Present Toys - 1/6 PT-50 & PT-51 T-800 Terminator (Battle Damaged)

[evenflow]

It looks good but at this point, I'll just wait for an official one. I have not had a Terminator in my collection, so if I never do, I will survive.

 

[EndoSickness]

Did you see their blade that they released alongside this? That likeness is almost perfect. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with how good a sculpt looks, it’s illegal either way

It still looks decent, just not as good as I thought when they posted the production photo. I’ll probably still pick it up eventually since I don’t own the dx13

Not correct, but ok.

 

[xXLEELANDXx]

Not correct, but ok.

It’s pretty widely known that these companies really don’t care about copyright infringement. Have you seen any of Mars toys releases? Their likenesses are always spot on. Better than most. They even knock off old hot toys figures.
Some companies are just better than others. Same as like StarAce vs inart. It’s not about skirting copyright it’s about effort and cutting costs.

 

[shells075]

Hmm, sculpt reminds me a bit of this guy.

 

[JacktheRipper]

Ah, Hot Toys the good ole' days!

 

[DioramaMaker]

Look I ain't gonna defend this as the best sculpt they possibly could have put out.

But it is a lot of folks' only reasonable shot at a 1/6 T2 Arnie, something I've long wanted for the collection as the HT one preceded my time in the hobby. For that I'm grateful. But I wonder if a little paintwork could accentuate the right Arnie features and improve the likeness.

Plus, when InArt finally produces their masterpiece version, you can probably cannibalize this into something pretty cool. I am thinking a mid-molten steel bath setup.

 

[Wor-Gar]

View attachment 684970

That is rough...

 

[BoricuaHec01]

Arnie with the high top fade!

 

[Kaldas]

I like it. It's not perfect but the best what can we buy right know for a good price. I hope T-1000 will be also good enough for me (like this one) becasue the previous release "non battle damaged" was realy bad.

 

[EndoSickness]

It’s pretty widely known that these companies really don’t care about copyright infringement. Have you seen any of Mars toys releases? Their likenesses are always spot on. Better than most. They even knock off old hot toys figures.
Some companies are just better than others. Same as like StarAce vs inart. It’s not about skirting copyright it’s about effort and cutting costs.

Still wrong and that's ok. You do you.
Just sayin that 3rd party is VERY fresh in 1/6 and Masters Of The Universe too.
Not so in Transformers and we've been dealing with this stuff for over 20 years.
I even had it confirmed to me by a guy who works for Hasbro.
You cannot put a copyright on a form, like a shape, except for actors who license their face, like Schwarzenegger, or as in TF:
actual characteristics that make out the bots and cons that you love.
Switch it up slightly, rotate some indentations here, flatten the lip there and don't call it like anything you 100% see on this product and you're golden.

But sure, tell me where the bear s**** in the buckwheat.

 

[agonistes86]

Still wrong and that's ok. You do you.
Just sayin that 3rd party is VERY fresh in 1/6 and Masters Of The Universe too.
Not so in Transformers and we've been dealing with this stuff for over 20 years.
I even had it confirmed to me by a guy who works for Hasbro.
You cannot put a copyright on a form, like a shape, except for actors who license their face, like Schwarzenegger, or as in TF:
actual characteristics that make out the bots and cons that you love.
Switch it up slightly, rotate some indentations here, flatten the lip there and don't call it like anything you 100% see on this product and you're golden.

But sure, tell me where the bear s**** in the buckwheat.

Are you experienced in international copyright law, or are you basing this all on what one guy at Hasbro once said?

I don't have any professional experience in this, so I'm also on thin ice here, but let me approach this with some simple reasoning.
From what I understand, this figure potentially has 3 different aspects it could infringe upon: the movie character (Terminator), the actor (Schwarzenegger) and the toy company (or in this case 2, HT and Enterbay).

The movie character is obviously being infringed upon. All the movie details are there, it is unmistakenly the character from T2 during a specific part of the movie. To top it off, it even says the character's name, T-800, right there on the box.
Second, the actor. In my personal opinion the sculpts hardly looks like Schwarzenegger, but I don't think personal opinions matter. Since it obviously portrays the T-800 in T2, then it must follow that this represents Schwarzenegger as the character. If it's as simple as changing small things like "flatten the lip there", 99% of licensed products wouldn't even need the actor's license, since they are always off from the actual actor's face to a certain extent. Likeness is a very subjective thing that you can't measure quantitatively. Why else did both HT (with the figure posted above) and McFarlane (with their first Movie Maniacs T-800) have to completely mangle the face to remove any possible resemblance to Schwarzenegger?
Finally, the toy company. This is where I agree that no copyright seems to be infringed upon. While they were using a recast of the Enterbay sculpt during the solicitation, they replaced it with a new sculpt in production. Also, seeing the side by side body shot with the HT, it appears that while basing it on the HT, they sculpted the whole body from scratch again, so it's not a direct copy. It doesn't seem that these toy companies care enough about this anyway given the myriad of straight-up recasted figures that 3rd party companies have been releasing for years now, but that's besides the point.

Your example from Transformers is quite different because 1) there are no actor likeness rights to deal with there and 2) the character and the toy company are one and the same. Also, each company's approach to copyright infringement, and how far they are willing to go to try to shut down any attempts at infringement, can be very different.

 

[EndoSickness]

Are you experienced in international copyright law, or are you basing this all on what one guy at Hasbro once said?

I don't have any professional experience in this, so I'm also on thin ice here, but let me approach this with some simple reasoning.
From what I understand, this figure potentially has 3 different aspects it could infringe upon: the movie character (Terminator), the actor (Schwarzenegger) and the toy company (or in this case 2, HT and Enterbay).

The movie character is obviously being infringed upon. All the movie details are there, it is unmistakenly the character from T2 during a specific part of the movie. To top it off, it even says the character's name, T-800, right there on the box.
Second, the actor. In my personal opinion the sculpts hardly looks like Schwarzenegger, but I don't think personal opinions matter. Since it obviously portrays the T-800 in T2, then it must follow that this represents Schwarzenegger as the character. If it's as simple as changing small things like "flatten the lip there", 99% of licensed products wouldn't even need the actor's license, since they are always off from the actual actor's face to a certain extent. Likeness is a very subjective thing that you can't measure quantitatively. Why else did both HT (with the figure posted above) and McFarlane (with their first Movie Maniacs T-800) have to completely mangle the face to remove any possible resemblance to Schwarzenegger?
Finally, the toy company. This is where I agree that no copyright seems to be infringed upon. While they were using a recast of the Enterbay sculpt during the solicitation, they replaced it with a new sculpt in production. Also, seeing the side by side body shot with the HT, it appears that while basing it on the HT, they sculpted the whole body from scratch again, so it's not a direct copy. It doesn't seem that these toy companies care enough about this anyway given the myriad of straight-up recasted figures that 3rd party companies have been releasing for years now, but that's besides the point.

Your example from Transformers is quite different because 1) there are no actor likeness rights to deal with there and 2) the character and the toy company are one and the same. Also, each company's approach to copyright infringement, and how far they are willing to go to try to shut down any attempts at infringement, can be very different.

Partially, you are right and no, I'm not basing this on one guy. I'm basing this on one guy, who is a respected figure in the industry, who works on multimillion dollar franchsies, who told me that the lawyers of his employer have dissected this time and time again and confirmed it and furthermore confirmed it, that ALL companies know and accept 3rd party as a necessary evil as far as they don't fly too close to the sun.

Where you're right is about the likeness, but even there: only partial.
As in Transformers there are certain characters' faces used as a brand akin to the likeness of an actor which would need to be/is licensed.

"3 different aspects it could infringe upon"
Potentially, but probably not really. Enterbay/HT you already dissected, but the detailing is 100% irrelevant.
Like I said: in TF the characters look exactly like you know how the character you are searching for is supposed to look, yet they are not infringed. Cause you can't put a copyright on shapes. I'm open to admit that I don't know all the details as, for example, Disney copyrighted the mouse, Hasbro copyrighted the helmet shape of, at least, Optimus Prime, but that's the info I got: no copyrights on shapes. and so the endoskeleton shape doesn't matter and especially, seemingly, the term "T-800", cause if you check in the pics, there's a band called T-800. They exist and no one seems to care, or claim. Then the box does not have anything "Terminator", written in word, on it.
But then again, there's the endoskeletal head and if you look at the second picture "Endoskeleton and any depiction of Endoskeleton are trademarks of" yada yada.

So, yes: details are mangled, 100%, I'll admit to that, but as a first I can't stand when someone I don't know comes around "it has been widely known". Sorry, just no. It's not widely known. What is known is what I stated, but how these companies operate is not known and it hasn't been for years, except WHERE they operate and chances are high that people from Fans Toys work on these Terminators, but that is pure speculation.

I do apologize though. I'm a bit too allergic to these "absolute truth" comments, but here I also am, coming around as the know all.
Apologies.
But this is what I know and it just has been known for 2 decades and I do not see it being any different for 3P 1/6.

 

[xXLEELANDXx]

Still wrong and that's ok. You do you.
Just sayin that 3rd party is VERY fresh in 1/6 and Masters Of The Universe too.
Not so in Transformers and we've been dealing with this stuff for over 20 years.
I even had it confirmed to me by a guy who works for Hasbro.
You cannot put a copyright on a form, like a shape, except for actors who license their face, like Schwarzenegger, or as in TF:
actual characteristics that make out the bots and cons that you love.
Switch it up slightly, rotate some indentations here, flatten the lip there and don't call it like anything you 100% see on this product and you're golden.

But sure, tell me where the bear s**** in the buckwheat.

I’m sorry but this is not correct. That’s not how it works. I gave you direct references to figures that have released no problem with full likeness infringement. Even from present toys. The likeness on this figure is still Arnold, and very clearly so, it’s just not as good as the proto that was shown. Other third party companies fully recast licensed figures sculpts and put them out no problem. They don’t change anything on the sculpts. You can find recast hot toys sculpts all day online with way worse paint jobs.

but as a first I can't stand when someone I don't know comes around "it has been widely known".

It IS widely known. Kit has said as such, these companies really just don’t care.

Sorry for derailing the thread, I won’t be discussing this further. Peace and love

 

[ScoobyDoo]

If my dx13 clothes were flaking, I'd buy this. But honestly if I didn't have the dx13 I'd rather just hunt one down than settle for this.

Or maybe I can buy it and have both dx13 heads displayed at the same time. Are there any pictures of the dx13 head on this?

 

[Saintv1]

Cause you can't put a copyright on shapes.

Sorry, this is just not true. You can indeed copyright a shape. For example, logos are copyrighted shapes.

 

[JacktheRipper]

Guitar headstocks are shapes that are copyrighted.

 

[EndoSickness]

Like I said: not knowing the whole truth.

 

[Dave_W]

Sorry, this is just not true. You can indeed copyright a shape. For example, logos are copyrighted shapes.

Well logos are actually trademarked, not copyrighted.

 

[Dave_W]

Guitar headstocks are shapes that are copyrighted.

Trademarked.

https://techaeris.com/2022/05/28/gibson-wins-ruling-regarding-its-guitar-shapes-and-trademarks/

 

[JacktheRipper]

Trademarked.

https://techaeris.com/2022/05/28/gibson-wins-ruling-regarding-its-guitar-shapes-and-trademarks/

Sorry, trademarked.