Talk:Third party
Now waaaait a minute: I'm new enough here that I normally wouldn't question an admin (that's what the heart means, right), and it would be nice to have a database for third party products that we don't have to wade through fan sites to find, but is classifying them this way on this wiki really a great idea? That is...you're not TRYING to bring the hammer down by bringing them up on the radar, are you? Not making assumptions, just pointing out a potential consequence.
I'm especially unsure about calling them "knockoffs". It's actually kind of easy to draw the line between KOs and 3rd party: A KO copies some part (at least) of the real deal EXACTLY through reverse molding or a stolen official mold, while 3rd party stuff is entirely original sculpts that look like they're trying to emulate something TF-ish. A "rip-off"? Yes. A knock-off? Well, a lot of people call them that, but does that make it true? People call improperly-colored "test-shots" of action figures "prototypes" all the time, but that doesn't change the fact that a prototype of a toy is strictly a piece that has been sculpted, glued, etc. before the first molds are cast: no amount of term misuse can change that any more than it can make a pterosaur a dinosaur, even if 99% of people don't care about the difference.
If you do consider KO = 3rd Party, then I can't dissuade you, but then where's the line between 3rd party stuff and wholly original fan creations being sold on Ebay? Yeah, I know, "Everyone knows the difference here", but that's just like a judge saying "I know indecency when I see it": not exactly a standard that holds up in law books, or a comprehensive wiki. So how does 3rd party not = custom? 3rd Party stuff is mass produced? Then what about unlicensed garage kits, made in someone's home instead of a factory? Or a fan who casts a mold of their original sculpt in case the first one breaks?
Furthermore, if any toy that "looks like" a particular TF despite not sharing any molding is a Knock-off, then so are the 1984-1985 Select Convertors toys Wheels, Chopper, Zardak, Crawler, and Morphus, because they "look a lot like" Roadbuster, Whirl, Jetfire, Barrage, and Ransack. Yes, they were done from molds legally licensed from Takotoru, the same company that did the bigger toys of the same characters which were licensed by Hasbro, but that effectively got Hasbro into some legal trouble as far as those designs' uses in fiction for almost 20 years, hardly a clear cut case. As far as the effect in stores in the mid-'80s, those Convertors would be knock-offs brazenly sold on the same shelves as TFs, according to the definition on this page. Is any contributor here a lawyer who could explain the difference?
No, I'm not defending actual knock-offs as legal. The only reason they continue to exist seems to be that Has/Tak largely consider them not worth the resources it would take to pursue legally, hence there's been relatively few crackdowns. But I.P. is a tricky enough business that you can't just say something that looks kinda' like something else is a violation.
Or did you get some inside dope from Hasbro attempting an "official" definition of 3rd party toys as KOs?
Sorry I went so long, but this issue needs a LOT of discussion if it's going to be addressed with sufficient consensus on this wiki, right? Bumblevivisector 13:14, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
