Why not release G1 in mainstream toy market?

[SharkyMcShark]

Apparently actions brought for basing something on a vehicle without licensing it is a viable source of revenue now.

[kup]

Apparently actions brought for basing something on a vehicle without licensing it is a viable source of revenue now.

I am pretty sure there is a bit of an industry with law firms on the look out for any form of copyright infringement which they can make a case out of. They then take the proposed case to the company being 'infringed' and they tell them how much money they can make if they win with the firm taking a cut.

http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/

http://www.artlaws.com/

As mentioned (and back on topic): I believe that the factor of having to pay royalties to car companies has little or nothing to do as to why Hasbro doesn't release G1 toys. Those molds were already legally owned by Hasbro/Takara 25+ years ago. It's about collector pieces not being part of Hasbro's business model when it comes to retail.

[SkyWarp91]

I read somewhere about how Porsche no longer wanted to be associated with Transformers as TF was about destructive war-fighting robots.

Good on you Porsche, now you can keep your only reputation of selling cars to men who are having a mid-life crisis!

[GoktimusPrime]

That's only partially true. Porsche/Volkswagen don't want their cars "associated with war" -- and since the majority of Transformers series are associated with an intergalactic civil war, then yeah, they can't be associated. But there's been at least one exception to this and that was Transformers Disney Label's Donald Duck. It's a Transformer and it's a VW. This was obviously permitted because Disney Label Transformers are not tied-in with any other Transformer continuities which are associated with war.

[kup]

This was obviously permitted because Disney Label Transformers are not tied-in with any other Transformer continuities which are associated with war.

Donald isn't exactly disassociated with war

He should have been driving a Panzer instead of a VW

[SharkyMcShark]

I am pretty sure there is a bit of an industry with law firms on the look out for any form of copyright infringement which they can make a case out of. They then take the proposed case to the company being 'infringed' and they tell them how much money they can make if they win with the firm taking a cut.

http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/

http://www.artlaws.com/

As mentioned (and back on topic): I believe that the factor of having to pay royalties to car companies has little or nothing to do as to why Hasbro doesn't release G1 toys. Those molds were already legally owned by Hasbro/Takara 25+ years ago. It's about collector pieces not being part of Hasbro's business model when it comes to retail.

It's not a viable stream of revenue though. They can recoup some or all of the licensing fees that ostensibly should have been payed in the first place for a manufacturer of other goods to use their car/company properties.

Any earnings would come under licensing revenue. It's not as if suddenly in the last 20 years a whole new revenue stream has opened up - it's just that in the last two decades car companies have started to become picky over licensing their vehicles out, and have become aware of companies that may have used their vehicles without paying a licensing fee.

Anyway, apart from the well knock VW and Porsche not wanting to be associated with war, as I understand it Ford didn't want to license their version of the Mustang for the movie to be a bad guy so Bay and co went with Saleen's version instead.