Jump to content

Dr.Bedlam

Members
  • Content Count

    10779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by Dr.Bedlam

  1. Found the tower at Michael's a while back. Bought it because I knew it would find a use at some point. And tonight, it has... I am not sure where I'm going with this, but so far it looks promising...
  2. It could be argued that "Colorshift," "colorshift" "color shift" and "ColorSHIFT" are four different trademarks. It could also be argued that a trademark that applies to a liquid in a bottle doesn't apply to a solidified coating on a toy vehicle. But, yeah, this is copyright law. It's legal until it isn't, and even then, it's arguable. Meanwhile, attorneys get paid.
  3. Took this picture at Target this afternoon. And I know, it isn't a trademark for PAINT, per se, in that the paint in the picture is not liquid in a bottle but a solid coating on a toy car. Still think the phrase is a bit too common for actual trademarking. But I'm far from being a lawyer so what do I know?
  4. Nobody makes me look bad. Not even those who are far more talented than I may EVER be. Ain't a matter of being BAD. Is a matter of beating yourself up and then getting BETTER. NOBODY is ever really BAD. Someday... someday... I will find the Joker's other foot...
  5. With pecans! Weird thing is? Only person in my family who ever gave fruitcake with the intention that you should actually EAT it was my Grandma Bedlam, who... wasn't quite all there. And the thing in the picture still looks better than what she used to make. *sigh*
  6. It was? I wouldn't have thought they would want to release a product that's in direct competition with their current RPG line. Ooooh, don't get me started. Another reason I question their decision to release a product that's in direct competition with their existing product...
  7. They didn't. They went straight to YouTube and had 'em yank the video. It could be argued that they did so in defense of their trademark, although I wasn't aware that they lied about it. And if they did, well... there's a different kettle of fish entirely. Judges tend to frown on that sort of thing, defense of yer trademark or not. I am glad to hear that the video's been reinstated. Another victory for the unruly mob, there. Can't really argue with that reasoning. To consult with an attorney and then not follow the letter of the law is flat out stupidity. I'd LIKE to think they'll learn from this debacle. Whether or not they will remains to be seen.
  8. Yup. Both by itself and as a two pack with the first sourcebook. Still available in a number of fine hobby shops in this locality. More than once, I have wondered how Fantasy Flight felt about the timing of that particular release.
  9. Not quite. While your statement is completely accurate, they are acting to defend a trademark they claim they have... specifically, the "colorshift" thingy. The "colorshift" thingy was in the video. Vallejo released product that had their trademark on the bottle. A reviewer on a public venue showed the bottle in her video. Now, the way this trademark thing WORKS, if I claim a trademark, and someone else uses that trademark, I am responsible for challenging their use of that trademark. If I FAIL to challenge that trademark, then anyone who is willing to stand up in court and argue that I could have but didn't can ask the court to invalidate the trademark in a variety of ways that weakens my control over it or eradicates that control altogether. Legally speaking, if I want to exert control over a given phrase, I must demonstrate PROVABLY that I went after anyone who used it inappropriately or without permission like a swarm of rabid piranha bats. So in the specific cold hard legal sense, GSW, in the defense of their trademark, had to challenge what they saw as an "inappropriate use." They could have let it slide, probably with no consequence -- the YouTuber in question wasn't challenging their trademark or selling anything -- but I can see why a particularly rabid trademark lawyer would have said, "This must be challenged in a recordable and provable way." They took the simplest option and complained to YouTube. Do I agree with the reasoning? Hell, no. Do I think it was the right way to handle this? Hell, no. They could have saved themselves a hell of a lot of headache with an email exchange with the lady in the video; it's equally provable in court and completely documentable, assuming she was willing to cooperate; I sure would be, rather than deal with a Cease And Desist or having YouTube come down on me. I'm just saying I understand why they did what they did. It has basis in legal precedent and trademark law. That doesn't make it "The Right Thing To Do." Disney's had things like this happening for years. A while back, they went after a day care center for showing "The Lion King" to their toddlers, since the video was private property legally purchased, BUT since the day care charged fees for the caretaking of toddlers, it could be interpreted that this included charging admission to see a Disney film, a thing that's not supposed to happen without the payment of royalties and the signing of contracts and the jumping through of legal hoops; technically, if I show a Disney at my house and charge you all a buck a pop for couch space, I'm breaking laws, even if I legally purchased the DVD. Does Disney give a rat? No. They aren't concerned with losing the dollars from my couch, and less so with hassling day care centers. But anyone wishing to attack Disney's trademarks and copyrights can use this sort of thing as a weapon in court. So Disney's gotten into the habit of being hardnosed about it. And copyright and trademark attorneys are trained to be hardnosed about it. And considering how spurious their claim to the phrase "colorshift" is, I can see why they're being hardnosed about it. I personally think they'd have done better to come up with a more unique term to trademark, but nobody asked me. All that being said, I must still state that GSW made a hash out of this business, and I am disinclined to do business with them because of that.
  10. Note that YouTube isn't subject to Fair Use; they word their contracts so they can yank your content for pretty much any reason or no reason with no liability to themselves. I'm just saying that the lady in question wasn't actually doing anything WRONG. GSW followed sound legal doctrine. Legally their actions are unassailable. As far as decency (and PR) goes, it was a very bad idea.
  11. Ah, HERE we go! They still MAKE it! And it's every bit as inedible and long lasting as ever!
  12. West End's D6 version is still available in an excellent two-pack of the Main Book and the sourcebook. It was good in the eighties and holds up excellently today. And if I was gonna start running a Star Wars game from scratch, for a group of kids, that would be the way I would go. It's quick to learn, it's intuitive, it's fast moving, it's fun, and it's CHEAP unless you start trying to root up the thousands of ancient splatbooks for the system. WotC's D20 version is quite good, and picks up FAST if you're already familiar with D20 mechanics. More rules crunch than the D6 system, and there are sourcebooks for the expanded universe and the prequel trilogy. Downsides include the fact that it IS rules crunchier than D6, which some kids don't manage as well, and the fact that it's all currently out of print, meaning laying hands on all the materials in question can be a bit of a bear. This brings us to Fantasy Flight's RPG, which is a good game, although I found it sort of unintuitive, but that could just be me, ancient grognard trying to learn new RPG system with weirdo dice with no numbers on them and do I need a CHEAT SHEET for these dratted dice? Pros are that it's in print and available, both in softback, hardback, and starter sets, can cover pretty much ANY time frame in the Star Wars universe with canon materials, and it's available everywhere. CONS include a system that seemed a bit convoluted to me, and the fact that every player is going to need a set of weirdo dice with little symbols on them... or they'll have to share with each other and/or the GM. EDIT: ....and for ANY version of Star Wars RPGs, figures are NOT cheap these days.
  13. 1. As previously stated, there are a number of paint and pigment products out there gleefully using the term "color shift" and/or "colorshift." I do not know about any products using the term "chameleon," which, I am told, is another word GSW is attempting to claim for its own. This being said, I'd think GSW has a hell of an uphill battle if it's going to take on a number of other manufacturers to defend "its" trademark. 2. If two companies enter into a battle over a trademark, that's their affair and no real business or interest of mine, except academically. I felt that Games Workshop was being dumb when they tried to defend the term "Space Marine" as being their IP, as a number of authors and firms, including Avalon Hill, were using the phrase years before 40K was ever on paper. That didn't stop me from doing business with the people in question. 3. Now, if I start a YouTube channel reviewing Reaper product (for example,) the Fair Use Doctrine permits me to show brief clips of the product, to talk about the product, to show the product's packaging, demonstrate the product's use, and so on, for review and public discussion purposes. Review, by nature, is opinion. If I start bashing Reaper product, the company might not LIKE it, but they have little recourse; I have a right to my opinion, and to shout it from the rooftops, due to the First Amendment, and the Fair Use Doctrine, as established by legal precedent, within the letter of the law. 4. The woman on YouTube was reviewing Vallejo paints, but GSW objected to the display of these paints and their labels, due to the question of the IP on the labels. They therefore contacted YouTube and demanded the video be yanked. Originally, I thought GSW was attempting to forestall good reviews of competing product. I was wrong. LEGALLY SPEAKING, GSW's actions were defensible. If you don't defend a trademark, you're in danger of losing your exclusive rights to it, and leaving a legal paper trail is important for demonstrating your defense of the trademark. My objection HERE is to the steamrollering of the little guy, the YouTuber who unknowingly walked into a buzz saw with no idea that she was doing anything wrong. Legally, she DIDN'T do anything wrong; she obtained the paint legally, and her review was covered under Fair Use. And yet, she gets smacked down. GSW didn't have to do it that way. They could have contacted the woman, explained the issue, and offered solutions. Instead, they went impersonal and lawyery, to the little guy's detriment. And I can't say I approve of an outfit that wants to do business that way. The world is full of businesses that consider one person statistically insignificant. But if they're going to be jerks about it, I will exert what power I can... and vote with my wallet: stick it back in my pants, and shop elsewhere.
  14. I knew I'd BEEN here awhile, but checked just now: 2002. It doesn't feel like it's been that long. I think back, and realize that in 2002, I'd known about Reaper for several years, due to the fact that they had new Julie Guthrie and Sandra Garrity sculpts, the first since the fall of Ral Partha. That, and the manager of a local FLGS contracted me to paint some Reaper Life Counters for the utterly insane Magic:The Gathering scene at his store. He turned around and sold them for five times retail price, and split the money with me. And I turned around and spent it largely on Reaper Miniatures... and signed up for the forum, thinking, "Hey, minis painting tips and discussion, how can I go wrong?" A long, strange trip it's been. Now I kinda wish I still had some of those life counters. They're collectible.
  15. I have a fruitcake. Can't remember for the life of me who made the thing, but it's a lovely attractive boxed fruitcake. I took it out of the box once; it's made of foam rubber, but looks exactly like a real fruitcake. We've been gifting that thing back and forth for more than a decade. Might make decent terrain, now that I think about it.
  16. My wife needs a Giff for the most obscure yet adorable reasons ever.
  17. We need more things with antlers.
  18. There ARE official Frostgrave minis, but no one really gives a rat which minis you use. Except for rangifers. I don't think anyone except whoever makes the official minis makes rangifers.
  19. I have got to find another place to use that line. Best out of context quote I've heard in weeks.
  20. By "livestock abuse," I meant "riding the family cow around the pasture all night so the poor thing was exhausted the next morning, terrorizing the horses, and souring the milk." Get'cher minds out of the gutter. Barely enough room there for mine as it is.
  21. Near as I can tell, "kobalus" is correct, being the root word for "kobold" and "coblynau." It isn't necessarily the ONLY word, though. "Gobelin" has French roots, for which "kobalus" might well be the origin. That being said, "goblin" originally meant "ugly fairy," with connotations of mischief, evil, babysnatching, livestock abuse, and various other unpleasant acts. Eventually, folklore wise, they split off into their own tribe until Tolkien finally houseruled them into "orcs, but smaller, usually subterranean."
  22. He was great as Father Mulcahy in the original MASH film, as Clayton on the Benson TV show, and of course as Odo on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. But the main memory that sprang back today was when I took my little girl to see the animated Little Mermaid cartoon, and with some shock, I recognized his voice coming out of the deranged chef towards the end, belting out the song, "Le Poisson, le poisson, how I LOOOOVE le poisson...." before he goes berserk and chases Sebastian the Crab all over the kitchen with a meat cleaver. And of course the classic exchange from MASH: FRANK BURNS: "How could a man like Hawkeye Pierce rise to a position of authority in this man's army?" FATHER MULCAHY: "He was drafted." Gonna miss that guy.
  23. True dat. We always seem to start losing them wholesale, this last month of the year. And Carroll Spinney, we ALL grew up with.
  24. Mmmmyeah. The ancient Monster Manual description is lifted straight from Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson, whose trolls looked rather lanky for their height, but had knotted muscles that could tear you apart. This model has been made by several manufacturers, most recently Wizkids, who gave him dreadlocks, for some reason. The skinny trolls from GW and Fortress Figures, on the other hand, always looked like the other trolls would kick sand in their faces....
  25. Ehh. I dunno. I like my trolls and ogres with a bit more meat on them.
×
×
  • Create New...