# Public Domain characters



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

If you could have a kit made of a Public Domain Character who would you choose?:freak:


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Jesus.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Kit said:


> Jesus.


lol Smart guy !! Your just desparate to go to heaven. lol :tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> Jesus.


Actually, a kit of Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount would be great. And I am serious!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Amen !


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Eve...?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

There've been kits of characters from folklore and mythology like Hercules and Sinbad, but I don't believe there's ever been a line of kits of the classical Greek Olympian gods.

http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/

Seems the subject would have been a natural for Aurora back in the day. Of course, the sculptors would have had to come up with more interesting and dynamic poses than those boring old statues.


----------



## Tonyray (Jul 31, 2009)

Lady Godiva :wave:


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

In action poses of course .......

Robin Hood
Alexander The Great (in armor)
Marc Anthony (in armor)
King Arthur (in armor)
Blackbeard (repop the danged thing!)
Ghengis Kahn (in armor)
Samurai Warrior
Zulu Warrior
Satan


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Romanian historical figures like :

Burebista (Ancient Greek: "Βοιρεβίστας") was a king of the Getae and Dacians, who unified for the first time their tribes and ruled them between 82 BC and 44 BC. He lead plunder and conquest raids across the Central and Southeastern Europe, subjugating most of the neighbouring tribes. After his assassination in an inside plot, the empire was divided into several smaller states.










Decebalus or "The Brave One" (originally named Diurpaneus)[1] was a king of Dacia (ruled the Dacians 87 – 106)[2] and is famous for fighting three wars and negotiating two interregnums of peace[2] without being eliminated[3] against the Roman Empire under two emperors.[1] In the later short peace (end of 102-105) granted by Trajan, Decebalus continued to act as an independent king,[4] rather than a conquered client and repeatedly annoyed or infuriated the Romans.

Consequently, the Legions under Trajan's orders went on the offensive again in 105 AD and reduced the Dacian stronghold and capital Sarmizegetusa in 106 AD[4], finally running down Decebalus the same year, whereupon he committed suicide rather than being marched through Rome as a captured foreign leader.










Michael the Brave's rule, with its break with Ottoman rule, tense relations with other European powers and the union of the three states, was considered in later periods as the precursor of a modern Romania.










Vlad III Dracul 










Tudor Vladimirescu (c. 1780–June 7 [O.S. May 27] 1821) was a Wallachian Romanian revolutionary hero, the leader of the Wallachian uprising of 1821 and of the Pandur militia. He is also known as Tudor din Vladimiri (Tudor of Vladimiri) or — occasionally — as Domnul Tudor (Voivode Tudor).










Alexander John Cuza, a common English rendition of Alexandru Ioan Cuza (20 March 1820 – 15 May 1873), was a Moldavian-born Romanian politician who ruled as the first Domnitor of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia between 1859 and 1866.











Ana Cumpănaş (a.k.a. Anna Sage), the "Woman in Red" who helped FBI catch John Dillinger.

The Romanians have done so much, yet this side of the world knows nothing about them because American and English history takes over. 

I'd also like to see some Canadian figures from history too.

It's time for both!


----------



## tylerh (Apr 9, 2009)

I dont know if Lon Chaney is public domain, but a kit of Chaney in front of a mirror putting on a facial appliance would be awesome I think! Cool extras to the kit could be some of his "used" props like a hunchback hunch and phantom mask.. Maybe London after midnight hat, etc..


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

@ Tylerh - That one was done back in the 1990's in resin.

To add to my above list, I'd also like to see Canadian Mounties from different eras. That might sell quite well as the mounties are recognized the world over. 

(Mounties always get their man.)

Also, there was one Mountie captain who never used his guns to fight crime. He was pure intimidation and his place in history was durring the roughest period of the wild west. He was once in a gun fight and stared down his American opponient, scaring that man into dropping his guns. That would be a man to make a model of.

Sam Steele -


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Trevor, I'm sure all those Romanian historical figures deserve to be better known by Americans. But, face it, they wouldn't exactly be huge sellers in model kit form -- except maybe Vlad III, aka Vlad Dracula, aka Vlad Ţepeş, aka Vlad the Impaler. The only other famous Romanian most Americans can think of is Nadia Comaneci.


Zorro said:


> In action poses of course .......
> 
> Robin Hood
> Alexander The Great (in armor)
> ...


*Satan!??*


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Zorro said:


> .....Satan....


Why would you want a model of my mates rottweiler????

Chris.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

MadCap Romanian said:


> @ Tylerh - That one was done back in the 1990's in resin.
> 
> To add to my above list, I'd also like to see Canadian Mounties from different eras. That might sell quite well as the mounties are recognized the world over.
> 
> (Mounties always get their man.)


Great idea Trevor!!!:thumbsup:
I'd love a kit of Dudley Do Right!! (the cartoon- not the film...)

Chris.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

tylerh said:


> I dont know if Lon Chaney is public domain...


chaney's image is controlled by his family. and as MCR points out, its been done. do a search for the "man of a thousand faces" kit. its one of the greatest GKs ever produced.
anyway, "public domain" covers way too much territory to just pick one character. consider the number of historical, fictional, and legendary characters there are out there. i think all of us could come up with a dozen good suggestions from each of those categories.
bizarrobrian, can you narrow your criteria a little?


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

I've always thought that Ebenezer Scrooge cowering at Deaths skeletel feet (as the Grim Reaper points to his tombstone) would be a cool kit...
...of course any kit made would have to sell a whole lot more than the two I would probably buy  and that's why History figures to most people are boring, ...Aurora tried with the Presidents line and only produced JFK and G.Washington before cancelling the line because of poor sales, so I can't see how a line of famous Romanians or RCMP kits would sell ...unless like Chris says,"I'd love a kit of Dudley Do Right!!":wave:
I really believe this John P. kit would outsell them all...
Coming soon: _John P the Barbarian!_









Mcdee:tongue:


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

I couldn't agree more Denis!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Dudley Do-Right or JohnP ! 
You can't tell me they wouldn't be top sellers!
Maybe Cecil the Sea Sick Sea Serpent.....

Chris.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Seriously (?) though, one kit that Denis has reminded me of that hasn't been done and is public domain is the Grim Reaper. Seeing as how we're mainly monster or figure modelers, I can't see how a kit of this mythological figure could fail!!
I think a well done Auroraesque kit of the Grim Reaper would be a BIG hit!!
Maybe standing amongst some old tombstones or in front of a crypt....

Chris.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

Auroranut said:


> I couldn't agree more Denis!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
> Dudley Do-Right or JohnP !
> You can't tell me they wouldn't be top sellers!
> Maybe Cecil the Sea Sick Sea Serpent.....
> ...


Not a bad IDEA Chris...




You never know...
Mcdee


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

That was GREAT!! Thanks mate!!

Chris.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

Hey Cheers Chris...sorry for getting a little nutty here :freak:...you know January and all...:drunk:
...but seriously a good kit of the Grim Reaper might not be a bad idea, just look at Auroras' Forgotten Prisoner, it still sells out today...Skeletons are cool:thumbsup:
...or Tiger Woods holding his 9-iron...sounds like that might be Public Domain
OK...I'm outta here!...(ducks and runs...)
Mcdee


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Cleopatra and her asp!


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

It's an aussie thing but I reckon a well posed Ned Kelly in full armour with pistols at the ready standing in the door of the Glenrowan pub would be a cool kit. Iconic here but not so much OS I guess...


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

I'm loving the Scrooge and Ghost of Christmas Future idea. Someone needs to to that. Famous characters from the Bible would be cool. Moses holding the 10 commandments (Heston or generic, both would be cool), John the Baptist, etc... would all make interesting character studies for sure. There was a David and Goliath kit from Modeler's Resource a few years back but I thought the sculpt was a bit 'static' looking (no offense intended).


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Public domain can also include some otherwise copyrighted material. For example, Universal Studios failed to renew the copyrights for four of their Sherlock Holmes films that starred Basil Rathbone. So, although you couldn't do a scene from, say, _The Scarlet Claw_ (1944) it would be alright to model Rathbone as he appeared in _The Woman in Green_ (1945).

Likewise, the copyright has lapsed for the George Reeves public service message, _Stamp Day for Superman_ (1953). In it, he does a bunch of super stuff that could be used as the basis for a kit. As far as I know it would be perfectly legal - and devoutly to be wished - for these subjects to appear as model kits.


----------



## ark undertaker (Jul 2, 2009)

Not sure if it meets the "public domain" tests or not, but a styrene, resin, or vinyl kit of Elvis in one of his 70's jumpsuits would be cool


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Well, as for the Canadian Mounties, these could also come out in 1/72nd scale and 1/35th. 

Chris jokes about "Dudly Do-right", and that's ok...to coin a Monty Python saying....but there's also the Mountie in Due South, a CBC show about a US/Canada border town and two cops, one US and one a Mountie, that was a big hit in both countries. 

There's also a Mountie in The Muppet Movie on a horse when Kermit and Fozzie are singing "Moving Right Along" and Fozzie says "Send someone to fetch us, were in Saskatchewan!"

I could go on about Mountie apperances in movies, stamps, books, TV and songs, but the fact remains that the Mounties are a Canadian Pop Culture icon, standing in their stetson hats and red shirts. They are so connected with Canada that just the mere mention of Mounted Police brings forth images of Canada right away. Fact is that there are no model kits of them anywhere. the best you might find is a porcelin or wood carved one in an airport giftshop or simular. From an "Aurora models" point of view, it's an untapped market. I'm sure a few of the 33,900,000 Canadians would buy at least one of these kits. 

Let's face it, a red shirt mountie is right up there iconically with his other blue shirted Canadian brother, SUPERMAN.

As for Romanian figures, I know that there are Romanians and Dacians in 1/72nd built by HAT and people buy those for dioramas and war games. Also, there are Romanian airplanes and tank models from WWII. I know I bought all of these right here in Canada, and most were made in the good ol' U.S.A., so someone there MUST know of the Romanian history, or they are taking a gamble in producing these. Thing is, the gamble is paying off. 

Also, Sideshow Collectibles produced a large scale Vlad III action figure a few years ago and it sold out almost immedeatly. If I had the $$$ at the time, I would have bought one, but sadly I didn't. 

So there's some examples of Romanina things that are out on the market. I'm just expanding it a little. 

Besides, the best way to get people to know the histiory of any historical figure as a model kit is to simply PRINT IT ON THE BOX!


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so the opinions below are based on my efforts to seek out this information over a period of years.

I think there's a bit of a misconception going here, because even though many things are in public domain, not EVERYTHING about those things is in public domain. For example, I was wondering whether it would be possible to legally produce and market a model kit of Vincent Price as Robert Morgan from _The Last Man on Earth_. The movie is in the public domain. However, the estate of Vincent Price still controls any use of his likeness, so it would be within its rights to take action against you if you for using his image.

I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn because plenty of people are using Price's image to sell videos of the movie, but I believe any original product can be subject to licensing if an estate or a living performer is involved.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

How about 
PRINCE OF SPACE- KRANKOR
MANOS- HANDS OF FATE?!


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

@ Todd P - 

I think you're right. As long as someone owns the rights to something, there is "Permissions" involved. 

This sort of thing has been a problem in certian areas liek the following : 

Frankenstein - 

Marry Shelly book in the Public Domain, but doing Frankenstein in the likeness of Boris Karloff falls into two grey areas, mainly, it's Universal studio's make-up, but the likness of Karloff is property of the Karloff estate. Therefore, making a model of Frankenstein in the Karloff likeness needs special permission from those involved.

Whereas making fictionional figures, like Grim Reaper or Satan, that no one really owns a liscence to, or possibly making Frankenstein with the likeness and make-up of no one, falls back into "Public Domanin", at which point the designer of the "New" look, can then copyright the new item and become the sole owner of that new property.

I'm not a lawyer either, but this is just what I gleen from by reading other simular posts. 

Also, certian things need @ 50 years before they fall out of copyright and fall into Public Domanin unless someone renues that copyright. This is why historical figures are not a problem to produce because no one will come after you on it. Current historical figures might be a different matter though, like making a kit of Obama, for example. 

Also, there is a chance that making a model of a historical person from another country might be ok since that country might not ever know about it. It's a bit "Under the table", but I doubt some "Interpool" will come after you for making a kit of Napoleon in the US, for example.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Here is a good description of rights as they relate to Universal horror characters...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugosi_v._Universal_Pictures


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

RSN said:


> Actually, a kit of Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount would be great. And I am serious!


Just funning with ya.I`m an artist & most artists I know have a Jesus painting on their to do list including myself.I guess all us artist think a like.I remember a few years back some experts had an artist render a painting of what Christ would actually look like,not that same cookie cutter pic we are all use to seeing.It looked like John Belushi after one of his crazy binges. lol Not sure where they got their data from.
Edison Frankenstein mite be interesting in styrene.:dude:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

tylerh said:


> I dont know if Lon Chaney is public domain, but a kit of Chaney in front of a mirror putting on a facial appliance would be awesome I think! Cool extras to the kit could be some of his "used" props like a hunchback hunch and phantom mask.. Maybe London after midnight hat, etc..


There is a couple.I know The Phantom & Hunchback are 2 of them.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

MCR,

How can you have overlooked the most famousest Mountie of them all? _Sergeant Preston of the Yukon!! _He could be posed on his horse, Rex, accompanied by his faithful dog, Yukon King.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

I think The Golem is another goodie.I`m completey baffled why no one has jumped all over Vlad the Impaler.Rasputin maybe.All the L.Frank Baum Oz books are public domain.If anyone has read the books there`s some beyond interesting characters in those.There`s even a character who is made of all the Tin Man`s ex-human body parts that have been sewn together.I`d pass on the invisible Bears though. lol If they are invisible,then how does anyone know they are bears? lol :tongue:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Bizzarobrain - Edison's Frankenstein has also been done.

I'm interested in knowing what PD charactur you had in mind.



Mark Mc Gee said:


> Sergeant Preston of the Yukon!! He could be posed on his horse, Rex, accompanied by his faithful dog, Yukon King.


Well, there's another one! See, you guys know all about the Mounties...even some I forgot!


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

MadCap Romanian said:


> @ Todd P -
> 
> I think you're right. As long as someone owns the rights to something, there is "Permissions" involved.
> 
> ...


Edison Franky is up for grabs.That I know.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

*Public Domain Forum*

This is an excellent forum for asking questions about anything Public Domain.Film,music,books,everything!! They give pretty fairly quick responses as well,So if your thinking about casting & selling your own kits,you really should check this out. 

http://www.archive.org/index.php


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

djnick66 said:


> Here is a good description of rights as they relate to Universal horror characters...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugosi_v._Universal_Pictures


Here`s a Lugosi mystery & I could just kick myself for forgetting to ask Jr. when I met him this question.We were too busy chatting about Burton`s Ed Wood film.When Aurora did the Dracula kit Universal did not have the licensing to Lugosi`s likeness.So they did the generic thing with the kit.Then why was Aurora allowed to get away with using his likeness with Bama`s box art? Or did they get taken to court over it & settle? Anyone know the answer? I`m not a lawyer but you think Universal would have to ok it first.Then who is at fault?:freak:
I know there was a flap about using Quinn`s likeness.Why wouldn`t they have just used Chaney`s Hunchback? This is just my opinion but it appears that Bama used James Cagney`s Phantom for reference for the Phantom kit art from the film Man of a Thousand Faces. Is that a breach? Any lawyers out there? lol


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

scotpens said:


> There've been kits of characters from folklore and mythology like Hercules and Sinbad, but I don't believe there's ever been a line of kits of the classical Greek Olympian gods.
> 
> http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/
> 
> Seems the subject would have been a natural for Aurora back in the day. Of course, the sculptors would have had to come up with more interesting and dynamic poses than those boring old statues.


I think what scared them off was because their historical kits bombed.Most of the builders then were kids.Now those kids are us & we want them. lol


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

razorwyre1 said:


> chaney's image is controlled by his family. and as MCR points out, its been done. do a search for the "man of a thousand faces" kit. its one of the greatest GKs ever produced.
> anyway, "public domain" covers way too much territory to just pick one character. consider the number of historical, fictional, and legendary characters there are out there. i think all of us could come up with a dozen good suggestions from each of those categories.
> bizarrobrian, can you narrow your criteria a little?


I guess I was referring to film characters but got blinded by the son of God.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

mcdougall said:


> Not a bad IDEA Chris...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eRXyQn55hM&feature=related
> You never know...
> Mcdee


Beany & Cecil would be on my work bench if they were available.Not Public Domain though.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

*Let`s stick to film characters for now.*

Or this will be a giant thread.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

bizzarobrian said:


> ...When Aurora did the Dracula kit Universal did not have the licensing to Lugosi`s likeness.So they did the generic thing with the kit.Then why was Aurora allowed to get away with using his likeness with Bama`s box art?...


Actually, when Aurora first issued the monster kits, the Karloff, Lugosi, and Chaney estates had not yet won the right rights to license their forebears' likenesses - Universal owned them all. The original Dracula face is not the spittin' image of Bela Lugosi, any more than the Frankenstein head was a speaking likeness of Boris Karloff. Still, it's clear to me who the kits faces were supposed to represent.

Just as Bill lemon worked from stills taken from the Universal horror films to carve the masters for the kits, so James Bama based his box art paintings on the same material. If you look at original issue boxes and instructions, you'll find no mention of the actors' estates anywhere. As I recall, the licensing notices first appeared on those lovely 1999 Revell long box reissues.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Favorites so far:
Robin Hood
King Arthur

Historically accurate garb is essential IMHO, though. King Arthur in full 16th century plate armor would be ridiculous.

How about (historically accurate) companion kits of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin?


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

MadCap Romanian said:


> Chris jokes about "Dudly Do-right", and that's ok...to coin a Monty Python saying....but there's also the Mountie in Due South, a CBC show about a US/Canada border town and two cops, one US and one a Mountie, that was a big hit in both countries.


I remember that show, Trevor! I loved it! 
"Well, that's just silly, Ray."


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

bizzarobrian said:


> There is a couple.I know The Phantom & Hunchback are 2 of them.


the likenesses of those two chaney characters are trademarks of universal studios. they are not PD. (theres a big difference between copyright and TM. most character likenesses who's ownership has been formally filed with the government are TM, which provides much stronger and longer lasting protection.)



bizzarobrian said:


> Here`s a Lugosi mystery & I could just kick myself for forgetting to ask Jr. when I met him this question.We were too busy chatting about Burton`s Ed Wood film.When Aurora did the Dracula kit Universal did not have the licensing to Lugosi`s likeness.So they did the generic thing with the kit.Then why was Aurora allowed to get away with using his likeness with Bama`s box art? Or did they get taken to court over it & settle? Anyone know the answer? I`m not a lawyer but you think Universal would have to ok it first.Then who is at fault?
> I know there was a flap about using Quinn`s likeness.Why wouldn`t they have just used Chaney`s Hunchback? This is just my opinion but it appears that Bama used James Cagney`s Phantom for reference for the Phantom kit art from the film Man of a Thousand Faces. Is that a breach? Any lawyers out there? lol


im not a lawyer, i just play one on internet model building forums.

about the universal/lugosi thing, it was actually bela jr who opened the door to actors reclaiming their rights to their likenesses for marketing purposes. IIRC, when the aurora kits came out, it was presumed that the studio had the rights to use the actors' images under the same standard contract clause that permits studios to use them on advertising and promotion for the films. also, back in the 30s and 40s, nobody could foresee the ways in which these films would be exploited in the decades to come (tv, home video, and merchandising), so those things simply wernt mentioned in the actors contracts. one day in the early 60s bela jr. is in a store, sees the box art for the aurora dracula kit, and says "that isnt dracula, thats dad!", and promptly takes universal to court over it. he won, universal appealed, universal won, he appealed, etc. etc.. the decision bounced back and forth in the courts for a couple of decades until another case, 'shatner and nimoy vs. paramount' (over action figures) finally nailed down the rights actors have and where the border between the the character and the actor lies. 

as to the phantom, both the aurora kit the and box art are jimmy cagney's "man of 1000 faces" version of the character, not chaney. that version was probably chosen for 2 reasons: it was universals most recent version of the character, and, as it was a fully prosthetic makeup, there was very little of cagney's face exposed in it, making the issue of likeness irrelevant. (i think the lugosi case was already started by the time the phantom kit came out, and universal and aurora may have been playing it safe.)
for the actors, its probably a very good thing that it was lugosi that brought this up, because had it have been the chaney estate, they'd have probably lost.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Theres already a nice kit of Richard the Lionheart in Crusader garb... along with a pretty cool rendition of Eduard, the Black Prince in full armor with great helm.

There is a lot of stuff today, in 2010 that is surprisingly legally protected. I know many law enforment agencies dont allow reproduction of their uniforms or badges and patrol car markings. Im not sure if that applies to the RCMP. Some countries now have protected their national insignia for aircraft, etc. I believe Australia and the UK do this now, so if you want to make a model of even an Australian military jet, you have to pay the government to use the Kiwi emblems.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> Actually, when Aurora first issued the monster kits, the Karloff, Lugosi, and Chaney estates had not yet won the right rights to license their forebears' likenesses - Universal owned them all. The original Dracula face is not the spittin' image of Bela Lugosi, any more than the Frankenstein head was a speaking likeness of Boris Karloff. Still, it's clear to me who the kits faces were supposed to represent.
> 
> Just as Bill lemon worked from stills taken from the Universal horror films to carve the masters for the kits, so James Bama based his box art paintings on the same material. If you look at original issue boxes and instructions, you'll find no mention of the actors' estates anywhere. As I recall, the licensing notices first appeared on those lovely 1999 Revell long box reissues.


The Bama Dracula art is pretty darn close where the Franky is not.Thanks for that answer.It now makes sense.


----------



## mrmurph (Nov 21, 2007)

There are so many great characters to choose from.

My vote still is for a Dorian Gray kit - and morbid monster has a cool what-if box I may snag someday.

I also think a basic traditional zombie kit would be fun, something on the order of Carrefour from "I Walked With a Zombie," or one of the minions from "White Zombie." those folks were creepy without any added gore, decay, or protruding bones. 

And I do like the idea of a Scrooge with the figure of Christmas Future. 

Ahhhhh. Dream on.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Santa Clause.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

bizzarobrian said:


> The Bama Dracula art is pretty darn close where the Franky is not...


This will be old news for some of the guys, but back when Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man were first issued, consumers complained that the box art didn't reflect the models very accurately. That was because Bill lemon and James Bama were working independently of each other, the one sculpting the masters for the models and the other painting the box illustrations. Starting with the Mummy, Bama worked from photos of the finished models as well as movie stills, so the box covers better resembled the models.

Once in a while he still had to depart from the kit pose, when it didn't fit the proportions of the long box. This happened with The Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Phantom of the Opera. But who cared - those paintings were gorgeous!


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Auroranut said:


> Seriously (?) though, one kit that Denis has reminded me of that hasn't been done and is public domain is the Grim Reaper. Seeing as how we're mainly monster or figure modelers, I can't see how a kit of this mythological figure could fail!!
> I think a well done Auroraesque kit of the Grim Reaper would be a BIG hit!!
> Maybe standing amongst some old tombstones or in front of a crypt....
> 
> Chris.



First thing that crossed my mind when I saw this thread.
Would love to see a full figure reaper, on a graveyard base done in styrene.

Maybe in a couple years when Monarch finally gets things rolling they will think about tackling something like that.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

djnick66 said:


> . . . Some countries now have protected their national insignia for aircraft, etc. I believe Australia and the UK do this now, so if you want to make a model of even an Australian military jet, you have to pay the government to use the Kiwi emblems.


That's a 'roo, not a bloody kiwi!










A Kiwi is a New Zealander -- or a kind of fruit. :tongue:


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Yup thats right. My mistake. Not that I make Australian or NZ planes (obviously)


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

razorwyre1 said:


> the likenesses of those two chaney characters are trademarks of universal studios. they are not PD. (theres a big difference between copyright and TM. most character likenesses who's ownership has been formally filed with the government are TM, which provides much stronger and longer lasting protection.)
> 
> 
> im not a lawyer, i just play one on internet model building forums.
> ...


I`m glad Jr. stood up.Why should Universal cash in on someone who was responsible for his drug problem in the first place & then turning their backs on him.They were the ones pumping him with painkillers so he could keep working through a movie without looking out for his health instead.MGM treated Judy Garland the same way.Out of work with a drug addiction.Universal did nothing to help a great man who made them lots of money.He wasn`t even considered right away for A & C meet Frankenstein.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

razorwyre1 said:


> chaney's image is controlled by his family. and as MCR points out, its been done. do a search for the "man of a thousand faces" kit. its one of the greatest GKs ever produced.
> anyway, "public domain" covers way too much territory to just pick one character. consider the number of historical, fictional, and legendary characters there are out there. i think all of us could come up with a dozen good suggestions from each of those categories.
> bizarrobrian, can you narrow your criteria a little?


I tried to switch it back to movies but everyone is drifting away. lol


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

mcdougall said:


> Hey Cheers Chris...sorry for getting a little nutty here :freak:...you know January and all...:drunk:
> ...but seriously a good kit of the Grim Reaper might not be a bad idea, just look at Auroras' Forgotten Prisoner, it still sells out today...Skeletons are cool:thumbsup:
> ...or Tiger Woods holding his 9-iron...sounds like that might be Public Domain
> OK...I'm outta here!...(ducks and runs...)
> Mcdee


Wouldn`t that just be another skeleton kit though?


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

MadCap Romanian said:


> Bizzarobrain - Edison's Frankenstein has also been done.
> 
> I'm interested in knowing what PD charactur you had in mind.
> 
> ...


But Karloff`s Franky hasn`t?


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

bizzarobrian said:


> I think The Golem is another goodie.I`m completey baffled why no one has jumped all over Vlad the Impaler.Rasputin maybe.All the L.Frank Baum Oz books are public domain.If anyone has read the books there`s some beyond interesting characters in those.There`s even a character who is made of all the Tin Man`s ex-human body parts that have been sewn together.I`d pass on the invisible Bears though. lol If they are invisible,then how does anyone know they are bears? lol :tongue:


Cabinet of Dr.Caligari is another PD.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

MadCap Romanian said:


> Santa Clause.


There`s no such thing as Sanity Clause.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> This will be old news for some of the guys, but back when Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man were first issued, consumers complained that the box art didn't reflect the models very accurately. That was because Bill lemon and James Bama were working independently of each other, the one sculpting the masters for the models and the other painting the box illustrations. Starting with the Mummy, Bama worked from photos of the finished models as well as movie stills, so the box covers better resembled the models.
> 
> Once in a while he still had to depart from the kit pose, when it didn't fit the proportions of the long box. This happened with The Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Phantom of the Opera. But who cared - those paintings were gorgeous!


No one is complaining about the art or shouldn`t be.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

mcdougall said:


> I've always thought that Ebenezer Scrooge cowering at Deaths skeletel feet (as the Grim Reaper points to his tombstone) would be a cool kit...But...
> I really believe this John P. kit would outsell them all...
> Coming soon: _John P the Barbarian!_
> 
> ...


I stand by my earlier post:wave:
Mcdee


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Id love to see a kit of the Knights of the round table...a diorama of them all at the round table I think would be great:thumbsup:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Zathros said:


> Id love to see a kit of the Knights of the round table...


As long as it isn't silly!


----------



## DarthForge (Feb 5, 2009)

Capt. Nemo (not Disney) in diving suit on a sea floor base sporting a trident.
True "Starship Troopers" battle suit.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

I would love to see new nature series like the old Aurora Kits. New anatomically correct Dogs,Cats, wild animals ext. New Dinosaurs would be great as well. I know..not profitable..will never happen!

Would you have to pay a royalty for making a Killer Whale kit if it looks to much like the one from the movie Orca? Lol! Or A kit of a Great White Shark if it was sculpted by an infamous "in house sculptor" from China that could'nt get the likeness and made it look to much like Bruce the rubber Shark from Jaws? Lol!


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Zathros said:


> Id love to see a kit of the Knights of the round table...a diorama of them all at the round table I think would be great:thumbsup:


Kool!


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

HabuHunter32 said:


> I would love to see new nature series like the old Aurora Kits. New anatomically correct Dogs,Cats, wild animals ext. New Dinosaurs would be great as well. I know..not profitable..will never happen!
> 
> Would you have to pay a royalty for making a Killer Whale kit if it looks to much like the one from the movie Orca? Lol! Or A kit of a Great White Shark if it was sculpted by an infamous "in house sculptor" from China that could'nt get the likeness and made it look to much like Bruce the rubber Shark from Jaws? Lol!


Great idea but better for a collector if they were cryptozoolgy critters like Bigfoot,Jersey Devil,Lochness Monster etc. including extinct species.Mega Mouth Shark,DoDo bird & more.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Not sure if it`s PD but Majin would make an awesome kit.


----------



## Daikaiju1 (Apr 26, 2005)

scotpens said:


> As long as it isn't silly!


What if they im-person-ate Clark Gable?!


We love our time in Camelot.. I have to push the pramalotttt!!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Daimajin is probably protected. I think hes a Toei or Toho etc. property. Especially since all the Daimajin movies are available on new "official" DVD's.

Although there are a number of nice Daimajin models anyway. A plastic one would be tiny and not so interesting. I have the Paradise vinyl kit in 1/35 scale, which is a good 18-20 inches tall, so you can use him with all the Aoshima and Tamiya 1/35 Samurai knight figures.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

scotpens said:


> That's a 'roo, not a bloody kiwi!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stupid story from work - years ago we were doing a proposal for an electronic system for the Australian Air Force. I designed a cover that included a photo of an Aussie F-111, plus the above insignia as a large, faded background element.

The international marketing manager asked me why I put a picture of a rat on the cover, and I'd better take it off and stop kidding around.

The international. Marketing. Manager. of a major aerospace contractor.

Geez.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

AHhh, sounds like the Peter Principle in action here ??:freak:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Well, maybe McDougall's polls will help?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Scotpens,

All I see is this:



Is it supposed to be this?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The picture is up again now.

Well, I won't try linking to any pictures from THAT site again.


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

I would love to see bluesman Robert Johnson or writer Jack Kerouac. I don't know if Jack is pd or not but Robert should be.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

goodtexan said:


> I would love to see bluesman Robert Johnson or writer Jack Kerouac. I don't know if Jack is pd or not but Robert should be.


probably the other way around. RJ is a performer, so his appearance is part of what he's "selling", and therefore he'd have an unwritten TM on it. on the other hand. JK is an author and public figure, so he'd be fair game.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Monarch asked for PD suggestions on their Facebook page a while ago. They liked my suggestion of a generic zombie or two.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

John P said:


> Monarch asked for PD suggestions on their Facebook page a while ago. They liked my suggestion of a generic zombie or two.


They were liking that idea & alot of people suggested that to pass on.I mentioned to Scott that there is one zombie in Night of the Living Dead that is popular with fans & it is PD.Zombies are always a treat to paint.They are not PD but a couple he seemed interested in maybe down the road are Robot Monster & The Incredible Melting Man.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

goodtexan said:


> I would love to see bluesman Robert Johnson or writer Jack Kerouac. I don't know if Jack is pd or not but Robert should be.


 
Ok. Now we're getting seriously esoteric. As long as we're going on that road (get it?) then you've _got_ to include Neal Cassidy! I'm thinking Kerouac at his typewriter feverishly pounding out his famous novel on that 100 ft roll of teletype paper while Cassidy sits beside him, imbibing something illegal and with an illegal babe on his knee. They could be sold separately and displayed together like the Aurora Man From U.N.C.L.E. kits! :thumbsup:


----------



## diamondj (Nov 16, 2009)

Maybe Baron Samedi? Preferably plucking a human heart out of someone's chest (the "heart" could be red transparent plastic with a pulsing LED inside):










Or maybe Kali in full battle mode ready to take on Sinbad:


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

bizzarobrian said:


> there is one zombie in Night of the Living Dead that is popular with fans & it is PD.


no, it isnt pd. its bill heinzman's face, and although some prints of NOTLD are PD, image ten has reclaimed control of the title. (a company i co-owned had a NOTLD license in the early 90s, so this one ive got first hand info on.)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

There is a LOT of literature out there that is a rich source of PD material.

I've posted it before a lot of times but here it is again: 

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson based on the drawings in _The Strand_ magazine:










Yes, there is lots of action and adventure from which to draw:











Of course, if it can be arranged with the estate of Mr. Brett & the owners of the series, this might be a great figure model:









However, that would defeat the purpose of economizing, especially when Brett looks so much like the drawings in _The Strand_.

And there is a basis for the stereotypical Holmes from _The Strand_ magazine:










It's just not my personal favorite look for Holmes and not what he usually wore in the original stories.

Don't forget, this is also a great tie-in to the current movie without any claim upon it by the copyright owners of the current movie.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

The Sherlock Holmes character actually isn't PD. When Star Trek, TNG was doing those episodes where Data and Geordi were playing Holmes and Watson on the Holodec, Paramont got into some trouble with the "Holmes people" and they had to stop making those ST Episodes. 

I'm not sure of the details, but I know they got into trouble for it. Look it up on the net.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

MCR,

True enough, and a quick check of the Internet seems to show that the copyrights for the Canon are still in force. However, it would be no infringement of copyright to do a figure kit of two gentlemen in Victorian dress, one wearing a deerstalker cap, fighting on the edge of a precipice. "Holmes and Moriarty dueling at the Reichenbach!", some would cry. "Fisticuffs on a cliff!" I would answer. And be perfectly right to say so.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

You know Mark, a Victorian era man fighting Frankenstein's Monster would be Kool too!


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Jack the Ripper could be interesting.I can tell you one thing.He is not a guy running around the streets wearing a cloak & a top hat.That to me is laughable.Ever try running away wearing a top hat? This guy was crazy but also intelligent.He would never risk leaving behind a clue.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

bizzarobrian said:


> Jack the Ripper could be interesting.I can tell you one thing.He is not a guy running around the streets wearing a cloak & a top hat.That to me is laughable.Ever try running away wearing a top hat? This guy was crazy but also intelligent.He would never risk leaving behind a clue.


there was a great GK of the ripper last year (or the year before).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MadCap Romanian said:


> The Sherlock Holmes character actually isn't PD. When Star Trek, TNG was doing those episodes where Data and Geordi were playing Holmes and Watson on the Holodec, Paramont got into some trouble with the "Holmes people" and they had to stop making those ST Episodes.
> 
> I'm not sure of the details, but I know they got into trouble for it. Look it up on the net.


And how long ago were those episodes made? 

If you're like me, it all seems like it was just yesterday.

However, I think your information is a wee bit out of date now, MCR.

I do stand corrected on my perception of foreign copyright laws, however, I am (coincidentally) correct, if the info linked below is correct, in thinking that the works are, nonetheless, _*now*_ out of copyright in the UK as they have been in the US (with a couple of exceptions noted below) for quite some time:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2001&post=2001-01-18$4

A post dated 2001: 



> . . . [T]he copyrights to the Holmes stories, and Sir Arthur Conan
> Doyle's other work, had expired *in the UK*. Unlike in the US,
> where copyrights to older books are generally tied to the date that copyright
> is secured (usually the date the work is published), copyrights in the UK,
> ...


Any copyright lawyer work for _ST:TNG_ seems to be the result of _ST_ episodes based on works including characters that just happened to still be in copyright here in the US due to the two exceptions noted above that were not printed until the 1920s.

I imagine that there would have also been contracts necessary for their being shown--if they were(?)--in Europe and later in the UK when the works went_ back_ into copyright (bizarre as that is to traditional American sensibilities).

Since now even the works published in the 1920s are out of copyright here in the US, it appears to be a moot point. The Sherlock Holmes stories of Conan A. Doyle are now all out of copyright as are the Strand illustrations leaving a model kit, even if it were to include characters still in copyright when _STTNG_ was on the air, perfectly legal.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Sorry to break it to you. But it appears there is still US copyright proteciton on one of the stories, and that it will be in force for several more years.
http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html

So, since that story is still protected, then the characters within it are also protected.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I think that ST:TNG was from 1989.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Nevertheless, the deerstalker hat, which cannot be copyrighted, has become associated with Sherlock Holmes. So if a figure kit manufacturer wanted to plunk such a cap on a tall, thin, aquiline gentleman and wanted to label it "The Master Detective", that manufacturer could do so with legal impunity. An aftermarketer might come up with a "Sherlock Holmes" nameplate that he'd have to sell fast before the cease and desist order came in.

Sir Arthur's relatives are notorious for being moneygrubbers, but I'm not sure that it would be the publishers as opposed to the estate, if a kit maker wanted to negotiate a license to do an authorized Holmes kit.

O.T. - I just got back from the annual Sherlock Homes Birthday Dinner, which is held by the local scion, the Stormy Petrels of Maumee Bay. Somebody already posted photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/smokefish/SherlockHolmesBirthdayDinner2010?feat=email# (That's me in white tie as Sir Charles Baskerville).


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

the general public doesnt go for the cute euphemism names that we modelers are used to from garage kits. i think the box would need to say "sherlock holmes" in order for the kit to sell, no matter what the kit itself looks like. 

on the other hand, the ripper gives you great latitude as to design, and as a historical figure, it totally PD.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Now there's a great idea for a styrene figure kit!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jack the Ripper!!

Chris.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

I hear a lot about liciensing and I know that different estates and companies have different liciensing and copywrite fees...but is there a ballpark price for any of these?
I guess my question is how much more would it cost to produce a liciensed kit of , lets say a Karloff Frankenstein as opposed to a crappy knock off?...10%?...20%?...30% more?
Because I'd gladly pay $10.00 or $20.00 more per kit if it meant a good likeness and would actually be cheaper than trying to dick around finding aftermarket heads(now even harder since they've gone underground) and accessories or trying to resculpting it yourself...
Anyone have any idea?
Mcdee


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

TAY666 said:


> Sorry to break it to you. But it appears there is still US copyright proteciton on one of the stories, and that it will be in force for several more years.
> http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html


Thank you, sir! :thumbsup: I do stand corrected on that one.

Thanks for the link. It led to this one which shows how the American people got screwed: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/what.html



> The first United States Copyright Act (1790) provided for a term of 14 years, renewable in the 14th year for a second 14-year period. Later the initial term was extended to 28 years, renewable for 14 years, and in 1909 the renewal period, too, was extended to 28 years (for a possible total of 56 years). Beginning around 1962, Congress started extending the renewal term by one year each year, with a view toward the extensions envisioned by the negotiations leading to the 1976 Copyright Act. That Act did, indeed, permanently set the renewal term, for pre-1978 works, at 47 years (giving them a total of 75 years of protection). It also eliminated the renewal requirement altogether for post-1977 works, giving them a single life + 50 year term for individual authors and a flat 75-year term for "corporate authors" (works made for hire). Consequently, the copyright term was effectively extended for old works (pre-1978 works whose copyright was renewed) by a full 19 years as recently as1962. Such works enjoyed, prior to the 1998 extension, 75 years of copyright protection--19 years more than the original authors ever thought they were going to receive. According to a Wall Street Journal article of October 1997, heirs and assignees of creative composers from the 1920's have already enjoyed millions of dollars of extra royalty income as a result of that extension. The 1998 term extension provides these noncreative recipients with another 20 years of such royalties, all paid out of the pockets of the public.


It's gone from an initial period of 28 years (if properly renewed) to now standing at 95 years. 

WHAT A SCAM! At this rate, Congress will keep extending the copyrights until Mickey Mouse remains in copyright forever (not a great loss for the public but definitely indicative of the motives involved). 

This one is also good:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,830856,00.asp

It is also good to read the justifications for the way the copyrights were originally intended--with a very short life. The lapse into public domain was meant to contribute to society at at large by providing building blocks for later works. There has to be a balance, to be sure, but 95 years doesn't make sense, especially considering the history being kept locked up in the process.

It seems that the existence of recorded performances has helped spur a corporate effort since the late 1800s and early 1900s and then, especially since the 1960s (when syndication of television shows and huge libraries were being built up of all sorts of media) to keep the money pouring in. 

The last effort was in the 1990s so it is possible there will be more organized resistance due to the internet next time around.



> So, since that story is still protected, then the characters within it are also protected.


I don't think that general statement is an accurate conclusion. 

If what you said were true, it would be logically impossible for the earlier works to be out of copyright. Also, in such a case, it would also be possible to extend the copyrights by the estate of Doyle by hiring an author to turn out a Sherlock Holmes novel every few years preventing the use of the characters by others without paying a royalty. 

The individual characters and stories that are UNIQUE to that single publication are indeed protected. The established characters that existed before that novel, including Holmes and Watson et. al._* are*_ in the public domain despite their appearances in that work. 

BTW: is Moriarty unique to the_ Casebook_?


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

As I recall, Moriarty was THE main reason why TNG got in trouble. 

Actually, it's coming back to me that it was after the episode where Moriarty was created by Data to be a challenge for Data, and where Moriarty somehow controls the Enterprise from the Holodeck using some 1880's steam lever divices, that the Holmes "Controllers" wrote TNG a "Cease and Desist" order. 

But anyway, I think that these extended copyright and to an extent, current copyright cases are somewhat ubsurd, especially on You-tube. Like PerfesserCoffee says, on one hand it protects the original holder of the property, but on the other, kills the interest in said subject. 

Take, for example, a case involving the recording artist PRINCE. Apparently, someone videotaped their little daughter dancing to one of his songs and put the video on You-tube. 

Now, this could have helped Prince out since someone took a new interest in his older works and posted something into the public domain. However, Prince took this all the wrong way and a few days later, Prince took that person to court and sued. 

So what did Copyright really protect here?


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

mcdougall said:


> I hear a lot about liciensing and I know that different estates and companies have different liciensing and copywrite fees...but is there a ballpark price for any of these?
> I guess my question is how much more would it cost to produce a liciensed kit of , lets say a Karloff Frankenstein as opposed to a crappy knock off?...10%?...20%?...30% more?
> Because I'd gladly pay $10.00 or $20.00 more per kit if it meant a good likeness and would actually be cheaper than trying to dick around finding aftermarket heads(now even harder since they've gone underground) and accessories or trying to resculpting it yourself...
> Anyone have any idea?
> Mcdee


ANYONE???
Mcdee


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MadCap Romanian said:


> So what did Copyright really protect here?


Great points, MCR. 

Copyright greed seems to overcome common sense among some folks.

And I'm all for protecting those who depend on their work to live--vigorously if necessary. 

But once they're dead and their immediate family (widow and children) are taken care of for a while, why should it become a corporate entity in and of itself sucking all the life out of the property? 

If there'd been a 95 year copyright on properties before the 1960s, then half of Dark Shadows would have never been shown.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

mcdougall said:


> I hear a lot about liciensing and I know that different estates and companies have different liciensing and copywrite fees...but is there a ballpark price for any of these?
> I guess my question is how much more would it cost to produce a liciensed kit of , lets say a Karloff Frankenstein as opposed to a crappy knock off?...10%?...20%?...30% more?
> Because I'd gladly pay $10.00 or $20.00 more per kit if it meant a good likeness and would actually be cheaper than trying to dick around finding aftermarket heads(now even harder since they've gone underground) and accessories or trying to resculpting it yourself...
> Anyone have any idea?
> Mcdee


there isnt any set figure for licensing. it all depends on how much the owner of the property thinks its worth. it can vary from a royalty of a certain percent of the distributor price of each copy sold with nothing up front, to thousands (or even millions) in advance against that royalty with guarantee of a certain number of sales. within those parameters there are other variables which also come into play during the negotiations... for example, a licensor might demand far less of a model kit manufacturer than someone like mattel because they know that the model kits numbers wont even come close to the sales on another type of toy. there are other things that affect the cost of the license as well, like the amount of liability coverage that the owner demands that the manufacturer carry on the item, etc. the upshot is that it is entirely case to case, and what a manufacturer pays for one license will have no bearing whatsoever on what they pay for another, so theres no way to say how much the license would add to any given items price.

also, remember that a license is no guarantee of accuracy. the character's owner will steer the item to look like how they want the public to perceive the character, as opposed to the way that character actually looks. i create prototypes of halloween items, and there have been times when i was ordered to change things away from how the characters actually looked in the movies so that they matched the way the owner wanted people to "remember" the character. (there are these things called "style guides" which are the rule book that the owner will give the manufacturer. the style guide dictates everything from the shape of the characters features to the exact shade of every color used on the item.) also it often comes down to the opinion of the individual executive which is in charge of approving the prototype on behalf of the owner.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

Thanks for that information razorwyre1...not as cut and dried as I thought it might be.
Mcdee


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Mark McGovern said:


> Nevertheless, the deerstalker hat, which cannot be copyrighted, has become associated with Sherlock Holmes. So if a figure kit manufacturer wanted to plunk such a cap on a tall, thin, aquiline gentleman and wanted to label it "The Master Detective", that manufacturer could do so with legal impunity. An aftermarketer might come up with a "Sherlock Holmes" nameplate that he'd have to sell fast before the cease and desist order came in.
> 
> Sir Arthur's relatives are notorious for being moneygrubbers, but I'm not sure that it would be the publishers as opposed to the estate, if a kit maker wanted to negotiate a license to do an authorized Holmes kit.
> 
> O.T. - I just got back from the annual Sherlock Homes Birthday Dinner, which is held by the local scion, the Stormy Petrels of Maumee Bay. Somebody already posted photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/smokefish/SherlockHolmesBirthdayDinner2010?feat=email# (That's me in white tie as Sir Charles Baskerville).


Actually, BAsil Rathbone's version of Holmes has burned the Deerstalker into our memory, but The hat is actaully pretty low-brow for the kind of folks Holmes hung around. The top hat was standard for gentlemen on business. Holmes only wore a Deerstalker in 2-3 stories, and usually on the moors etc.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Y3a said:


> Actually, BAsil Rathbone's version of Holmes has burned the Deerstalker into our memory, but The hat is actaully pretty low-brow for the kind of folks Holmes hung around. The top hat was standard for gentlemen on business. Holmes only wore a Deerstalker in 2-3 stories, and usually on the moors etc.


We can thank the producers of the Jeremy Brett series for finally breaking that brain numbing tradition of always presenting him as an inaccurate stereotype from the old movies rather than the (somewhat decrepit) gentleman he actually was as presented in the novelettes. 

One of my favorite indications of his mischievous indolence is Watson's note on Holmes having inscribed "V.R." ("Victoria Regent") on one of the walls of his rooms with bullets fired from his pistol. 

My favorite recurring line from the new series (and I have no idea if there is a real basis for this from the stories) is Jeremy Brett's calling out, "Mrs. HUD-SONNN!" when he needed her to quickly do something for him.


----------

