Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, no it doesn't. A Balrog is a flamey rocky monster, whereas the Balor is a classic fleshy demon.

Non-infringing.

There are multiple possible interpretations of "a bat-winged demon with a sword of flame", and the differences between the two are why the Balor isn't a Balrog.

Have you even read the books? The Balrog was never described as a "flamey rocky monster"

This rendition of the Balrog came out long after the inception of the Balor.

Also, it's a well known fact that the Balor of dungeons and dragons was originally called a Balrog; but when Tolkein and Co. heard about it they told them to change it. So they took the easy way out and rather than redesigning the creature, they just changed the name to Balor. Does it infringe? No,

You guys seem to think that I am trying to deny that this model is an obvious Predator ripoff. I'm not daft, of course it is. My only point is that 20th Century Fox can't do jack about it because Heresy Miniatures hasn't recognized it as a property of 20th Century Fox.

If they had released this model as "Predator Headtaker" then Fox would have every right to jump all over them because they have rights to the term "Predator".

Yes I've read the books. Similarion, too. However, the point you're oblivious to is that translating a text description into sculpture is pretty much guaranteed to be non-infringing as long as you don't steal the copyrighted name. I can sculpt a million demons and NONE of them will ever infringe Tolkein as long as I refrain from calling any of them a "Balrog".

Now copying one visual design, that's IP infringement. Which is why the Jackson Balrog *must* look different from the D&D Balor.

D&D stealing JRRT's "Balrpg" is clear IP infringement, and a slam dunk for JRRT, so of course DnD changes.

You seem to think that Fox can only sue over named items. That is false. If it is a true knock-off, with no new features (as here), then Fox would easily win. It's why Heresy is cagey about "events outside their control". Heresy knows they're infringing, and will have to shut down as soon as Fox gets word. Personally, I hope Fox sues Heresy for every penny collected.

People have been using the likeness of things from pop culture without consent in everything from miniatures, to TV shows, to comics, etc, etc, etc. Did you see Planet 51? The "dog" in that was obviously modelled after the Alien (hell its name was Ripley), but you didn't see them getting "sued for every penny that film made." I recall there was even an old Looney Toons episode that featured the Alien and Predator.

Going back to D&D, how about these (obviously not D&D) miniatures from Reaper:

The not-Glabrezu

The not-Demogorgon

The not-Beholder

And my personal favorite, the not-Orcus

Believe you me, people have been doing technically illegal cameos and replications of other peoples' IP for years without suffering the dreaded C&D, and to think that one company (especially considering how small scale this one is) is going to get Fox's banhammer from this one case, is incredibly wishful thinking. I will stand by my view that, while their merits are questionable, it's not going to happen. But I suppose you can dream.

Darth Bob wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, no it doesn't. A Balrog is a flamey rocky monster, whereas the Balor is a classic fleshy demon.

See?




Non-infringing.


There are multiple possible interpretations of "a bat-winged demon with a sword of flame", and the differences between the two are why the Balor isn't a Balrog.

This makes me sad. Have you even read the books? The Balrog was never described as a "flamey rocky monster" it was described as a demon of shadow and flame, wielding a flaming whip and sword. The Balrog that Peter Jackson did is not the Balrog that Tolkein described. This rendition of the Balrog came out long after the inception of the Balor.

Really? Do you know that Tolkien was giving a physical description when he describes it as a demon of shadow and flame? Or was he describing it's personality, describing how it was an evil force? Don't pretend to know what an author means by his words, for that is a fallacy. You may have an opinion as to what he is describing, but you cannot go ahead and use that as a fact.

@Bob: Whether or not someone gets a C&D or sued doesn't mean that they didn't infringe.

GundamMerc wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, no it doesn't. A Balrog is a flamey rocky monster, whereas the Balor is a classic fleshy demon.

See?




Non-infringing.


There are multiple possible interpretations of "a bat-winged demon with a sword of flame", and the differences between the two are why the Balor isn't a Balrog.

This makes me sad. Have you even read the books? The Balrog was never described as a "flamey rocky monster" it was described as a demon of shadow and flame, wielding a flaming whip and sword. The Balrog that Peter Jackson did is not the Balrog that Tolkein described. This rendition of the Balrog came out long after the inception of the Balor.

Really? Do you know that Tolkien was giving a physical description when he describes it as a demon of shadow and flame? Or was he describing it's personality, describing how it was an evil force? Don't pretend to know what an author means by his words, for that is a fallacy. You may have an opinion as to what he is describing, but you cannot go ahead and use that as a fact.

Let me make a suggestion: before taking up a hostile, flamboyant, and flaming attitude against a complete stranger, perhaps it would be better to look at the context of what I wrote. JohnHwangDD said that the Balrog was a "flamey rocky monster", I simply brought up the description from the book to show that the original vision of the Balrog was not a "flamey rocky monster". What it was exactly, I can't be positive, and I never claimed to, but apparently it was close enough to the Balor's look that Tolkein felt the need to sue D&D.

Unlike what you seem to think, I told him what the Balrog wasn't described as, not what it was.

Personally, I have always viewed the Balrog as looking similar to the Balor, and I think you'll find that most people who've read the books will take the Balrog as a physical manifestation since Gandalf threw him from the top of Zirakzigal and the Balrog "broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin." To me, only a physical being could break a mountain or be physically fought.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Bob: Whether or not someone gets a C&D or sued doesn't mean that they didn't infringe.

I agree, and I concede to this point.

However, regardless of the fact that he is infringing, thinking that he, out of all the companies that infringe on Fox and other companies' IP, will suffer a lawsuit for this is very much wishful thinking.

Darth Bob wrote:JohnHwangDD said that the Balrog was a "flamey rocky monster",

it was close enough to the Balor's look that Tolkein felt the need to sue D&D.

To clarify, I was describing how the GW model looked, not quoting from JRRT.

No, JRRT sued because DnD used the copyrighted "Balrog" *name* - the appearance was irrelevant.

In the Hersey DnD examples, the issue is that the models are copying the illustrations in the DnD MM, not basing off the DnD text descriptions.

From what I recall the Balrog is hardly described at all. Whether it even has wings is open to interpretation.

There are two pertinent quotes in the book...

"His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."

and later...

"…suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall…"

You can take it either way, but the earlier quote establishes the wings as being figurative of it's shadow of evil, and the later quote is just referencing this when it is seemingly able to control it's shadow. Or possibly it can shapeshift and the wings solidify as from being merely dark shadows.

I'm of the opinion the wings aren't as literal as has been established in films and models, if it can change shape and produce the wings as needed from the darkness, but in caves/mines it wouldn't need them, and its "wings" are largely figurative/ethereal.

The whole 'Balrog wing' argument is a real headache-inducer...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:JohnHwangDD said that the Balrog was a "flamey rocky monster",

it was close enough to the Balor's look that Tolkein felt the need to sue D&D.

To clarify, I was describing how the GW model looked, not quoting from JRRT.

No, JRRT sued because DnD used the copyrighted "Balrog" *name* - the appearance was irrelevant.

In the Hersey DnD examples, the issue is that the models are copying the illustrations in the DnD MM, not basing off the DnD text descriptions.

Those models are not by Heresy. They are by Reaper. And where they drew inspirations from (text or pictures) is completely irrelevant. Inspiration was taken from another company's IP, and is therefore illegal. They're still getting away with using someone's IP without reprocutions, which is the point I was trying to make.

I personally don't care, to be perfectly honest, it's no skin off my nose if Fox loses a couple grand because someone did something they should have done in the first place. To be perfectly honest, I doubt that Fox is that worried about it either. However, for the sake of peace, I'm ending this conversation because it's just meaningless, OT spam that obviously is going to never end because of the different views of two opposing parties. Soooooooooooooooooooooo....back on topic.....

This model made me 0_0 the other day when I found there was something that looked suspiciously like a wang underneath its tummy.

Darth Bob wrote:Inspiration was taken from another company's IP, and is therefore illegal.

Not entirely. 'Inspired by' and 'copied from' are two slightly different issues.

insaniak wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:Inspiration was taken from another company's IP, and is therefore illegal.

Not entirely. 'Inspired by' and 'copied from' are two slightly different issues.

Okay, last comment on this topic then I'm done.

I couldn't think of another word for inspiration, but I guess to reword that comment:

"They copied someone elses IP, and therefore it is illegal."

That is what I meant...

Now I'm done .

Darth Bob wrote:Believe you me, people have been doing technically illegal cameos and replications of other peoples' IP for years without suffering the dreaded C&D, and to think that one company (especially considering how small scale this one is) is going to get Fox's banhammer from this one case, is incredibly wishful thinking. I will stand by my view that, while their merits are questionable, it's not going to happen. But I suppose you can dream.

A very good example here is Andrea Miniatures, who make 54mm models inspired, among other things, by various movies. Their range has not-Robocop, not-Terminator, not-Clint-Eastwood, not-Mad-Max, and so on. The likenesses are extremely faithful.



If the various movie studios could to go after them, I'm certain they would.

Agamemnon2 wrote:If the various movie studios could to go after them, I'm certain they would.

There is no question that the studios *could* do so, but likely that they are unaware.

If it were as easy to report IP violations to Fox as GW, and amply rewarded with "free" movie swag, I'm sure we would see a lot more of this stuff hammered down.

This scuttling deviant from the BOLS Tyrannofex/Tervigon conversion competition.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/S3DY-xpf62I/AAAAAAAAHJg/k94QnQxY2ug/s1600-h/Jason-Hendricks-01.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/S3DZBGb1WPI/AAAAAAAAHJo/IpqOnLJcj70/s1600-h/Jason-Hendricks-02.jpg

I'm assuming this is a one off, and that there isn't an army of beauties similar to this?

BloodofOrks wrote:I have a half-finished lictor on my desk that I painted to look like a ladybug.

nice!

Removed offensive remark calling JohnHwangDD a dick. Please pay attention to Rule #1. - Lorek

However the Mandrakes from GW... Men(?) with girlie boobies. O.o

I was looking through GW's Collecotr's range for WFB and I came across this






































.

I went 0_0 alright. I'm also debating blowing $25 on one just to say I own a badly-painted one.

the model that made me go crazy is that new games-workshop space marine venerable dreadnought.http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat1430057&rootCatGameStyle=

At our last tournament a new chaos marine player showed up. We all admired his awsomely (?) painted and customed slaanesh-nurgle marines. Then the defiler comes out... It's hard to explain so I'll start from the ground up. The legs were typical slaanesh-style defiler legs nurgled up near the "knees" and the sections where it meets the body. The best part was the spikes with the impaled cadians and rotting bodies.

But the upper half... Imagine something along the lines of a fat, bloated, bald person with ultra-sag breasts connected by a fine (and real) gold chain. I can't remember much more detail due to being blinded by its awsome power.

Oh I think one of his tanks had some lady-bits on it too...

Red9 wrote:Removed offensive remark calling JohnHwangDD a dick. Please pay attention to Rule #1. - Lorek

However the Mandrakes from GW... Men(?) with girlie boobies. O.o

I was thinking more of umm... you know ladies that like ladies. (am i allowed to say the l word on this? i sound like a 7 yr old)

and it states on their description on the GW website that "..The Mandrakes have special chameleon-like qualities that allow them to blend into the background even when standing in open terrain.

How does those models look like they have "special chameleon-like qualities" 0_o