# Retror***n, What gives?!



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

I read and re-read Resin the Barbarian's blog about Moebius Models and clued in to the fact that a certain GK producer is trying to stop Moebius from bringing us our favorite Dr Jekyll in affordable styrene plastic. Does no one else find it trashy that someone is claiming ownership of Bama's work, or an original Aurora kit, or a public domain story by Robert Louis Stevenson? At this rate, the only future Aurora repops will be $75.00 resin repops.

If you don't know what I am talking about, read the blog again and check it (like I did) against the United States patent and trademark office website, and go to the trademarks search feature, and enter "dr Jekyll as mr hyde". You will find two applications, one from Moebius and one additional applicant. There is an opposition to Moebius's application by the GK producer. 

Trashy really, there is no better description for this.

Sorry Frank, that you have to face this nonsense. I will lend my support the best way a consumer can; with my consumer dollars and this thread.

What say you fellow modelers?

Jeff


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Take this as a question.

If another new model kit company is actively advertising two new releases of their Bloodthirsty Pirate range, what the heck does this mean? 

http://www.retroresin.com/retroresinmodelkits_001.htm (top right corner)

Jim


----------



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

*Frankenstein, phantom, or prisoner*

Well to answer the question, remember that Monogram and PL, repopped Frankie, and Monogram and Cinemodels repopped The Phantom, and Cinemodels and PL repopped the Prisoner. I don't recall there being trademark squabbles. We know in all cases Revell Monogram owned the molds and the production for PL and Cinemodels was carried out by R-M.

But this is something else; RR is claiming based on their application, that they own the image of and the title of Dr Jekyll as Mr Hyde. And would likely aim to stop Moebius from using the Classic Bama painting. You have to read their application. It's crazy.

Does this mean that RR has the Bama painting in their possession, including the copyright? If they do, then yes, by all means I would guess that they can dictate how it is used.

I am not a lawyer but this whole thing smells like trouble for us modelers if it continues. Again all I can do is spend my money in support for the guy bringing us classic plastic at a low low price.

Jeff


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

1:8 scale:

Where are you reading this "copyright infringement application" you're referring to? Can you provide a link?

Thanks


----------



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

*Trademark and copyright fights make Jack a dull boy.*

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4q85tu.2.2


Try that.

As for the blood thirsty pirates, the person who owns the original pattern from which the molds were cast, should have the copyright. As for The A plastics corp versus RR, I am guessing both companies are reverse engineering molds based on original Aurora plastic pieces. Should any of them claim to own it? I doubt it. Could be a great fight, but again what does this mean for us modelers....Trouble. Simple as that.


----------



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

*Ok Trademark searches have time limits*

My attempt to provide a link doesn't seem to work. But you have to look at the trademark website and search dr jekyll as mr hyde
You will see two applications on the go, Moebius and RR. Good reading. 

Again carefully re-read the latest blog entry by our favorite Resin the Barbarian, and it becomes painfully clear that the future of Aurora repops available in plastic at an affordable price, is in jeopardy unless this battle is won by our hero (currently developing a certain 39" submarine) 

Jeff


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Thanks. I see what you mean. RR seems to be claiming copyright over the box art .. at least.


----------



## Gerry-Lynn (Mar 20, 2002)

1:8 scale - Like you said - All we have to do is support the one we want - RR has a poor track record on customer service - Frank at Meobius has a great track record - I know who I'll support no matter who wins.

But. My understanding is the image is in public domin - No one owns it. Aurora's name is owned by Cinemodels - still. That is why "The Other" producer changed it to "A".


Just my Two-Cents...
Gerry-Lynn


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

I also see this under RR's entry:


> *Current Status: An office action suspending further action on the application has been mailed. *



Presumably on his own application.


And this under Frank's:


> *Current Status: An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. *




There's also a PDF you can look at where Frank files a counter-claim stating that he is the "senior user & true owner of the Dr. Jekyl as Mr. Hyde trademark". Page 3 or 4 of the PDF.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

If all of this is true, I would say a boycott may be in order. We need to to what is best for the sustainment of our hobby. But, then again, who in the right mind would buy a resin kit if styrene kits are available? 

I think that there is enough room for more than one company. But, if litigation will tie up future releases, this will be thought of as evil in the minds of hobbiests. Then they are sure to lose. No one wins in war. Look at what happened to the revitalized Famous Monsters of Filmland after they fired Uncle Forry.


----------



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

*Exactly my point Roland*

Yes. If Moebius perceives a legal hassle, even a legal hassle that is won, why would they pursue an Aurora repop? 

We all lose.

Look at all the RR aurora resin repops. I like the idea of inexpensive plastic repops of the Monsters of the Movies, and the Monster Scenes, but will Moebius shy away from this material if there is the threat of bogus legal wranglings. Remember it all costs money and erodes the "bottom line". This is a slim margin at best and there are always greener pastures elsewhere.

It is bad for modelers period. When the manufacturer loses...we, the customers lose. So Roland, I agree with you.

Message to R.R. repop Aurora freely and let others do the same. Protect your original intellectual property. Do not claim Bama's painting as your trademark image. I will use my consumer dollars to vote.


----------



## Moebius (Mar 15, 2007)

Most of this I can't really comment on due to the advice of my attorney, but it is pretty much as you see it there. I am being opposed on the use of something that I honestly feel is public domain. If he has a derivitive copyright, that is fine. We use nothing of his, if he shows what his "derivitive" is. We used a 100% original Aurora kit and boxart, which I don't feel we need to pay anyone for. If James Bama came back to claim it, I would own up to it, even though it was work for hire. But when you check ebay for the number of fridge magnets, keychains, box art lithos and so on, who really can claim ownership? The box has been reproduced for ages, it's public domain in my mind. In attorney fees over this so far, it has cost the fans at least one kit at this point. It will be made up when profits come in on future releases. Sorry about it, but I never saw it coming!


----------



## 1:8 scale (Mar 25, 2006)

*Ta-daaaa*

And there ya go. We have lost a kit over this nonsense from RR. All I can think to do is never spend a buck on RR products, and send a word to RR to let him know. 

Sorry Frank, I hope Moebius does enjoy some healthy profits from your other kits to make up the loss. I hope the kit we did lose was the Dr Doolittle push me pull you. Joke sorry.  

Now I'm really agin it.


Grrrrrr


----------



## iamweasel (Aug 14, 2000)

Usually I buy two of every kit (sometimes more) that I buy. I quess Moebius will fall into the more then two catagory, it won't buy Frank a BMW  but I'll support him in his desire to make great kits for us.


----------



## GlennME (Aug 4, 2001)

I'm not a lawyer either but here goes.

When something is created, it is not copyrighted forever. The copyright has to be renewed.

I would guess that the copyright on the Aurora Monsters and their box art has long expired. However, the Aurora logo and name would still appear to be owned and renewed by someone out there, given that "A Line" decided to change their name.

It's my understanding that when a copyright expires, nobody can just come along and claim ownership of something they didn't create. In the case of RR, I'd bet they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

As a parallel example, there are many movies whose copyright has expired, and numerous companies have released DVDs of those movies.

In the case of styrene kits, the initial cost of manufacturing the molds is the prohibitive factor that stops anyone and everyone from diving in and producing kits from properties with an expired copyright.

Glenn 

.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Why don't we all write to Retro Resin and tell them to take a flying leap off a cliff.What a bunch of losers.


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Why don't we just ignore Retro Resin......
No good point in keeping things stirred up by throwing rocks at him...
If we keep him all stirred up it won't be helping Moebius Models at all....

Dave


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Dave Metzner said:


> Why don't we just ignore Retro Resin......
> No good point in keeping things stirred up by throwing rocks at him...
> If we keep him all stirred up it won't be helping Moebius Models at all....
> 
> Dave


That's sound advice, Dave. There can be nothing positive in heating this up. If you feel Retro Resin is being unfair in this dispute then just silently boycott RR's product. Sending spiteful letters and e-mails will not help this situation.


----------



## Dr. Pretorius (Nov 17, 2000)

Well, none of my money will go to "the GK company that will not be named".

The excommunication scene from the film "Beckett" comes to mind.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

bhaaa, scalywags and neerdowells, I'll just by more of Franks kits, and none from the "others". I never bought anything from RR in the past anywho.....otto


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I've still got @20 of the Monarch kits for sale at Monster Hobbies. I wonder if they are deemed "Illegal" or not?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I'll heed Dave M's advice.

So when I post this, I will be sure to ignore "the dipstick %Y$#$%#$% who cannot be named" :tongue: . However, I do plan to run right over to one of the on-line vendors and order a couple of Fantastic Voyage Voyagers.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Copyrights exist for a specified period of time then expire--usually 75 years or thereabouts. 

If there were a current "owner" to the copyright of the product that Aurora produced, then he could claim infringement on anything substantially or obviously derivative until the copyright expired many years from now.

Trademarks are a different critter. Trademarks can be renewed. As opposed to copyrights which exist at the time of the creation of the item or item design, trademarks must be described and registered first.

I'm no expert so I'm not sure what the rules are on an old trademark. There is a .gov site that explains about this stuff.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

From reading other posts on RR, I don't think my store will be carring their product.


----------



## GlennME (Aug 4, 2001)

> Copyrights exist for a specified period of time then expire--usually 75 years or thereabouts.


 If I remember rightly, the copyright has to be renewed after 28 years. In the case of the Aurora kits, it's most likely the copyright has never been renewed after that first 28 year period. It would definitely be true for models whose molds were lost or destroyed years ago.

In the case of Mr. Hyde, my understanding, from what others on this board have said, is that the kit hasn't been manufactured since 1974, and that the molds no longer exist. That's a period of 33 years, which makes me suspect nobody can stop anyone from retooling that particular kit, because it's unlikely a copyright exists.

Glenn


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Copyright protection was significantly extended in the late 70s and the late 90s. Older copyright law favored quicker moves to public domain. I'm not sure about the exact state of the law when those kits were created, but you might well be right.

Of course, no one can copyright intellectual property that has become public domain (with exceptions - you can copyright your _performance _of Beethoven that you want to sell on CD, but you can't copyright the underlying work.)


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

From what I have seen & read as to written material, (music particularly ), the copyright is " the lifetime of the author plus fifty years". I found this researching my favorite singer/writer who died in 1953.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Gerry-Lynn said:


> RR has a poor track record on customer service - Just my Two-Cents...
> Gerry-Lynn


I dealt with Mean Gene at RR and believe me your right on target when ya said poor track record with customer service!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Dabbler, I think for currently-produced material, it's now life+75 years. In the 50s, life+50 sounds about right.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

it is life + 70. copyrights that existed before 1978 are valid for 67 years, renewable for another 28, for a total of 95 years.
the law gets weird when major corporations are involved. the sculpture and box art of the hyde kit were originally copyright to aurora , but the character likeness is another matter....that belongs to universal, and are probably trademarked. nobody can put out this kit legally without getting a license from universal first. while the character hyde himself is in public domain, that particular likeness of him is not. (i think we are seeing the shadowy area of rights that pervades the entire g.k. hobby coming back to bite us in the behind.)
as to the sculpture, whoever bought the molds from aurora is probably the copyright owner. if no one did, than whoever owns the assets left when aurora folded is the owner. 
in any case my support is behind mobius in this mater. i dont think frank would be so foolish as to drop all the $ into producing it (far more than any resin version would cost to manufacture) without checking it out first.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

It's like all of a sudden, everyone wants to reproduce the old Aurora kits at the same time. Polar Lights had a good thing going for themselves when they were the only players in the game. Why did PL give up?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Roland said:


> It's like all of a sudden, everyone wants to reproduce the old Aurora kits at the same time. Polar Lights had a good thing going for themselves when they were the only players in the game. Why did PL give up?


 They produced everything they thought would sell well enough to make a profit, then they ran out of subjects they thought would sell well. :shrug:


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Oh, John, you know as well as any of us it was more than that. (Where's the finger waggle icon?)
PL's parent company (Playing Mantis) was bought by RC2 because Tom Lowe was greedy, of course!  
But I gotta admit, it was a whole lot of money!


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

razorwyre1 said:


> it is life + 70. copyrights that existed before 1978 are valid for 67 years, renewable for another 28, for a total of 95 years.
> the law gets weird when major corporations are involved. the sculpture and box art of the hyde kit were originally copyright to aurora , but the character likeness is another matter....that belongs to universal, and are probably trademarked. nobody can put out this kit legally without getting a license from universal first. while the character hyde himself is in public domain, that particular likeness of him is not.


With some kits, yes.
But with this one, I think the likeness is vague enough to not worry about.
Really, which actor does the head look like?
On kits, where the likeness is more "on" then yes, you have to clear things with the rights holder of that likeness.
And the likeness rights are usually held by heirs of the actors.
Example : anyone wanting to do a kit based on a likeness of Boris Karloft needs to clear things with his daughter Sarah.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

TAY666 said:


> And the likeness rights are usually held by heirs of the actors.


That's why the Aurora kits were careful not to look like any particular actor.

The studio's make-up effects are copyrighted as well, but I don't think that's close enough to anyone's work, either. I would wager that the only copyright would belong to whoever holds the rights to produce the kit which may or may not accompany the molds. 

If rights to the kit have lapsed into public domain due to no rightful "heir" having claimed it, then the ownership of the original molds is irrelevant. Anyone, anywhere, may make copies of it in that case.

The original artist would probably not have the copyright due to it having been, certainly, a "job for hire" where the copyrights, unless stated otherwise in a contract, belong to the entity hiring the person to do the job.

I wonder about the copyrights to pictures claimed by some photographers in the studio where they were made. If the picture is being taken at the behest of the customer, the customer owns the copyright after paying the photographer. He may then reproduce it at will, I would think.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Is this about the Lubliner Seaview?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I wonder about the copyrights to pictures claimed by some photographers in the studio where they were made. If the picture is being taken at the behest of the customer, the customer owns the copyright after paying the photographer. He may then reproduce it at will, I would think.


That depends entirely on the contract involved. The copyright can be retained or sold.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I wonder about the copyrights to pictures claimed by some photographers in the studio where they were made. If the picture is being taken at the behest of the customer, the customer owns the copyright after paying the photographer. He may then reproduce it at will, I would think.


In that situation, the client would own the image only if the photographer signed a "work for hire" agreement. But owning the image means various things ... the photographer may own the image but he could not use it in advertising without a model release, for example. My interpretation is that ownership prevents use by others, but does not guarantee unlimited use by the owner. Sheesh. But I've been out of the photo biz for a while.


----------



## Drag Monster (Oct 15, 2003)

I see that RR is doing a reissue of one of the "pirates of the Carribean" kits.I wonder if they obtained license from Disney? I'm sure they own the copyrights to that name.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

Who is RR? Does this stand for Rail Road company or Recasted Resin? In either case, I never heard of them. It looks like there are only two companies to buy kits from: Moebius and Monarch. 

Hint: I just shifted into the "ignore RR mode" .


----------



## Gerry-Lynn (Mar 20, 2002)

Roland - RR is Retro Resin - Gene does good work - I've bought from him before. But. His customer service is very weak. 

Gerry-Lynn

Ps Roland - Are you going to the Newton Model show near the end of Oct?


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

I get the impression people could care less whether he does good work, at this point. He's upset far too many people.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> In that situation, the client would own the image only if the photographer signed a "work for hire" agreement. But owning the image means various things ... the photographer may own the image but he could not use it in advertising without a model release, for example. My interpretation is that ownership prevents use by others, but does not guarantee unlimited use by the owner. Sheesh. But I've been out of the photo biz for a while.


Okay, that makes sense, I suppose. I think that understanding should be written up and included as an insert for customers to make it clear.

BTW: I plan on doing some specialized photography and think that I'll be doing it as "work for hire" giving all rights to the customer.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

OK, so this all raises a question in my mind about this forum. When I or others post pix in our gallery, especially of our custom-built dios and bases, is there explicit or implied protection of our creations ? Or can a posting or warning be put on the pix ? ( Like not that my 'creations' are so desirable to be stolen ) I know members politely or jokingly ask about duplicating others' ideas, which is one object of the forum, exchanging ideas.


----------



## AFILMDUDE (Nov 27, 2000)

Drag Monster said:


> I see that RR is doing a reissue of one of the "pirates of the Carribean" kits.I wonder if they obtained license from Disney? I'm sure they own the copyrights to that name.


That figures!!!







I've waited for years but finally gave up on anyone ever producing this line of kits and _JUST LAST WEEK!_ snagged a pricey "Dead Man's Raft" off e-bay. 

I was even going to start a thread assuring you all that soon this kit would surely be available again now that I've paid the big bucks. I just didn't expect it this soon!!


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

TAY666 said:


> With some kits, yes.
> But with this one, I think the likeness is vague enough to not worry about.
> Really, which actor does the head look like?
> On kits, where the likeness is more "on" then yes, you have to clear things with the rights holder of that likeness.
> ...


i think the accuracy of the likeness is irrelevant (aurora's wolfman kit is a similar example). its supposed to be a representation of a universal character, approved and authorized by the studio, and thats what counts. as prof. coffee said, the makeups are a trademark of the studio, and the artist that creates the product has to go by what the style guide says at the time the product is created whether its accurate to the appearance of the character in the movie or not. (one time i was working on a licensed wolfman item. for every character universal has the "actor" version, with a specific likeness to a particular actor in the makeup and the "generic" version which is the makeup on an imaginary face. anyway, my pieces were returned for repainting because the tip of wolfman's nose wasn't black. i sent them back photos to prove i was right.. his nose tip isnt black... and was told that the accuracy didnt matter; what the style guide said was law.) 
the upshot is that how closely it matches the character doesnt matter. the fact that universal authorized it as their version of mr. hyde is all that counts. (btw, iirc, the only version of hyde that universal owns is the one from a&c meet j&h. the bama painting is of the march version, and the sculpt seems to be a blend between the two... there are certainly elements of universals hyde to it.)


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

It seems to me that most of the GK companies live alongside the licensed guys and each carves out their respective share and corner of the market.

With respect to the actins of Retroresin, I've always wanted to buy a copy of their Monsters of the Movies Creature kit. However, I think their recent action is in extremely poor form so the chances of me buying any of their stuff while RR maintains its current position are slim and none.

Huzz


----------



## Gerry-Lynn (Mar 20, 2002)

It would be nice to see them work it out - kinda like Monarch and Moebius communicating with each other to gave us Modelers more - NOT Less. Who knows... May be they will - I feel that Frank would - But Not sure about Gene?

Gerry-Lynn


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The fact that his self-serving shenanigans have cost us a model are enough to make him dead to me.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

Gerry-Lynn,

Thanks, I know who RR is. I was just being sarcastic and ignorant of them.

I am relatively new to Kansas, I moved here 4.5 years ago. I have been busy doing alot, once in a while I build a model. Do you have info on the model show in Newton? Do you live in the Wichita area? I haven't run into many figure modellers here. I was building with a group of military modellers at Engine House Hobbies until they moved the business into a smaller building. A nice group of people. 

Thanks,
Roland


----------

