Why not release G1 in mainstream toy market?

[kup]

but kup, HasTak have reissued Bumblebee and Jazz in recent times and I don't think either Porsche or Volkswagen took legal action against them for it. There must be some legal clause that allows HasTak to reissue Transformers based on licensed vehicles where the mould was made a long time ago -- cos otherwise why hasn't HasTak been sued for their reissues of Jazz, Bumblebee, Sideswipe, Red Alert etc.? These reissues only came out fairly recently (especially Encores).

As I mentioned, that's because those molds are old. The mold itself is now owned by Hasbro not VW, Porche, etc. Legal ownership was taken by Hasbro way before the corporate world turned trademark infringement prosecution as a viable form of revenue. It would be too messy to sue someone who legally took ownership of something 25+ years ago.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

As I mentioned, that's because those molds are old. The mold itself is now owned by Hasbro not Porche, etc. Legal ownership was taken by Hasbro way before the corporate world turned trademark infringement prosecution as a viable form of revenue. It would be too messy to sue someone who legally took ownership of something 25+ years ago.

Yeh, but this is talking about G1 re-issues and trademarks, not classics. I only referred to classics as a reference for how they get around it now. My initial thoughts were on them having to pay royalties on re-issued G1s (such as, as Gok pointed out, the Encores etc.) as they are definitley a copy of real vehicles.

I am sure they would have royalties on the movie, alterntors and alterniteis, as they have the logo and tradmark stuffs all over the packet, but this thread is talking about G1.

[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.

[kup]

Yeh, but this is talking about G1 re-issues and trademarks, not classics. I only referred to classics as a reference for how they get around it now. My initial thoughts were on them having to pay royalties on re-issued G1s (such as, as Gok pointed out, the Encores etc.) as they are definitley a copy of real vehicles.

I am sure they would have royalties on the movie, alterntors and alterniteis, as they have the logo and tradmark stuffs all over the packet, but this thread is talking about G1.

I am also talking about G1 reissues. A comment was made onto why Classics or any new mold they make needs to have some sort of licensing attached if it resembles a real car while reissues do not. This is why Classics and other toys 'resemble' real car models but are actually very different in order to avoid infringement (same tactic FansProject uses with their toys) while this isn't a problem with reissues.

As mentioned, I don't think this applies to G1 for the reasons in my previous post. The reason they don't release G1 toys onto the mainstream have nothing to do with trademarks or licensing. It's rather the present scope of Hasbro's business model which focuses on the mainstream/Retail market rather than the collector market.