TFARCHIVE FORUMS

Here's to hoping this won't get modded...

Soundwave-link removed for now...

Looks really fantastic. Absolutely marvelous.

EDIT: I'll just remove the link for now and wait for feedback from Nevermore. I'm sure he knows I'm not doing this on purpose.

Originally posted by Knightdramon
Here's to hoping this won't get modded...

You mean this is similar to Primus case? If you're unsure, check with moderator first.

My jaw just dropped 5 feet!

Soundwave looks awsome! now lets just hope that his character has the same voice (if not a similar one) as he had in G1.

Cause i know i'm not the only one when i say i want to hear

"Soundwave superior!...................Inferior!"

Noisemaze is perfect....so what the hell should i think of this?divine???

Wow, GF is getting better every mould.

looks like his chesk opens up. Wonder if his little Hawk buddie fits inside. Maybe they'll make more of them as updated cassettebots. Definitely thumbs up!

The link lead right there, but perhaps you didn't even bother reading my post as to why I had it removed. Anyway, here's hoping it remains and doesn't get modded.

Dear Sweet Jawas!!
That was awesome! Now I just want toy pics of the prototype.

I have to ask.. is the only reason that these pics and the PRimus pics considered 'controversial' is because some the rest of the fandom got some info that some 'fandom elites' had been ciriculating amongst themselves already.

IE, are they claiming a moral highground because the leaks went beyond them this time? I mean, these same people are also not supposed to have leaked information... where do they get off?

That said, GF Soundwave looks great.. he isn't 'the' Soundwave to me, but it's a very nice homage, and a beautiful character design.

Wow looks great.

Discussion is okay for now. POSTING LINKS AND IMAGES IS NOT. The same applies to all other images of the same variety that might pop up at the "usual suspect" sites in the next few days.

Anyone who has a problem with that might PM me.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
I have to ask.. is the only reason that these pics and the PRimus pics considered 'controversial' is because some the rest of the fandom got some info that some 'fandom elites' had been ciriculating amongst themselves already.

Nah. I haven't seen anything that hasn't been publically posted, though I could get in a few cases—when the time at stake is a few days, though, it seems immature and grasping to blow publicity for the sake of a 'scoop' used to pull in ad revenue.

Production art is also a much tighter legal situation than prototype photos, as I understand it. Fair use covering criticism and review on toys is nominative use with regard to trademarks, and derivative / transformative with regard to copyright. Loosely, you don't need permission to review something (even though dubious things may have been happened at some stage of the item coming into possession) but with official materials it's sensible to stick with things that have come down through official channels—magazine scans are already on rather dicey ground, it's just that Japanese magazines don't usually expect to sell to readers outside that market.

Ultimately it's going to come down to staff having final call on what's out of bounds for forum discussion, whether people are happy with that or not. Personally I think it'd be a very bad idea to piss off suits in this instance, and I'm one of those calling the shots.

Nah. I haven't seen anything that hasn't been publically posted, though I could get in a few cases—when the time at stake is a few days, though, it seems immature and grasping to blow publicity for the sake of a 'scoop' used to pull in ad revenue.

The thing that gets me is that the blame is not being put on the actual leaker - the guy who is legally and contractually bound not to leak. The idea seems to be that it's all right for him to leak to 20 or so of his 'closest internet friends', but the moment it's outside that circle, it's the end of the world!

The point is, the leaker shouldn't have leaked to anyone, period. It doesn't matter if, say, Nevermore can keep a secret or not - he shouldn't have been told the secret in the first place.

Production art is also a much tighter legal situation than prototype photos, as I understand it.

That's because an 'outsourced' studio is leaking Hasbro's material. That's a few layers of breach there, and has a tendency to terminate agreements and business relationships. (For perspective for this level, 'leaking' was one of the myriad of reasons that Hasbro was decidedly not happy with 3H, after all.)

Fair use covering criticism and review on toys is nominative use with regard to trademarks, and derivative / transformative with regard to copyright.

A leaked work like this qualifies as news, in a legal sense, so long as there is news context surrounding it. In this case (and in Primus), there was a news context, so there's protection. That's really the problem from Hasbro's standpoint, once it's out - it is out.

Again, there is no stolen 'item' being had here, just a leaked bit of info for a contract breach, and that's where things stand So long as the information given out is in a news context.

Redistributing the image on its own - say, through a handful of friends in distribution - as a product, as was done initially, actually is a violation of copyright, however, since there is no news context of information. It's not 'published'.

In a legal sense, the 'fandom elite' circulating through one another is in much much more hot water than Seibertron or TFormers for having an article about the images, which includes them.

.... realizes he's overly complicating things...

In this case, the 'news item' is the picture itself. Therefore, the picture, as the focus of news, falls into 'fair use' in that context. It can easily be argued that the picture itself is needed to convey the news article, and cannot reasonably be 'down-sampled' (such as a chapter of a book, or a clip from a movie) to carry accross the content.

Of course, as a matter of courtesy, if Gonzo, Hasbro, or Takara don't want the pictures released yet (though it's obviously too late), website owners can simply ask their customer relations departments or their legal departments. But there's no legal grounds for removal of the picture as a news item, from any parties involved.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
guy who is legally and contractually bound not to leak.

Are they? Even in America, NDAs are not automatic.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
It doesn't matter if, say, Nevermore can keep a secret or not - he shouldn't have been told the secret in the first place.

Correct. This does not give license, excuse or moral/ethical grounds to others to further disseminate material.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
once it's out - it is out.

And continues to be unambiguous breach of copyright, with allegeable monetary losses associated—if there are NDAs, prosecution on grounds of publishing a trade secret may be possible.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
In a legal sense, the 'fandom elite' circulating through one another is in much much more hot water than Seibertron or TFormers for having an article about the images

They're not. Possession (which is deniable, in any case) doesn't constitute publishing.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
the picture, as the focus of news, falls into 'fair use' in that context.

Nope. Publishing a painting as news doesn't fall under fair use—you could take a photo of that painting from an interesting angle and call it a transformative derivation, and perhaps skip past requiring permission to take that photo—it would also depend on the circumstances and location in which the photo was taken.

Originally posted by TFVanguard
It can easily be argued that the picture itself is needed to convey the news article, and cannot reasonably be 'down-sampled'

There are a million and one ways to obfuscate digital imagery, and a small crop may indeed fall under fair use. Here, the full work has been reproduced.

It's a shame. I actually like seeing leaked prototypes so that I have something to look forward to/save my money for.

I understand them keeping stuff under wraps, but it'd be nice if every once in a while they said something like "Hey, check out this cool prototype we're working on."

We currently have no problems with images of "leaked" prototypes (even though I prefer not linking the ebay auctions themselves). Hasbro's reluctance regarding those in the past few years is considered by many as a sign of silent approval.

These images are a different matter altogether. We hope the leak will get tracked down soon, and there will be no more problems.

This does not change our news policy altogether. It's a one-time case (well, two instances of the same case so far), which we hope will get taken care of soon.

Originally posted by Decepti-mafia
Cause i know i'm not the only one when i say i want to hear

"Soundwave superior!...................Inferior!"

Jeez. It's,'Soundwave superior, Constructicons inferior'

And this is why I hate copywrite and contractual law. I had to dust off a part of my brain to follow Denyer's conversation. I had always assumed that NDA's were standard in certian fields (theatre for instance, as there's always stuff you "Just don't talk about") - but, looking back over my contract, there's always a basic NDA with in it.

It could be, that for these individuals, they, like me, didn't know it was part of the contract. And that's where things can get very bad for them (Criminal law, honnestly not knowing that something is wrong is one thing. But when you sign a contract, regardless of reading it thuroughly or not, you bound by it). And, if these individuals, weither they are nice guys or not, and weither they are someone's friends or not, did have that clause in their contracts (and hasbro\Takara would be idiots not to - I mean, they have legal departments to cover this stuff) - I hope they get prosocuted to the fulliest extent. Selling this sort of info (or, through your actions, allowed this information to be sold), is a horrible breach.

Originally posted by Brave Maximus
And this is why I hate copywrite and contractual law. I had to dust off a part of my brain to follow Denyer's conversation. I had always assumed that NDA's were standard in certian fields (theatre for instance, as there's always stuff you "Just don't talk about") - but, looking back over my contract, there's always a basic NDA with in it.

It could be, that for these individuals, they, like me, didn't know it was part of the contract. And that's where things can get very bad for them (Criminal law, honnestly not knowing that something is wrong is one thing. But when you sign a contract, regardless of reading it thuroughly or not, you bound by it). And, if these individuals, weither they are nice guys or not, and weither they are someone's friends or not, did have that clause in their contracts (and hasbro\Takara would be idiots not to - I mean, they have legal departments to cover this stuff) - I hope they get prosocuted to the fulliest extent. Selling this sort of info (or, through your actions, allowed this information to be sold), is a horrible breach.

Wowie zowie. That's really complex... hmmm... I suppose you're right too. Cool.