Vintage MLP copyright questions!??

[Al-1701]

From what I've heard, the people at Hasbro marketing wanted to continue the Core 7 into G4.  They were even lobbying for Cheerilee, Sweetie Belle, and Scootaloo to be part of the main cast and insisted Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash be a part of it.  Faust made Cheerilee the school teacher and Sweetie Belle and Scootaloo friends of Apple Bloom as a compromise.

I think part of the problem is Hasbro wants "retro" stuff to collectors items and not general merchandise.  If they had made the retro sets in the standard G3 molds and sold them as general purchase ponies, I suspect they would have sold both to old fans looking for a return of their old favorites and new customers looking to buy another ponies they hadn't seen before.  And it's not like the trademarking process would be anymore expensive or involved as any other name they used, especially if they did something like "My Little Pony [insert name here]."

The My Little Pony community is also in the thin side because Hasbro has never respected it.  While the television series for Transformers and G.I. Joe were what defined it, the My Little Pony cartoon was only relevant for one year of the its ten year run in the states.  Outside of Europe, MLP spent a good part of a decade in the wilderness before G3 returned it to being a global brand again.  There is not as much material for MLP fans to rally around as there is for Transformers.  Add to the fact you have a bunch of new fans who have decided the brand didn't really begin until five years ago, and history of the brand and those who love it are even more marginalized.

[hathorcat]

Again, I think people are confusing themselves over the differences between copyright and trademark, and what those two things even mean in the context of making MLP merchandise. Which is understandable considering that it's a little complex and a lot boring, but I'll try to break it down for anyone who is interested. (This is all US-based, btw, other countries have their own laws obvs.)

You automatically have copyright on any original work you create, although formally registering your copyright makes it easier to enforce. Copyright means exactly what it says: you have the right to decide if, when, and by whom your work is copied. Hasbro still has copyrights for any and all of their pony designs. They can slap any pony they want on any product they want without involving trademarks at all.

Trademarks are only for specific names, phrases, and symbols, e.g. "Applejack" toy pony or "Apple Jacks" cereal or Apple's bitten-apple logo. As a company, you'd want to trademark your product's name so you have exclusive legal use of that name, and therefore your customers aren't confused by rival products. Think of a clueless shopper trying to find a "Twilight Sparkle" from a kid's wish list -- Hasbro wants to make sure their toy is the only one on the shelf labeled "Twilight Sparkle". (Having to pick from ten different Twilight Sparkles is the customer's problem. ) Unlike copyright, registering a new trademark is necessary, expensive, and can take months or years complete, but it has nothing to do with what the ponies look like or anything else about them except what they are called.

Hasbro is within its rights to produce retro MLP and even label them with the same names, though those names might not be trademarked. Not having a trademark on a name doesn't mean you can't use it, as long as no one else has trademarked that name for a similar item and wants to stop you; it simply means that you can't legally prevent anyone else from using that name too. Hasbro doesn't care to go to the trouble of (re)registering old pony trademarks because the market is pretty insignificant to them, and they already have their copyrights to the ponies' likenesses which is the important thing for retro tchotchkes.

For the latest mainstream G4 toys, however, every proper noun needs to be trademarked, so Hasbro can be sure no one else gets in on their My Little Pony™ Equestria Girls™ Rainbow Rocks™ Fluttershy™ action. Personally, I would prefer Hasbro continue with their casual niche-market stance on retro MLP, rather than make new trademarks from old ones and reissue G1s as G4s. I don't think I could handle the vicarious embarrassment of Powder Pie, Sky Dazzle Dancer, and Munchy Luck.

I am not sure what we are confusing

Yes there are differences in trademarks and in copyright - in fact there are even differences within those loose legal descriptions.

The original question was why Hasbro does not use more original G1 names and characters. The answer is not in legal matters and because they cant or wont register trademarks (other than that they used that as their initial defence when collectors asked the questions). The answer is in the fact that they dont want to and they dont need to so they have not gone to effort. It does not take any more effort to trade mark "Rarity" than it does to trade mark "Sparker". Same paperwork, same process, same costs, same legal hoops to jump through.

[Wardah]

Again, I think people are confusing themselves over the differences between copyright and trademark, and what those two things even mean in the context of making MLP merchandise. Which is understandable considering that it's a little complex and a lot boring, but I'll try to break it down for anyone who is interested. (This is all US-based, btw, other countries have their own laws obvs.)

You automatically have copyright on any original work you create, although formally registering your copyright makes it easier to enforce. Copyright means exactly what it says: you have the right to decide if, when, and by whom your work is copied. Hasbro still has copyrights for any and all of their pony designs. They can slap any pony they want on any product they want without involving trademarks at all.

Trademarks are only for specific names, phrases, and symbols, e.g. "Applejack" toy pony or "Apple Jacks" cereal or Apple's bitten-apple logo. As a company, you'd want to trademark your product's name so you have exclusive legal use of that name, and therefore your customers aren't confused by rival products. Think of a clueless shopper trying to find a "Twilight Sparkle" from a kid's wish list -- Hasbro wants to make sure their toy is the only one on the shelf labeled "Twilight Sparkle". (Having to pick from ten different Twilight Sparkles is the customer's problem. ) Unlike copyright, registering a new trademark is necessary, expensive, and can take months or years complete, but it has nothing to do with what the ponies look like or anything else about them except what they are called.

Hasbro is within its rights to produce retro MLP and even label them with the same names, though those names might not be trademarked. Not having a trademark on a name doesn't mean you can't use it, as long as no one else has trademarked that name for a similar item and wants to stop you; it simply means that you can't legally prevent anyone else from using that name too. Hasbro doesn't care to go to the trouble of (re)registering old pony trademarks because the market is pretty insignificant to them, and they already have their copyrights to the ponies' likenesses which is the important thing for retro tchotchkes.

For the latest mainstream G4 toys, however, every proper noun needs to be trademarked, so Hasbro can be sure no one else gets in on their My Little Pony™ Equestria Girls™ Rainbow Rocks™ Fluttershy™ action. Personally, I would prefer Hasbro continue with their casual niche-market stance on retro MLP, rather than make new trademarks from old ones and reissue G1s as G4s. I don't think I could handle the vicarious embarrassment of Powder Pie, Sky Dazzle Dancer, and Munchy Luck.

I am not sure what we are confusing

Yes there are differences in trademarks and in copyright - in fact there are even differences within those loose legal descriptions.

The original question was why Hasbro does not use more original G1 names and characters. The answer is not in legal matters and because they cant or wont register trademarks (other than that they used that as their initial defence when collectors asked the questions). The answer is in the fact that they dont want to and they dont need to so they have not gone to effort. It does not take any more effort to trade mark "Rarity" than it does to trade mark "Sparker". Same paperwork, same process, same costs, same legal hoops to jump through.

All the names except Twilight Sparkle previously belonged to G3s and were already active. So really it was just one name they needed to register.

[Al-1701]

Still don't understand why Hasbro doesn't trademark their old names too.  I doubt a little girl would look at Wind Whistler or North Star and say "I don't want that one because it's an old pony."  She would say "Look at the pretty pony!  Can I have her?"  And her parent would say "And it's not another Pinkie Pie.  I'll buy it."

[Leave a Whisper]

Still don't understand why Hasbro doesn't trademark their old names too.  I doubt a little girl would look at Wind Whistler or North Star and say "I don't want that one because it's an old pony."  She would say "Look at the pretty pony!  Can I have her?"  And her parent would say "And it's not another Pinkie Pie.  I'll buy it."

Yup.

[Sunset]

Still don't understand why Hasbro doesn't trademark their old names too.  I doubt a little girl would look at Wind Whistler or North Star and say "I don't want that one because it's an old pony."  She would say "Look at the pretty pony!  Can I have her?"  And her parent would say "And it's not another Pinkie Pie.  I'll buy it."

I agree.  True the previous "retro" releases were a flop but part of that was because they were not using the current G3 moulds and so didn't appeal to children at the time.   If Hasbro is trademarking all these names for random background characters and even non-show characters like Princess Sterling and Gold Lily, there is no reason they couldn't use older characters too.

I know that collectors are small as a group and that MLP is for children but that doesn't mean Hasbro couldn't find a way to appeal to both.

If I were in charge, I would tell the show animators to start using older characters as background characters like the comics do.  This would appeal to older fans while at the same time introducing those characters to modern children.  And just like the current background characters, pick the most popular and sell toys and merch to both children and collectors.

[BlushingBlue]

Again, I think people are confusing themselves over the differences between copyright and trademark, and what those two things even mean in the context of making MLP merchandise.

I am not sure what we are confusing

Well, I can promise you that "people" was not a euphemism for "Cat" in that sentence. If it came off that way, and you were offended by it, I truly apologize. If anyone reading this thread already has a firm grasp of copyright vs trademark, they can consider themselves officially exempted from the terrible ignominy of being confused by something confusing.

I was simply trying to expand on why copyrights (Hasbro still has them) and trademarks (Hasbro doesn't always want/need them) relate to how Hasbro can put out things like the dolly mix minis but not necessarily commit to G1->G4s as easily. I fully admit it's not very interesting, but it does seem relevant to the topic to me. I would feel it dismissive to respond to someone's honest inquiry into if and how copyright/trademark could keep Hasbro from fully using their G1 properties with a pat "they don't want to". I mean, it's ultimately true, but it's not all that helpful in getting the "lost copyrights" myth sorted out. I'm sure you're sick to death of this subject popping up by now, but I can only seem to type in paragraphs these days anyway so...

It does not take any more effort to trade mark "Rarity" than it does to trade mark "Sparker".

All the names except Twilight Sparkle previously belonged to G3s and were already active. So really it was just one name they needed to register.

I think(? I could be wrong) she was trying to make a point with Rarity's case in particular, since Hasbro had to re-register the trademark without "the Unicorn" appended to it anyway. (What was up with that to begin with? ) But yeah, Rainbow Dash, Pinkie Pie, and Fluttershy were all well in hand, along with Applejack, and required exactly zero extra effort to trademark. Convenient.

I suppose Hasbro could have theoretically registered "Sparkler" just as easily as "Rarity" back then, but of course, the topic of trademarks doesn't even touch on all the market testing, foreign language considerations, etc., etc. that they'd already recently done for "Rarity". And if they'd already settled on "Twilight Sparkle", also having "Sparkler" on the cast might be a bit much even for Hasdazzlebro.

Trademarks are only one part of all that, but everything considered, it's an easy decision from Hasbro's point of view. Naturally they would want to salvage as much as they could from the G3/G3.5 wreckage and milk their sunk costs for all they're worth. It's unfortunately all too practical for a business to go about things as efficiently as possible, even to its own later detriment. For whatever reason, Hasbro doesn't think the cost-benefit analysis of keeping up with their trademarks works in their favor, so they have a lot of lapses. Sometimes letting their properties become vulnerable comes back to bite them, but I guess it works out okay more often than not, or else they wouldn't keep doing it. (...Right? )

Still don't understand why Hasbro doesn't trademark their old names too.  I doubt a little girl would look at Wind Whistler or North Star and say "I don't want that one because it's an old pony."  She would say "Look at the pretty pony!  Can I have her?"  And her parent would say "And it's not another Pinkie Pie.  I'll buy it."

Yeah, it looks like a missed opportunity for sure -- even if they had to tweak the names for trademarking, the designs are already perfectly serviceable, and even a tiny boost from the nostalgia factor is still free money -- but it doesn't seem like Hasbro is terribly interested in making new, non-show ponies regardless of origin. Maybe now that Moon Dancer has shown up on FiM, there's hope for a G4 toy of her? Sadly, I feel like this is the only "in" that Hasbro would respect for G1 characters. Unless we're talking blind-bags, since Hasbro seems to be slightly more loose with those. I think a G1-inspired blind-bag series would be really neat.

[Al-1701]

I think part of it is they've never tried.  They haven't done market research to see if G4 ponies based on G1 characters would sell.  They probably would because I suspect most kids would want new ponies and parents want ponies that don't look like ones they've already purchased to open their wallets for.  We're not even talking about making new molds or any significant fixed asset or new raw material investment here.  Use Rainbow Dash's body color and Fluttershy's hair color and you have Wind Whistler.

I think Hasbro believes the brand is doing good enough.  They're treating it like a cash cow when it is really a star.  Any money put into it would be a good investment.  And between nostalgia and increased variety, bringing some G1's back into the brushable selection would be a boon to the brand.

[Carrehz]

I was simply trying to expand on why copyrights (Hasbro still has them) and trademarks (Hasbro doesn't always want/need them) relate to how Hasbro can put out things like the dolly mix minis

Hasbro didn't have anything to do with the Dolly Mix ponies, they were licensed out and made by a company called "The Little Factory".

[hathorcat]

Again, I think people are confusing themselves over the differences between copyright and trademark, and what those two things even mean in the context of making MLP merchandise.

I am not sure what we are confusing

Well, I can promise you that "people" was not a euphemism for "Cat" in that sentence. If it came off that way, and you were offended by it, I truly apologize. If anyone reading this thread already has a firm grasp of copyright vs trademark, they can consider themselves officially exempted from the terrible ignominy of being confused by something confusing.

I was simply trying to expand on why copyrights (Hasbro still has them) and trademarks (Hasbro doesn't always want/need them) relate to how Hasbro can put out things like the dolly mix minis but not necessarily commit to G1->G4s as easily. I fully admit it's not very interesting, but it does seem relevant to the topic to me. I would feel it dismissive to respond to someone's honest inquiry into if and how copyright/trademark could keep Hasbro from fully using their G1 properties with a pat "they don't want to". I mean, it's ultimately true, but it's not all that helpful in getting the "lost copyrights" myth sorted out. I'm sure you're sick to death of this subject popping up by now, but I can only seem to type in paragraphs these days anyway so...

Dont worry I didnt take it personally....I was simply confused by what the further explanation was explaining between your first post and the second But I understand it was simply you elaborating further on the same point as you previously made.

You are right the subject rocks up every couple of months and its always interesting to see the points raised from different people. I think my irritation lies in the ongoing belief that the reasons we didnt get the G1 references have anything to with any legal reasons - trademark, copyright, IP or anything similar - no matter their background. Its not pat to answer the OPs question with the fact that Hasbro dont want to...when thats essentially what happened. More explanation is great and super interesting to read but the truth comes down to Hasbro's marketing and product development team making commercial decisions rather than lawyers saying no. Sometimes the simple explanations are the most true...and also, yes, the most boring.

[Al-1701]

It unfortunately boils down to "Faust said it, therefore it must be true."

[MJNSEIFER]

Or bronies took what she said at face value, and then stated what they thought she said as fact.  There have been times where bronies have stated that Lauren has said that "Applejack's parents are dead in the show's canon" and that she said that "Scootaloo was officially going to turn out to be disabled, and this already in motion during season 1."  Lauren actually  said that her original idea was to have Applejack's parents be dead, not that they are officially dead, and while I haven't actually heard Lauren's statement about Scootaloo's planned disability (although I know it exists) I also know for a fact that Lauren has been given at least two chances to say " Scootaloo is disabled" and she has purposely not taken them; Lauren was asked on her DeviantArt page why Scootaloo has yet to fly, and she replied that Scootaloo "simply hasn't figured it out yet" (keyword: "yet"), and when asked why Pound Cake was already capable of flight, she gave an explanation as to how this was possible, at no point did she even hint that Scootaloo had a flying disability(she could have easily just said " it will be clear later" if she didn't want to give things away.

Returning to topic, maybe Lauren did say it was a copyright thing, but remember she is just a person at the end of the day, and is capable of making mistakes, I still have a lot of respect for her, but even that comes in part from the fact that with all her talents, she really seems like someone who is within our level (and doesn't even try to pretend she's not), but as a simple human error, Lauren may have simply repeated what Hasbro told her incorrectly, having misunderstood them when they told her not to use her childhood favorite's.  On the other hand, Lauren may never have used the word "copyright" when talking about the Mane Six's names and simply said Hasbro didn't want her to use these names, and bronies simply took this to mean it was a copyright thing (I'll have to check what she said, and make sure that it is actually Lauren, and not someone quoting her).