What the hell is going on with MR?
- Thread starter Anakin Starkiller
- Start date
<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Oct 22 2006, 06:44 PM) [snapback]1342945[/snapback]</div>
Wrong, regardless of the content of the picture, the picture itself (void of content) is copyright "YOU" and unless it falls into the fair use clause under copyright law (this clearly doesn't as it's being used to promote finacial gain) you have full authority to the pictures use...
It's just like you taking a picture of a model wearing XXX clothing, the XXX clothing company has no rights to the photographs you took... Or a wedding photographer that still (in most cases) owns the exclusive rights to all your wedding photos he/she took... The copyright of the photo falls into a new ownership of copyright as long as the photo was taken within the scope of the law (not by illegal means) and or contract if one was made...
It's really sad to see a company that has a history of this same thing and has had it brought to their attention doing the same thing again and again... One of these days they just might use a picture of someone who does care and then they might very well have to pony up...
[/b][/quote]
Chalk this down as a historical moment because for once I agree entirely and completely with you, Exoray
.
Irrespective of the content of the photo, if it is being used for promotional purposes or advertisement without permission from the person who took the photo, that is violation of copyright law.
Incidentally, they also in the past used a stormtrooper helmet from a different source to promote their upcoming helmet. So this is the continuation of a regrettable trend.
Wrong, regardless of the content of the picture, the picture itself (void of content) is copyright "YOU" and unless it falls into the fair use clause under copyright law (this clearly doesn't as it's being used to promote finacial gain) you have full authority to the pictures use...
It's just like you taking a picture of a model wearing XXX clothing, the XXX clothing company has no rights to the photographs you took... Or a wedding photographer that still (in most cases) owns the exclusive rights to all your wedding photos he/she took... The copyright of the photo falls into a new ownership of copyright as long as the photo was taken within the scope of the law (not by illegal means) and or contract if one was made...
It's really sad to see a company that has a history of this same thing and has had it brought to their attention doing the same thing again and again... One of these days they just might use a picture of someone who does care and then they might very well have to pony up...
[/b][/quote]
Chalk this down as a historical moment because for once I agree entirely and completely with you, Exoray
.Irrespective of the content of the photo, if it is being used for promotional purposes or advertisement without permission from the person who took the photo, that is violation of copyright law.
Incidentally, they also in the past used a stormtrooper helmet from a different source to promote their upcoming helmet. So this is the continuation of a regrettable trend.
Lucasfilm not only owns the rights to the props, but I believe they own the *image*. That means regardless of it being someone's picture, Lucasfilm owns the rights to the image. That's why the actors in the movies don't get kickbacks from the licensed material (toys, games, etc.).
QFE
<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Oct 22 2006, 05:44 PM) [snapback]1342945[/snapback]</div>
Wrong, regardless of the content of the picture, the picture itself (void of content) is copyright "YOU" and unless it falls into the fair use clause under copyright law (this clearly doesn't as it's being used to promote finacial gain) you have full authority to the pictures use...
It's just like you taking a picture of a model wearing XXX clothing, the XXX clothing company has no rights to the photographs you took... Or a wedding photographer that still (in most cases) owns the exclusive rights to all your wedding photos he/she took... The copyright of the photo falls into a new ownership of copyright as long as the photo was taken within the scope of the law (not by illegal means) and or contract if one was made...
It's really sad to see a company that has a history of this same thing and has had it brought to their attention doing the same thing again and again... One of these days they just might use a picture of someone who does care and then they might very well have to pony up...
[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Oct 22 2006, 05:44 PM) [snapback]1342945[/snapback]</div>
Wrong, regardless of the content of the picture, the picture itself (void of content) is copyright "YOU" and unless it falls into the fair use clause under copyright law (this clearly doesn't as it's being used to promote finacial gain) you have full authority to the pictures use...
It's just like you taking a picture of a model wearing XXX clothing, the XXX clothing company has no rights to the photographs you took... Or a wedding photographer that still (in most cases) owns the exclusive rights to all your wedding photos he/she took... The copyright of the photo falls into a new ownership of copyright as long as the photo was taken within the scope of the law (not by illegal means) and or contract if one was made...
It's really sad to see a company that has a history of this same thing and has had it brought to their attention doing the same thing again and again... One of these days they just might use a picture of someone who does care and then they might very well have to pony up...
[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>(Sluis Van Shipyards @ Oct 23 2006, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1343019[/snapback]</div>
If MR wants to use Lucafilm images, then there is no problem because Lucasfilm owns those, but lucasfilm doesn't own pictures of my or your Star Wars collection.
Dan Stokes
DDStokes2aol.com
Lucasfilm may own their images, but they don't own other people's pictures. That would be like saying that Lucasfilm owns the pictures you took at MGM studios because they have star wars stuff in it, or saying Lucasfilm owns all pictures of Sterling submachine guns because they are the base for Trooper blasters, or Lucafilm owns every picture of mark hammil because he was in Star Wars.
If MR wants to use Lucafilm images, then there is no problem because Lucasfilm owns those, but lucasfilm doesn't own pictures of my or your Star Wars collection.
Dan Stokes
DDStokes2aol.com
<div class='quotetop'>(Sluis Van Shipyards @ Oct 22 2006, 08:59 PM) [snapback]1343019[/snapback]</div>
Actors sign off their image in a lucrative contract. That's not the case here. For example, if I am a professional photographer and I photograph a lightsaber making it look fantastic, I CANNOT use that photo to sell lightsabers. However, by the same token, LFL CANNOT use that photo to sell lightsabers because it is my own photograph which I own rights to. So, I don't have rights to use the image for promotion or business, but I do have rights to the image when it comes to someone else using it for their own promotion/business, regardless of who they are. It doesn't matter if they have the rights to the lightsaber or not. They have to obtain their own images. That's what stock photo agencies are based upon. Without that copyright, anyone could use any image they want in their advertising if it has their product in it. If I photograph a Corvette jumping a bridge, GM cannot use that photo in their advertising without paying me a royalty fee for use of the photograph. I cannot use that photograph to sell Corvette's myself without permission of GM.
Ok?
Actors sign off their image in a lucrative contract. That's not the case here. For example, if I am a professional photographer and I photograph a lightsaber making it look fantastic, I CANNOT use that photo to sell lightsabers. However, by the same token, LFL CANNOT use that photo to sell lightsabers because it is my own photograph which I own rights to. So, I don't have rights to use the image for promotion or business, but I do have rights to the image when it comes to someone else using it for their own promotion/business, regardless of who they are. It doesn't matter if they have the rights to the lightsaber or not. They have to obtain their own images. That's what stock photo agencies are based upon. Without that copyright, anyone could use any image they want in their advertising if it has their product in it. If I photograph a Corvette jumping a bridge, GM cannot use that photo in their advertising without paying me a royalty fee for use of the photograph. I cannot use that photograph to sell Corvette's myself without permission of GM.
Ok?
JunkSabers1138
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Anakin Starkiller @ Oct 22 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1342856[/snapback]</div>
I'd love to be able to own a full size Obi ANH weathered saber at an affordable price, but I'm not sure if this piece will look as good as the previous releases and I'm afraid of it being more suspectable to damage because aren't the CEs made out of resin, plastic, and other similar stuff? BTW, if they do make it, I highly doubt it will look like Roman's more accurate saber with the bevelled emmiter and asymetrical grenade but be more like what they did with re-releasing the mini weathered ANH, which looked JUST like the previous mini saber.
Seth
Over on the rebelscum forum, I saw these pics posted.
[/b]
I'd love to be able to own a full size Obi ANH weathered saber at an affordable price, but I'm not sure if this piece will look as good as the previous releases and I'm afraid of it being more suspectable to damage because aren't the CEs made out of resin, plastic, and other similar stuff? BTW, if they do make it, I highly doubt it will look like Roman's more accurate saber with the bevelled emmiter and asymetrical grenade but be more like what they did with re-releasing the mini weathered ANH, which looked JUST like the previous mini saber.
Seth
seven
Sr Member
Well Larbel was hired by MR so I think that any and all images of his sabers would be used with his permission.
Mara Jade saber was made by parks, but I am sure the design is owned by LFL as it was Decipher and LFL who comissioned the saber to be made. It is an official extended universe saber. Probably why parks does not offer them on his site.
If MR/LFL is using a photo of a product that is rightfully theirs, should we not feel honored that our fan made item was good enough to be used by "the-man"?
How do we know that they do not own the rights to each of those images?
Why do they have to explain themselves?
Mara Jade saber was made by parks, but I am sure the design is owned by LFL as it was Decipher and LFL who comissioned the saber to be made. It is an official extended universe saber. Probably why parks does not offer them on his site.
If MR/LFL is using a photo of a product that is rightfully theirs, should we not feel honored that our fan made item was good enough to be used by "the-man"?
How do we know that they do not own the rights to each of those images?
Why do they have to explain themselves?
Crimsonnaire
Sr Member
Just wanted to say that Larbel is, technically, a merged entity with MR, so they should automatically own any previous work by Larbel Plasmablade. Could be wrong, though.
Besides, if this was an issue, it was probably resolved back in 2002, when the Larbel Obi TPM was used to advertise the upcoming MR Obi AOTC.
Besides, if this was an issue, it was probably resolved back in 2002, when the Larbel Obi TPM was used to advertise the upcoming MR Obi AOTC.
<div class='quotetop'>(seven @ Oct 23 2006, 07:24 AM) [snapback]1343209[/snapback]</div>
The problem here is that although MR has the right to sell these products, the images that they are using may not be "rightfully theirs".
If MR has indeed sought out the persons who built these sabers and took these photos then they have done nothing wrong. However, MR has a history of using other people's images in their publicity material without permission, and since many of these images look to me like they were just picked off of various people's web cites, it looks to me like MR is doing the same thing again, using other people's images in their promtional material without permission.
Could I go onto your web cite and use a picture of your lightsabers to sell my lightsabers without permission?
Could I copy a photographer's portfolio and use it for commercial purposes without asking him or paying for the rights to the images?
Could Nissan use pictures that I took of my car to sell Altimas without my permission?
The answer is No. MR has the rights to sell Star Wars products but they do not have the right to use other people's images.
MR is a big enough company that they should be able to get images of their own to sell their products. Or if they are going to use other people's images they must get permission to do so.
I am not bringing this issue up to try to bash MR for no reason. I am generally a big supporter of the company and I have alot of respect for what the people at MR have acomplished.
But when I come across what looks like shady buisness practices, I think that it should be addressed.
If MR has obtained permission to use these images, than they have done nothing wrong.
However, if they have stolen other people's images and used them for comercial purposes, (as they have done in the past) then such action is wrong.
Dan Stokes
DDStokes@aol.com
The problem here is that although MR has the right to sell these products, the images that they are using may not be "rightfully theirs".
If MR has indeed sought out the persons who built these sabers and took these photos then they have done nothing wrong. However, MR has a history of using other people's images in their publicity material without permission, and since many of these images look to me like they were just picked off of various people's web cites, it looks to me like MR is doing the same thing again, using other people's images in their promtional material without permission.
Could I go onto your web cite and use a picture of your lightsabers to sell my lightsabers without permission?
Could I copy a photographer's portfolio and use it for commercial purposes without asking him or paying for the rights to the images?
Could Nissan use pictures that I took of my car to sell Altimas without my permission?
The answer is No. MR has the rights to sell Star Wars products but they do not have the right to use other people's images.
MR is a big enough company that they should be able to get images of their own to sell their products. Or if they are going to use other people's images they must get permission to do so.
I am not bringing this issue up to try to bash MR for no reason. I am generally a big supporter of the company and I have alot of respect for what the people at MR have acomplished.
But when I come across what looks like shady buisness practices, I think that it should be addressed.
If MR has obtained permission to use these images, than they have done nothing wrong.
However, if they have stolen other people's images and used them for comercial purposes, (as they have done in the past) then such action is wrong.
Dan Stokes
DDStokes@aol.com
Crimsonnaire
Sr Member
Notice that the Obi ANH CE has the emitter ring tapered. That makes this more accurate than the LE. Better late than never, I suppose.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
:rolleyes Here they go again... Any one remember this image? MR stole it right off of my old website for their pre-sell. A photograph they didn't take and a prop they didn't build and it's flat out copyright infringement. They will remove the image if contacted, they have to. But like in mine and Davids case it was too late. Did they compensate for their thievery... yea right :lol
cayman shen
Master Member
"I'd love to be able to own a full size Obi ANH weathered saber at an affordable price, but I'm not sure if this piece will look as good as the previous releases and I'm afraid of it being more suspectable to damage because aren't the CEs made out of resin, plastic, and other similar stuff? BTW, if they do make it, I highly doubt it will look like Roman's more accurate saber with the bevelled emmiter and asymetrical grenade but be more like what they did with re-releasing the mini weathered ANH, which looked JUST like the previous mini saber." --Junksabers1138
Sure, the materials are cheaper, but you aren't going to drop it off a plane are you? I mean, MAYBE an occasional costuming run? Mostly on a shelf?
The OB ROTS is largely plastic, and I love it. Makes me less nervous about scuffing the black bits, actually. And the ANH should be more accurate now with all of the research that's gone in. (That said, I think I'll still save for a Roman's...I want to weather my own).
I recognize why people are annoyed about the pictures. Yes, it's lazy and cheezy and cheap. Having said that, they're making a Ki-Adi Mundi. An affordable, accurate Mundi, and affordable, accurate Qui-gon...at this point they could grind up my grandparents and let sixteen year olds snort them.
Have I mentioned I'm excited about the Mundi?
Sure, the materials are cheaper, but you aren't going to drop it off a plane are you? I mean, MAYBE an occasional costuming run? Mostly on a shelf?
The OB ROTS is largely plastic, and I love it. Makes me less nervous about scuffing the black bits, actually. And the ANH should be more accurate now with all of the research that's gone in. (That said, I think I'll still save for a Roman's...I want to weather my own).
I recognize why people are annoyed about the pictures. Yes, it's lazy and cheezy and cheap. Having said that, they're making a Ki-Adi Mundi. An affordable, accurate Mundi, and affordable, accurate Qui-gon...at this point they could grind up my grandparents and let sixteen year olds snort them.
Have I mentioned I'm excited about the Mundi?
exoray
Master Member
I would like to add one thing as it's getting tossed up here...
MR is NOT LFL they only have a license to produce props, MR has no ownership of the likeness or rights beyond making the prop...
With that said MR is using the image(s) and the owner of those images has a conflict with MR, LFL has no bearing on the issue...
As I stated before the image is Copyright the photographer, clear and simple, void of whatever the content of the image is... LFL is not party to this conflict, it's between MR and the owner of the photos...
MR is NOT LFL they only have a license to produce props, MR has no ownership of the likeness or rights beyond making the prop...
With that said MR is using the image(s) and the owner of those images has a conflict with MR, LFL has no bearing on the issue...
As I stated before the image is Copyright the photographer, clear and simple, void of whatever the content of the image is... LFL is not party to this conflict, it's between MR and the owner of the photos...
<div class='quotetop'>(KevVader @ Oct 23 2006, 08:46 AM) [snapback]1343271[/snapback]</div>
Yeah, I think everybody is getting too excited too soon. Granted, I really think the Xwing will be made for the 30th anniversary - it's a no brainer (along with the Vader TIE fighter which is confirmed for 2007).
Yeah, I think everybody is getting too excited too soon. Granted, I really think the Xwing will be made for the 30th anniversary - it's a no brainer (along with the Vader TIE fighter which is confirmed for 2007).
