|
Heck, how does that copyright even work in an era where a dozen companies, fundamentally, create "outfitting 12" action figures" EXACTLY like the 1964 and onward GI Joe figures?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealDubya
Any sort of panic at this stage is just pure unsubstantiated reptile brain stem fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokePants
This is why companies are secretive -- because we all want the truth, but most of us cannot handle it.
|
09-16-2015, 10:43 PM | #26 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: new jersey
Posts: 1,050
|
Its going to settle out of court. This 82 yr old man, is most likely looking for a "payout", not to be running an action figure company. The burden of proof lies on him thru whatever "process" this is going to go thru. During which time, it will be business as usual, with hardly a change in anything that would affect us as collectors, until the time when Hasbro will, more than likely settle out of court.
It will, more than likely, be " death of this 82 year old man ", before its " death of the line ". Last edited by Dunedain; 09-16-2015 at 10:47 PM.. |
09-16-2015, 10:56 PM | #27 |
The REAL Goldbug
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smallville, IL
Posts: 6,151
|
I say give him the 12 inch line rights.
Then he can make the 20 or so figures they make every year through the club. :p but in the article it states Quote:
The complaint notes that there was a contract signed in 1964 that granted the toy company rights. "Unfortunately, Weston has not been able to locate a copy," says the complaint.
__________________
FOR TRADE: MUCaptMsMarvel MUX23Wolverine PPSAWViper PPLamprey RetroAce RetroMMCobraComm RetroRampRat RetroFailSafe http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...t_goldbug.html
WANT: RetroScarlet MTFWWII 50thChuckles SMBrainiac Last edited by Autobot_Goldbug; 09-16-2015 at 11:00 PM.. |
09-16-2015, 11:41 PM | #28 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,294
|
If I recall my 12" history correctly, the original idea for a 12 inch male doll was the idea of Ideal Toys executive Larry Reiner. Reiner was on a work for hire contract with Ideal and for some reason took his idea to Hasbro exec Don Levine. Levine initially rejected the idea but after a few months returned to the concept which was fleshed out by Reiner and Weston. Their idea was for a military style doll that boys could play with. Weston was a licensing and marketing guy. He created the concept of how boys would want to play with a military figure and how it could be marketed as such.
The prototype figure was made in-house by Sam Speers (whose name appears on the patent and a bunch of designers including Phil Krackowski (Sculpting), Larry O'Daly (Advertising), Sam Petrucci & Harold Thresher (Packaging Designer / Artist), Jerry Pilkington (Art & Design), Norman Jacques (Packaging), Walter Hansen (Weapons and Accessories Model Maker), George Baron & Jerry Einhorn were all part of the development team at one point or another. However, it was Janet Dowling Taylor an artist and clothing fabricator who is credited with suggesting the name 'GI Joe'. From a layman's perspective I don't think Weston has much of a chance. He was paid an undisclosed fee (along with Reiner) back in the 1960's which was substantial at the time. Hasbro employees came up with the facets of the character / brand / story / name that we know today. Not saying his contribution is / was worthless but it took a whole bunch of people to make GI Joe what it was. Don Levine himself played a far bigger role as the driving force behind the 'America's Moveable Fighting Man' era of Joe. |
09-17-2015, 12:14 AM | #29 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 950
|
Quote:
Hasbro is safe with their trademark. They would also be safe with any subsequent version of G.I. Joe that deviated from that claimed unique expression. Adventure Team isn't a military doll of the armed forces, they only share the basic play trait of changeable outfits. And RAH is a completely different toy concept entirely. This seems like a very odd lawsuit. All it could really hope to obtain would be the original design of the original Joe doll. Barbie is a prime example. Mattel's copyright for Barbie, which is the visual design, doesn't restrict any other toy maker from making a girl fashion doll with removable clothes, it simply protects the unique visual expression of Barbie. Same would apply here. Male soldiers with removable outfits just wouldn't seem to be protected as a generic idea. At best, he has a claim towards the original G.I .Joe design, with possibly the "trademark" (which is actually just a copyrighted element of the design I believe) scar. But they couldn't possible gain ownership of the idea of male military dolls with removable outfits. |
09-17-2015, 12:20 AM | #30 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 950
|
Quote:
The 2008 ruling was ultimately voided by a later ruling and Warner Bros prevailed, so no precedent to be had there.
Today?s Superman Rulings Explained ? The Beat G.I. Joe the brand is different. The only thing he was suing for was the design and concept of the original Joe concept, which is just one of many concepts utilized under the G.I. Joe brand trademark. There is only one single copyright idea functioning under the Superman trademark. And the subsequent toy concepts utilized under the Joe brand hardly fit the criteria of derivative works of the claimed expression of his original toy concept. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"ROYAL COLONIAL GUARD" story mode & back of groundcobra z.h.e.n. La | falcon_77 | G.I. Joe Fan Fiction | 1 | 05-18-2013 07:35 PM |
Bring back "the Flaggs" Award "Show"? | DianaD | G.I. Joe General Discussion | 3 | 04-24-2013 09:13 AM |
BUYER BEWARE! Fake "MOC" Destro is back up on ebay | 3DJoes | G.I. Joe on Ebay | 23 | 10-31-2012 05:53 PM |
Non G.I. Joe INSPECTOR "TEQUILA" YUEN ("Hard Boiled"/"Stranglehold") by GDX! | gdztoyz | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 21 | 07-19-2010 02:06 PM |
Can someone get me a high rez screen grab of Hector Rameriz from "Not a Ghost of..." | Imperial_Ozma | G.I. Joe Animation Discussion | 1 | 04-25-2010 12:58 AM |
|
|