Hello List,
As you may recall I am in the process of writing a website for a miniatures
manufacturer. (don't you dare start that thread again:)
Now I know there are several not-star was or not-babylon 5 ranges
out there amongst others. What I want to know is have there been any copyright
problems from official sources? Is the law sufficient to allow artistic
licence for sculptors to make look alike figures?
It's just that I do not want to display fully painted miniatures of the look
alike type if it is just going to attract unwanted attention.
Any thoughts?
> Is the law sufficient to allow artistic licence for sculptors to make
The Imperial ships from Irregular miniatures look suspiciously like Star
Trek Federation ships.
> It's just that I do not want to display fully painted miniatures of
on second thoughts, maybe that's why they don't show images of their
miniatures on their websites!
*feverishly attempting to close can of worms*
In message <LAW2-F45JY4kJSFsxf4000061d9@hotmail.com>, "Donogh McCarthy"
writes:
> >It's just that I do not want to display fully painted miniatures of
Why make it *easy* for a spiteful competitor or disgruntled customer to
unleash lawyers on you?
What imperial ships? When I look at their site they seem to make only figures.
I don't see any starships listed at all.
> --- Donogh McCarthy <donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What imperial ships? When I look at their site they
yes, their cataloguing system has certain anomalies: Look in the 6mm: The last
category before Accessories is Science Fiction: About a third of way down,
you'll see Spaceships, and about half way down you'll see New Spaceships
In message <SIMEON.10107021718.D@lib345.kcl.ac.uk>, Jeremey Claridge writes:
> > Why make it *easy* for a spiteful competitor or disgruntled customer
:
> There must be some law allowing you to have something that looks like
No way. If it's the same, you're lawyer-bait. If it's totally
different, you're safe. If it's similar-but-not-quite-identical,
well, then you're probably okay but may have to prove it.
> Why make it *easy* for a spiteful competitor or disgruntled customer
This is the problem, if you want to sell the figures it is hard to do a under
the counter range over the net.
There must be some law allowing you to have something that looks like the
original but where you have personally made it from scratch.
A bit like Jon with any rules he has written. You cannot put up the rules
straight out of the book but you can put up your own house rules based on that
system.
While we've had some discussion on the list, you might wish to look through
the archives, I'd hope that Jon, Tony, and Nic might have better insight, and
be willing to talk to you directly.
I'd caution you'd be careful not draw analogies between printed word and
images, and between 'the law' and voluntary actions as I think you may have.
Likewise, the 'law' involves international understandings, as well as
individual nations.
***
It's just that I do not want to display fully painted miniatures of the look
alike type if it is just going to attract unwanted attention.
***
I'd point out that the painting may actually camoflage the similarities. If
you have a samurai masked and helmeted figure with a cape, it's one thing to
paint it glossy black with white stripe borders, and another to cover it
with multi-colored polka-dots.
The_Beast
I see them, now if there were pictures we could actually buy them;) I sent
them an email, maybe they'll email me some pictures.
> --- Donogh McCarthy <donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but how do they know that you're not one of Paramount's lawyers?:)
The very fact that they might be worried about that probably means I'm
interested in the miniatures! As you all know from my post, I have a LOT of
miniatures related to the Federation from a lot of sources.
And they don't. However, I'm a software engineer who works for Lockheed Martin
in Marietta, Georgia not any kind of lawyer. My grandfather on my father's
side was a lawyer as is my cousin, but not me ;-)
You can look at my web site too:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin
But come on, besides all that, how are people meant to buy stuff like this
without some idea of what the miniature looks like? Now if there was a picture
of someone else's copies I could look at that would be ok (you know, word of
mouth) but I have to see them first.
> --- Rick Rutherford <Rick@esr.com> wrote:
From: "David Griffin" <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
> --- Donogh McCarthy <donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:
For a pic, see http://spaceship.brainiac.com/irregular-FR.html
as opposed to http://spaceship.brainiac.com/tfg-2229.html
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:19:36 +0100 (), Jeremey Claridge
> <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> Is the law sufficient to allow artistic licence for sculptors to make
It depends on HOW "look alike". Seriously. Tom Petty was sued by his former
record company for writing a song that was too similar to another one. Both
songs were his own, but the second one was for his new label.
If it's recognizable as a specific type of ship, there can be lawsuits. That
doesn't mean that they would win, just that it could happen.
I wouldn't dare make any kind of suggestion here. Go see a lawyer, or have the
manufacturers talk to a lawyer. An ounce of prevention now is worth a ton of
cure later.
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:08:16 -0500, Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> wrote:
> No way. If it's the same, you're lawyer-bait. If it's totally
Good summary. There is "fair use" that comes into it. If you were to make a
ship that looked like the Enterprise D from ST:TNG, but it was held together
with bailing wire, and had trash cans for nacelles, you're safe as it's a
parody.
If you scratch build an Enterprise for your own amusement, you're safe.
If you scratch build an Enterprise and start selling it as such, you're toast.
Anything in between is open to legal interpretation. Note that you can be sued
over just about anything. Being sued doesn't mean that you're wrong, just that
someone thinks you're wrong enough to take it to court.
Jon's "not B5" ships come about as close as you can without going over the
edge, though at GenCon 1999 the AoG folk weren't happy to see the B5
not-starfuries... but nothing came of it. Note that licensing can get
tricky, too, with different companies getting licenses for certain geographic
areas.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:09:18 +0100 (), Jeremey Claridge
> <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> There must be some law allowing you to have something that looks like
No, there isn't. Or rather, it depends on how close you are. If you're close
but not exact, you're probably safe. Safe from losing, that is. Not safe from
having to defend yourself in a lawsuit.
> A bit like Jon with any rules he has written. You cannot put up the
Written work is different. Intellectual property rights where written work is
concerned has been hashed out very clearly. It's a lot easier to see if
something is exact, close, or different. Other art forms are not so cut and
dried.
And then there's trademark law, but we won't get into that...