gaming Them's Fightin' Herds Indiegogo

[Limeblossom 482]

Formerly known as Fighting is Magic, the Mane6 developers brings the game back with new characters designed by Lauren Faust .

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/them-s-fightin-herds#/story

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv7sTTWRA7Y

Edited September 22, 2015 by Limeblossom

[-Octavia- 1,176]

It's very well done, but...well, you know...

 

 

It's no Fighting is Magic.

 

 

Still, looking forward to seeing its reception.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Wubtavia

[Mesme Rize 15,683]

Question is, why do bronies are funding it.

 

Because they have real interest in it, or they want to take a jab at the "Evil Guys" at Hasbro and want to make their "mommy Faust" Proud?

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

I kinda want to donate to this!! XD

 

Even if I don't, I'm totally going to make an OC. <33

Question is, why do bronies are funding it.

 

Because they have real interest in it, or they want to take a jab at the "Evil Guys" at Hasbro and want to make their "mommy Faust" Proud?

 

Why not both?

Seriously though, I don't hold any ill will towards Hasbro.

The original game was so OFFICIAL looking, that it really could have been mistaken for a legit Hasbro product.

And unfortunately, that's not a good thing for Hasbro.

 

But I'm kind of really happy to see it come back as an original, adorable and undoubtedly interesting new product.

[Mesme Rize 15,683]

I kinda want to donate to this!! XD

 

Even if I don't, I'm totally going to make an OC. <33

 

Why not both?

Seriously though, I don't hold any ill will towards Hasbro.

The original game was so OFFICIAL looking, that it really could have been mistaken for a legit Hasbro product.

And unfortunately, that's not a good thing for Hasbro.

 

But I'm kind of really happy to see it come back as an original, adorable and undoubtedly interesting new product.

 

Don't get me wrong. I wish the developers the best of luck for this project, because i love fighters to death. But the little secret war between Faust and Hasbro leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Guest]

I already know that because so many bronies worship Lauren Faust, they will ignore how unprofessional it was for her to even assist in the making of this game. They'll also ignore the fact that Mane6 who previously was going to release a free game are now about to get mad rich off of more or less using the attention they got from a copyright infringement to get their current game onto the market.

 

That all being said, the game looks "fun" but it's a fighting game. I'm not a big fan of fighting games and really there are tons of them pumped out that never really catch on. They are choosing a VERY difficult genre as their first game, as if a fighting game doesn't make enough of an impact to even be considered by EVO, then they generally die out. However thanks to the wonders of crowd funding they can risk your money instead of their own. At the end of the day, I am skeptical that this game will generate enough of a player base to justify buying it on a consumer end. Fighting games are a very niche genre these days and are difficult to get a playerbase for as you more or less have to "steal" them from other games that have a long reputation.

 

Lack of a console release and dedicated controller are DEFINITELY going to hurt the game. Fighting games are built around controllers and when you can't ensure everyone is going to use the same controller, you are shooting yourself in the foot. PC releases of fighting games generally do fairly mediocre as it is, so while this game has the "unique" aspect going for it, that may not be enough to make it a market success.

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

Don't get me wrong. I wish the developers the best of luck for this project, because i love fighters to death. But the little secret war between Faust and Hasbro leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

She seemed alright in her DeviantArt journal about this game.

She straight up said: "A few years back, a small group of young, talented artists were in the midst of completing a fan fighting game with the characters from a show I developed. The IP owners shut them down (understandably), but the work was so good, and made with such love and passion, I wanted to help see it live on."

 

Really the Mane6 game makers seem more bitter.

And I don't blame them at all with all that work they had to just drop. But hey, look at them now. Now they have something completely original to work on without any reservations at all.

I already know that because so many bronies worship Lauren Faust, they will ignore how unprofessional it was for her to even assist in the making of this game.

 

Why was it unprofessional?

[Guest]

 

 

Why was it unprofessional?

 

 

Think about it for a moment. Your previous employers just sent a legal cease and desist order to someone for copyright infringement. So you turn around and help the people who were more or less stealing from your former employer. That doesn't exactly look so good to future employers.

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

Think about it for a moment. Your previous employers just sent a legal cease and desist order to someone for copyright infringement. So you turn around and help the people who were more or less stealing from your former employer. That doesn't exactly look so good to future employers.

 

I think the devs just had the problem of making really official looking fanart that starred "little girl's characters" beating the tar out of each other. I don't remember that it was going to be sold for money or anything like that, so there was nothing for Hasbro to actually lose. Except MAYBE reputation. It looked so much like a legitimate Hasbro product and they can't risk that kind of affiliation with another party, and don't want parents thinking they condone violence (though those parents must of never seen the end of Twilight's Kingdom).

 

It was obvious that the game had the dev's very SOULS put into it's production. Doesn't seem shocking at all for Lauren to want to give them something to salvage it a little bit. And she can draw pictures for anyone she wants. No one owns the "Thems Fightin' Herds" stuff, so now the game creators can go nuts.

Edited September 22, 2015 by ShadOBabe

[Guest]

 

 

t was obvious that the game had the dev's very SOULS put into it's production. Doesn't seem shocking at all for Lauren to want to give them something to salvage it a little bit. And she can draw pictures for anyone she wants. No one owns the "Thems Fightin' Herds" stuff, so now the game creators can go nuts.

 

It's just from a business standpoint it looks bad. You basically assisted people who were stealing from your former employers. While Faust can draw for whoever she wants, it doesn't mean that future employers will not see her actions and think twice about hiring her. Considering she has not been able to get anyone to pick up any of her show ideas since MLP, this definitely will not assist in that.

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

It's just from a business standpoint it looks bad. You basically assisted people who were stealing from your former employers. While Faust can draw for whoever she wants, it doesn't mean that future employers will not see her actions and think twice about hiring her. Considering she has not been able to get anyone to pick up any of her show ideas since MLP, this definitely will not assist in that.

 

LOL!! Well I'm sure she won't starve any time soon.

I'm not sure what you mean by stealing. I thought Fighting is Magic was going to be free?

Unless you consider all fanart "stealing".

[Guest]

LOL!! Well I'm sure she won't starve any time soon.

 

 

Of course not, but still it's all about principle. I am talking from Mane6's standpoint. Let's look at this thinking like we're businesses, alright?

 

• Mane6 was known for making a game that was a copyright infringement of Hasbro's property. They have not even changed their names from that time, and they are not even shying away from the fact that they were the ones who made Fighting is Magic. So essentially they are extremely open about the fact that they were ordered to cease and desist a game that was copyright infringement.
• They are USING that game and now a former Hasbro employee to advertise this game. So they are standing very close to the danger zone in terms of legal liability. They may be in the technical clearing, but that doesn't make them completely safe from lawsuits. Let's not forgot how Apple won against Samsung for making their phones too similar to the iPhone. They are more or less using work that was stolen to advertise this new product that they NOW want to charge MONEY for. You are too close to the danger zone now. You are in a zone where lawsuits can happen with the right lawyers and the proper argument.
• Fighting games generally do far better on consoles than they do on PC. So to get your game on consoles you have to now convince Sony and Microsoft that you're not a liability. You're going to have a difficult time doing that when you were previously ordered to cease and desist from Hasbro and now you're working with a former Hasbro employee and using your work that was cease and desisted to advertise your new work. You will need to create a VERY compelling argument as to why Sony or Microsoft should support your game when you're playing with legal fire.
• You have to convince people that despite all odds you will be able to get a competitive scene for this game where there is little showing that it will be possible. Fighting games do not last long if they can't get a competitive scene. You have a game that is going to start out as PC only release (already a bad start) not based on any major property, with no big name companies behind it, made by a team who legally speaking are not on the best terms, built on an engine for a game that did not perform so great. You're basically trying to convince people to take a shot in the dark on you.

That all being said, from a business standpoint, you are pushing a rock up a hill. Does that make market failure a certainty? No. Flukes and random accidents can always happen, but businesses do not bank on flukes, they bank on statistics and the statistics just aren't there.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by stealing. I thought Fighting is Magic was going to be free?

 

From a legal standpoint, Fighting is Magic IS stealing even if it is free. It is creating competition with official products. If Hasbro made a game that they are selling for a profit, Fighting is Magic is creating competition by offering a free product. Not to mention there are tons of ways to make money without actually "selling" the game. I am certain that Mane6 had plans to get some cash for their hard work. I mean conventions covered their expenses to present the game, that's already some moolah they are accepting, but it's just all "off the books" stuff. If they managed to get the game into a competitive scene they could accept entry fees, accept advertiser fees from people who want to use the tournaments as advertising windows, etc. There are tons of ways to skim some off the top without actually "Selling" the game. League of Legends is free, but damn if it doesn't make insane amounts of cash from the tournament scene.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Guest

[Megas 27,580]

Freedom Planet started out as a Sonic fangame that eventually turned into an original IP and became a very popular indie game at that. I do wish for similar success with these guys,

 

That said, the whole "Our Lord and Savior Lauren Faust vs Big Bad Hasbro" thing is still bullshit

Edited September 22, 2015 by Kamina

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

 

 

Fair enough. Though I don't think Hasbro ever pays attention to the "competition" unless it's LEGITIMATE competition. Only with a certain combination of popularity and/or potential to make the official product look bad or project an image other than the one the IP holders want. For example, I don't see them busting my door down because I create art of their characters. I'm not popular enough.

 

I don't believe that I'm stealing and I don't believe that what the Mane6 guys were doing was stealing, but I also think Hasbro still had the right to come in an tell them to cut it out. Interestingly though, have yet to see a C&D used on, say, a MLP plushie creator, despite that fact that tons of bronies go out and buy fanmade plushies rather than the plushies made by Hasbro (the fact that they usually look better might have something to do with it).

 

Anyway, I'm still glad this game is getting developed.

[Guest]

 

 

I don't believe that I'm stealing and I don't believe that what the Mane6 guys were doing was stealing, but I also think Hasbro still had the right to come in an tell them to cut it out. Interestingly though, have yet to see a C&D used on, say, a MLP plushie creator, despite that fact that tons of bronies go out and buy fanmade plushies rather than the plushies made by Hasbro (the fact that they usually look better might have something to do with it).

 

I think the reasoning for that is actually quite logical. A plushie creator is making everything by hand. Only amount of plushies that can be in existence is how many they can turn out by hand. Realistically that poses zero threat as there is no way that a person can produce even a thousand by hand in a workable time frame. However when someone tried to mass produce Luna plushies on Kickstarter, Hasbro stepped in. The reason why they step in for stuff like Fighting is Magic is since it's a digital item, it can realistically be reproduced at the cost of nothing, so it means it can easily find its way into the hands of millions. 

[ShadOBabe 18,997]

I think the reasoning for that is actually quite logical. A plushie creator is making everything by hand. Only amount of plushies that can be in existence is how many they can turn out by hand. Realistically that poses zero threat as there is no way that a person can produce even a thousand by hand in a workable time frame. However when someone tried to mass produce Luna plushies on Kickstarter, Hasbro stepped in. The reason why they step in for stuff like Fighting is Magic is since it's a digital item, it can realistically be reproduced at the cost of nothing, so it means it can easily find its way into the hands of millions. 

 

Ah I see. That makes sense.

[Roughshod 719]

 

 

Mane6 was known for making a game that was a copyright infringement of Hasbro's property. They have not even changed their names from that time, and they are not even shying away from the fact that they were the ones who made Fighting is Magic. So essentially they are extremely open about the fact that they were ordered to cease and desist a game that was copyright infringement.

 

 

Fair use. Businesses might not like it but I argue they're free to use the content for the sake of parody in a case such as this. Nor do I believe they have any reason to shy away from proof of their creative works.

 

 

 

They are USING that game and now a former Hasbro employee to advertise this game. So they are standing very close to the danger zone in terms of legal liability.

 

Yes, a game they designed and a former employee with - as far as I know - no standing legal obligations to Hasbro. How dare they.

 

 

 

They may be in the technical clearing, but that doesn't make them completely safe from lawsuits.

And how exactly would you be 'completely safe' from a lawsuit when dealing with this kind of material and a corporation as large as Hasbro? That point is moot because there is inherent risk involved regardless.

 

 

 

Let's not forgot how Apple won against Samsung for making their phones too similar to the iPhone.

Not a fair comparison. You are using two multi-billion companies that are direct competitors and holding them as a standard by which to judge a project like this simply because there is similarity in content. Content that is still legally recognized as being originally created and developed by the person leading this project. Now how much that plays into Hasbro being opposed to this is a speculative matter, I don't know the developers and executives feelings toward this but I doubt you do either. It's all largely speculative.

 

 

 

They are more or less using work that was stolen to advertise this new product that they NOW want to charge MONEY for.

It wasn't stolen, I don't acknowledge that claim and I'm sure it could be argued in court as well.

 

 

 

You are too close to the danger zone now. You are in a zone where lawsuits can happen with the right lawyers and the proper argument.

That will always be the case with business ventures of this sort. You're exposing your personal bias and opinion(it's fine, I already showed you mine) in place of hard legal facts and business law.

 

 

 

Fighting games generally do far better on PC than they do on consoles. So to get your game on consoles you have to now convince Sony and Microsoft that you're not a liability. You're going to have a difficult time doing that when you were previously ordered to cease and desist from Hasbro and now you're working with a former Hasbro employee and using your work that was cease and desisted to advertise your new work. You will need to create a VERY compelling argument as to why Sony or Microsoft should support your game when you're playing with legal fire.

 

 

I do agree wit this assessment. But I honestly think just using PC makes more sense anyway.

 

 

 

You have to convince people that despite all odds you will be able to get a competitive scene for this game where there is little showing that it will be possible. Fighting games do not last long if they can't get a competitive scene. You have a game that is going to start out as PC only release (already a bad start) not based on any major property, with no big name companies behind it, made by a team who legally speaking are not on the best terms, built on an engine for a game that did not perform so great. You're basically trying to convince people to take a shot in the dark on you.

 

Marketing-wise it's not a recipe for success. I won't argue that this game will be some kind of smash hit in the video game world; I just think they should be able to make it regardless.

 

 

 

From a legal standpoint, Fighting is Magic IS stealing even if it is free. It is creating competition with official products.

 

Well by that definition any similar product from any producer is competition.Hasbro could sue Kellogg's  for their Apple Jacks cereal for using a similar name to their character just as they could sue Stephanie Meyers for her Twilight series. Obviously those properties existed before MLP:FiM but you're giving Hasbro so much leeway it doesn't even appear to make any difference. Competition in a free-market(I use that term somewhat ironically) is not a basis for legal action(at least it shouldn't be).

 

Any and every product and/or service not directly or indirectly owned by a corporation is effectively a form of competition. Deal with it.

 

 

 

If Hasbro made a game that they are selling for a profit, Fighting is Magic is creating competition by offering a free product.

 

If Hasbro doesn't like it then perhaps they should make their game free as well. I won't hold my breath though.

 

 

 

Not to mention there are tons of ways to make money without actually "selling" the game.

So the punishment for offending Hasbro is banishment from any profit? Yikes. Sure they can acquire revenue but how is it Hasbro's right to circumvent that? 

 

 

 

I am certain that Mane6 had plans to get some cash for their hard work. I mean conventions covered their expenses to present the game, that's already some moolah they are accepting, but it's just all "off the books" stuff. If they managed to get the game into a competitive scene they could accept entry fees, accept advertiser fees from people who want to use the tournaments as advertising windows, etc. There are tons of ways to skim some off the top without actually "Selling" the game. League of Legends is free, but damn if it doesn't make insane amounts of cash from the tournament scene.

 

 

Won't someone please think of the corporate empires?

I think the reasoning for that is actually quite logical. A plushie creator is making everything by hand. Only amount of plushies that can be in existence is how many they can turn out by hand. Realistically that poses zero threat as there is no way that a person can produce even a thousand by hand in a workable time frame. However when someone tried to mass produce Luna plushies on Kickstarter, Hasbro stepped in. The reason why they step in for stuff like Fighting is Magic is since it's a digital item, it can realistically be reproduced at the cost of nothing, so it means it can easily find its way into the hands of millions. 

 

So the trick is to be sneaky enough to go unnoticed. Clearly that poses a conundrum in terms of marketing for a profit though. But if you can make a widespread, lucrative product while successfully masking your production methods and dissimulating the origin of it's creation you could get along okay. Of course by doing so you would have to give up any official claims of ownership yourself but considering your motive that only seems fair. Black market Bronies FTW

[Wayzer 1,418]

Looks kinda cute actually I rather sort of like it!

[Guest]

Fair use. Businesses might not like it but I argue they're free to use the content for the sake of parody in a case such as this. Nor do I believe they have any reason to shy away from proof of their creative works.

 

Fair use is being contested all the time whether you like it or not. It's always being contested, and a lot of the time the original copyright holders seem to come out on top. Remember Apple managed to sue Samsung for their phones being thin black rounded rectangles and WON. When you already got served a cease and desist once, it's not exactly very wise to partner up with someone who worked for the person whom served you the cease and desist, it's just bad business. It's even MORE unwise to try and use the cease and desisted property as an advertising window. It's basically asking for more trouble. Legally speaking, Hasbro might actually be able to bullshit some grounds to form a lawsuit under. I'm not saying I "agree" with such a lawsuit, but I am saying that realistically... Let's be honest: the people who hold these court cases are old men who are not with the times. It's very easy to get a victory in a copyright claim against the fresh meat new developers.

 

What I am saying is that it's not a very safe move on their part, or a wise one.

 

 

 

Yes, a game they designed and a former employee with - as far as I know - no standing legal obligations to Hasbro. How dare they.

 

When you help someone who was just given a legal order by your former employers get around said legal order, it's not going to look good on you. I can be almost certain that Hasbro is not going to be on the list of former employers that Faust would want future employers to call. If you worked for McDonalds and Burger King got sued by them for trying to steal the secret sauce and you help Burger King by just changing one ingredient to meet the bare minimums of being within the legal limit, then I am pretty sure that McDonalds is not going to say nice things about you to future employers.

 

It's just unprofessional and poor judgement on Faust's part. On top of this, they're trying to still benefit off of copyrighted work. So legally speaking, Hasbro does have grounds for a case if they can prove that Mane6 used their work to generate revenue for their new game, which is VERY easy to prove as they are advertising their work with Fighting is Magic and Lauren Faust. After you just got a cease and desist order? That's not a smart move. There's grounds to form a lawsuit there.

 

 

 

And how exactly would you be 'completely safe' from a lawsuit when dealing with this kind of material and a corporation as large as Hasbro? That point is moot because there is inherent risk involved regardless.

 

The risk is far greater when you have already been given a cease and desist from said company and then you hire one of their former employees, and not just any employee, but the one responsible for their recent rebranding. More or less the person who is responsible for creating the the iteration franchise they currently are selling. Then you use the cease and desisted work to advertise your new project? Yeah, that's definitely a much higher chance of a lawsuit than just happening to have made a produce that seems "too similar" to their own work. You're basically sitting there taunting them going "HAHA we got around your order, what you gonna do about it?"

 

 

 

Not a fair comparison. You are using two multi-billion companies that are direct competitors and holding them as a standard by which to judge a project like this simply because there is similarity in content. Content that is still legally recognized as being originally created and developed by the person leading this project. Now how much that plays into Hasbro being opposed to this is a speculative matter, I don't know the developers and executives feelings toward this but I doubt you do either. It's all largely speculative.

 

The point of the comparison is that people have crushed corporations bigger than themselves (Samsung is far bigger than Apple) on the grounds of ridiculous lawsuits on copyright infringement with FAR less standing ground. What makes you think that Hasbro can't crush a small group like Mane6 when they have far more legal ground to stand on than "their's in a thin black rectangle and ours is a thin black rectangle, therefore they stole it"? If people can claim ownership of black rounded rectangles and win, then there is no doubt in my mind that Hasbro has the potential to win a lawsuit in this case. That was the point of the comparison.

 

 

 

It wasn't stolen, I don't acknowledge that claim and I'm sure it could be argued in court as well.

 

Fighting is Magic is theft whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It utilized property that was not owned by the people making it and the people who owned the property reported it stolen, thus in the law's eyes that is theft. Your acknowledgement is irrelevant and it absolutely could hold up in court.

 

 

 

That will always be the case with business ventures of this sort. You're exposing your personal bias and opinion(it's fine, I already showed you mine) in place of hard legal facts and business law.

 

Not at all. I have separated myself from the issue entirely. I am looking at it from a business standpoint solely. I have not commented my personal opinions on the game, if I think it should exist, should not exist or anything of the sort. I am looking at this solely based upon a business standpoint from Hasbro's perspective, from Mane6's perspective and all involved's perspective and stating how it could very easily be a bad choice.

 

In terms of business law and legal, they actually could potentially have a case. They would have to argue it, but that does not mean they could not win. There is a difference between necessary risks and unnecessary risks. Putting myself in Mane6's role, I would have tried to stray as far away from that Cease and desist as possible. I would not be mentioning it to advertise my new game, or hiring former employees from the people who sent me said cease and desist. You're making enemies who have people in high places, and that's just foolish. Regardless of if Hasbro takes legal action or not there is no doubt in my mind that they are not going to be very happy about this all. They certainly won't be pulling Mane6 any favors that's for sure.

 

 

 

I do agree wit this assessment. But I honestly think just using PC makes more sense anyway.

 

I meant to say "on consoles than they do on PC". Sorry.

 

That being said, it hardly makes sense to push the game out on a platform that it won't do well on. However that's the beauty of crowdfunding: they don't have to care. If the game flops its the backers money wasted, not their own. They have no obligation to return investment, so naturally they don't really give a damn.

 

 

 

Marketing-wise it's not a recipe for success. I won't argue that this game will be some kind of smash hit in the video game world; I just think they should be able to make it regardless.

 

Whether I think they should be allowed to make it is irrelevant. Personally, I do not care if it is made or not. However whether or not Hasbro steps in and makes their life hell... Well that's another story. I do think they could have been a lot wiser in making it though. Hindsight and all.

 

 

 

Well by that definition any similar product from any producer is competition.Hasbro could sue Kellogg's  for their Apple Jacks cereal for using a similar name to their character just as they could sue Stephanie Meyers for her Twilight series.

 

Actually that's not true. Kelloggs had the rights to the name "Apple Jacks" before Hasbro. I am sure there was a legal agreement between Hasbro and Kelloggs at some point back in the 80s over the name Applejack. More than likely resulting in something along the lines of "so long as it is made clear that there is no reference to our cereal" etc. Similar agreements have been made in the past, such as Apple Records and Apple Computers having agreements for use of the name "Apple" so long as they did not cross certain boundaries. When you go to register something as a trademark or copyright, these kind of things are established upon the registration.

 

There are a lot of grey areas, but if say... Kellogg's took the character Applejack and used it to advertise their cereal without Hasbro's permission, THAT is theft. They broke the terms of their copyright agreement. Since Mane6 HAD no agreement with Hasbro, legally speaking Hasbro can stop them because they are using characters that obviously belong to them.

 

In the case of Stephanie Meyers it is completely different. You can't own a word that is part of the English language for the most part. Hasbro would have to prove that the name "Twilight" is related to their character Twilight. However if say... Stephanie Meyers made a character that was named Twilight Sparkle, who shared a majority of attributes to Hasbro's Twilight Sparkle, they could absolutely sue. Fighting is Magic used a ton of Hasbro's attributes without permission and it's insanely easy to prove that they belong to Hasbro. I doubt Mane6 was in a position to argue that their version of Twilight Sparkle was somehow "original".

 

 

 

Obviously those properties existed before MLP:FiM but you're giving Hasbro so much leeway it doesn't even appear to make any difference. Competition in a free-market(I use that term somewhat ironically) is not a basis for legal action(at least it shouldn't be).

 

Not at all. It's a matter of they were using characters that are OBVIOUSLY belonging to Hasbro, as I have detailed above. It's not a matter of "too similar" it's a matter of they are the same characters.

 

 

 

Any and every product and/or service not directly or indirectly owned by a corporation is effectively a form of competition. Deal with it.

 

This is up to the discretion of the corporations in question. There is legal competition and then there is illegal competition. The distinction is up to the corporation who feels violated to accuse and a court to uphold or discredit. In other words, it's not that simple.

 

 

 

If Hasbro doesn't like it then perhaps they should make their game free as well. I won't hold my breath though.

 

That's a poor argument. "If you don't like me using your property and giving it away for free, perhaps you should consider taking the financial loss and making it free as well." You can't threaten the owner of the property to take any kind of action like that because you have no grounds to stand on. You're not in a position to make such demands. Hasbro has employees they need to pay, costs they need to cover or they go out of business. Just because you want things free and have the means to rip off their work and hand it out for free doesn't change that or make you a better person.

 

This is the whole reason we have copyright laws to protect companies from being ripped off like that. Face it, Mane6 didn't have permission to do what they did, they got caught, and they had to shut it down. If they had some legal grounds to stand on, why would they adhere to Hasbro's request? Because they knew that they were not in a defendable position. They knew that there was no way that they could win a case against Hasbro.

 

Here's a bit of legal info that everyone should know: if you are not guilty you have no reason not to take something to court or to plead guilty.

 

 

 

So the punishment for offending Hasbro is banishment from any profit? Yikes. Sure they can acquire revenue but how is it Hasbro's right to circumvent that? 

 

When we are talking strictly Fighting is Magic, it is illegal for them to profit off it in any way. In terms of Them's Fightin' Herds? It will be up to a court to decide, which I can not 100% determine the outcome, but I CAN say that it is VERY possible that Hasbro could win such a case. I am not asserting the certainty, but that there is a reasonable possibility. Any dollar made illegally can bite you in the ass in the future as well.

 

 

 

Won't someone please think of the corporate empires?

 

That's a poor argument. You're essentially trying to tug at people's emotional strings. Yes, we all hate corporations, blah blah blah, they make more money than us and the CEOs live handsomely. All of that is irrelevant though. Someone is not wrong, denied their rights or suddenly not entitled to protect their property just because they make a lot of money. If this was in reverse and Mane6 was the big corporation getting sued by a little guy like Hasbro I am certain you'd somehow think this was all different and that Hasbro was the poor victim.

 

You're using the mentality of "corporation = bad" to justify your argument, but it does not eliminate anything. Remember the people you REALLY hurt when you steal from corporations are not the CEOs and executives you loathe so much. The CEOs and executives already have their money put away. If the company goes under tomorrow they can continue to live upper class lives without any worry. However all the hardworking middle class employees lose their jobs, are back to job hunting and get virtually nothing.

 

Legally speaking, Hasbro was well within their rights to file a cease and desist against Mane6 for Fighting is Magic, and as an American I will stand by that because I believe that everyone is entitled to their rights to defend their property regardless of how much money they make. 

 

 

So the trick is to be sneaky enough to go unnoticed. Clearly that poses a conundrum in terms of marketing for a profit though. But if you can make a widespread, lucrative product while successfully masking your production methods and dissimulating the origin of it's creation you could get along okay. Of course by doing so you would have to give up any official claims of ownership yourself but considering your motive that only seems fair. Black market Bronies FTW

 

Well legally Hasbro could go after even someone making a single plushie, but it's not really worth the legal fees to go after someone who poses such a small threat. If Hasbro legitimately felt you were a threat enough to send you a cease and desist though, you're not some freedom fighter for trying to get around it, you're just being a jerk trying to profit off of something that isn't yours to profit from. Sure you may be small time enough for them never to be able to go after you due to how expensive it would be vs. the return but it does not make what you're doing any less illegal, nor does it make you any less of a jerk.

 

There is also the issue that courts are not just there to right you when you've been wronged, but also set legal precedent. So just because you're all like "Haha, I meet the minimums of the laws!" doesn't mean you're safe. Court is designed to determine if you ACTUALLY meet them. Loopholing does not always work as court can decide that what you did is still illegal. Court is able to interpret laws. So if your interpretation and the court's interpretation don't match up, you're up shit creek without a paddle.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Guest

[MarionEtte136 79]

I gotta say, I'll be following this project closely... I might not have anything to donate, but I'll certainly be following them...

[Roughshod 719]

Fair use is being contested all the time whether you like it or not. It's always being contested, and a lot of the time the original copyright holders seem to come out on top. Remember Apple managed to sue Samsung for their phones being thin black rounded rectangles and WON. When you already got served a cease and desist once, it's not exactly very wise to partner up with someone who worked for the person whom served you the cease and desist, it's just bad business. It's even MORE unwise to try and use the cease and desisted property as an advertising window. It's basically asking for more trouble. Legally speaking, Hasbro might actually be able to bullshit some grounds to form a lawsuit under. I'm not saying I "agree" with such a lawsuit, but I am saying that realistically... Let's be honest: the people who hold these court cases are old men who are not with the times. It's very easy to get a victory in a copyright claim against the fresh meat new developers.

 

What I am saying is that it's not a very safe move on their part, or a wise one.

 

 

 

 

 

When you help someone who was just given a legal order by your former employers get around said legal order, it's not going to look good on you. I can be almost certain that Hasbro is not going to be on the list of former employers that Faust would want future employers to call. If you worked for McDonalds and Burger King got sued by them for trying to steal the secret sauce and you help Burger King by just changing one ingredient to meet the bare minimums of being within the legal limit, then I am pretty sure that McDonalds is not going to say nice things about you to future employers.

 

It's just unprofessional and poor judgement on Faust's part. On top of this, they're trying to still benefit off of copyrighted work. So legally speaking, Hasbro does have grounds for a case if they can prove that Mane6 used their work to generate revenue for their new game, which is VERY easy to prove as they are advertising their work with Fighting is Magic and Lauren Faust. After you just got a cease and desist order? That's not a smart move. There's grounds to form a lawsuit there.

 

 

 

 

 

The risk is far greater when you have already been given a cease and desist from said company and then you hire one of their former employees, and not just any employee, but the one responsible for their recent rebranding. More or less the person who is responsible for creating the the iteration franchise they currently are selling. Then you use the cease and desisted work to advertise your new project? Yeah, that's definitely a much higher chance of a lawsuit than just happening to have made a produce that seems "too similar" to their own work. You're basically sitting there taunting them going "HAHA we got around your order, what you gonna do about it?"

 

 

 

 

 

The point of the comparison is that people have crushed corporations bigger than themselves (Samsung is far bigger than Apple) on the grounds of ridiculous lawsuits on copyright infringement with FAR less standing ground. What makes you think that Hasbro can't crush a small group like Mane6 when they have far more legal ground to stand on than "their's in a thin black rectangle and ours is a thin black rectangle, therefore they stole it"? If people can claim ownership of black rounded rectangles and win, then there is no doubt in my mind that Hasbro has the potential to win a lawsuit in this case. That was the point of the comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

Fighting is Magic is theft whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It utilized property that was not owned by the people making it and the people who owned the property reported it stolen, thus in the law's eyes that is theft. Your acknowledgement is irrelevant and it absolutely could hold up in court.

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all. I have separated myself from the issue entirely. I am looking at it from a business standpoint solely. I have not commented my personal opinions on the game, if I think it should exist, should not exist or anything of the sort. I am looking at this solely based upon a business standpoint from Hasbro's perspective, from Mane6's perspective and all involved's perspective and stating how it could very easily be a bad choice.

 

In terms of business law and legal, they actually could potentially have a case. They would have to argue it, but that does not mean they could not win. There is a difference between necessary risks and unnecessary risks. Putting myself in Mane6's role, I would have tried to stray as far away from that Cease and desist as possible. I would not be mentioning it to advertise my new game, or hiring former employees from the people who sent me said cease and desist. You're making enemies who have people in high places, and that's just foolish. Regardless of if Hasbro takes legal action or not there is no doubt in my mind that they are not going to be very happy about this all. They certainly won't be pulling Mane6 any favors that's for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

I meant to say "on consoles than they do on PC". Sorry.

 

That being said, it hardly makes sense to push the game out on a platform that it won't do well on. However that's the beauty of crowdfunding: they don't have to care. If the game flops its the backers money wasted, not their own. They have no obligation to return investment, so naturally they don't really give a damn.

 

 

 

 

 

Whether I think they should be allowed to make it is irrelevant. Personally, I do not care if it is made or not. However whether or not Hasbro steps in and makes their life hell... Well that's another story. I do think they could have been a lot wiser in making it though. Hindsight and all.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually that's not true. Kelloggs had the rights to the name "Apple Jacks" before Hasbro. I am sure there was a legal agreement between Hasbro and Kelloggs at some point back in the 80s over the name Applejack. More than likely resulting in something along the lines of "so long as it is made clear that there is no reference to our cereal" etc. Similar agreements have been made in the past, such as Apple Records and Apple Computers having agreements for use of the name "Apple" so long as they did not cross certain boundaries. When you go to register something as a trademark or copyright, these kind of things are established upon the registration.

 

There are a lot of grey areas, but if say... Kellogg's took the character Applejack and used it to advertise their cereal without Hasbro's permission, THAT is theft. They broke the terms of their copyright agreement. Since Mane6 HAD no agreement with Hasbro, legally speaking Hasbro can stop them because they are using characters that obviously belong to them.

 

In the case of Stephanie Meyers it is completely different. You can't own a word that is part of the English language for the most part. Hasbro would have to prove that the name "Twilight" is related to their character Twilight. However if say... Stephanie Meyers made a character that was named Twilight Sparkle, who shared a majority of attributes to Hasbro's Twilight Sparkle, they could absolutely sue. Fighting is Magic used a ton of Hasbro's attributes without permission and it's insanely easy to prove that they belong to Hasbro. I doubt Mane6 was in a position to argue that their version of Twilight Sparkle was somehow "original".

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all. It's a matter of they were using characters that are OBVIOUSLY belonging to Hasbro, as I have detailed above. It's not a matter of "too similar" it's a matter of they are the same characters.

 

 

 

 

 

This is up to the discretion of the corporations in question. There is legal competition and then there is illegal competition. The distinction is up to the corporation who feels violated to accuse and a court to uphold or discredit. In other words, it's not that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a poor argument. "If you don't like me using your property and giving it away for free, perhaps you should consider taking the financial loss and making it free as well." You can't threaten the owner of the property to take any kind of action like that because you have no grounds to stand on. You're not in a position to make such demands. Hasbro has employees they need to pay, costs they need to cover or they go out of business. Just because you want things free and have the means to rip off their work and hand it out for free doesn't change that or make you a better person.

 

This is the whole reason we have copyright laws to protect companies from being ripped off like that. Face it, Mane6 didn't have permission to do what they did, they got caught, and they had to shut it down. If they had some legal grounds to stand on, why would they adhere to Hasbro's request? Because they knew that they were not in a defendable position. They knew that there was no way that they could win a case against Hasbro.

 

Here's a bit of legal info that everyone should know: if you are not guilty you have no reason not to take something to court or to plead guilty.

 

 

 

 

 

When we are talking strictly Fighting is Magic, it is illegal for them to profit off it in any way. In terms of Them's Fightin' Herds? It will be up to a court to decide, which I can not 100% determine the outcome, but I CAN say that it is VERY possible that Hasbro could win such a case. I am not asserting the certainty, but that there is a reasonable possibility. Any dollar made illegally can bite you in the ass in the future as well.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a poor argument. You're essentially trying to tug at people's emotional strings. Yes, we all hate corporations, blah blah blah, they make more money than us and the CEOs live handsomely. All of that is irrelevant though. Someone is not wrong, denied their rights or suddenly not entitled to protect their property just because they make a lot of money. If this was in reverse and Mane6 was the big corporation getting sued by a little guy like Hasbro I am certain you'd somehow think this was all different and that Hasbro was the poor victim.

 

You're using the mentality of "corporation = bad" to justify your argument, but it does not eliminate anything. Remember the people you REALLY hurt when you steal from corporations are not the CEOs and executives you loathe so much. The CEOs and executives already have their money put away. If the company goes under tomorrow they can continue to live upper class lives without any worry. However all the hardworking middle class employees lose their jobs, are back to job hunting and get virtually nothing.

 

Legally speaking, Hasbro was well within their rights to file a cease and desist against Mane6 for Fighting is Magic, and as an American I will stand by that because I believe that everyone is entitled to their rights to defend their property regardless of how much money they make. 

 

 

 

 

Well legally Hasbro could go after even someone making a single plushie, but it's not really worth the legal fees to go after someone who poses such a small threat. If Hasbro legitimately felt you were a threat enough to send you a cease and desist though, you're not some freedom fighter for trying to get around it, you're just being a jerk trying to profit off of something that isn't yours to profit from. Sure you may be small time enough for them never to be able to go after you due to how expensive it would be vs. the return but it does not make what you're doing any less illegal, nor does it make you any less of a jerk.

 

There is also the issue that courts are not just there to right you when you've been wronged, but also set legal precedent. So just because you're all like "Haha, I meet the minimums of the laws!" doesn't mean you're safe. Court is designed to determine if you ACTUALLY meet them. Loopholing does not always work as court can decide that what you did is still illegal. Court is able to interpret laws. So if your interpretation and the court's interpretation don't match up, you're up shit creek without a paddle.

Based on your signature I'm going to assume this entire post was made sarcastically and I will not be taking it seriously. You almost had me fooled there!

 

That said, the whole "Our Lord and Savior Lauren Faust vs Big Bad Hasbro" thing is still bullshit

Everyone knows Michael Bay is the true enemy of Hasbro.

[Limeblossom 482]

A far as I know they're not in legal fire since they use original characters and music not owned by Hasbro.

I know that you still miss Fighting is Magic, but that doesn't mean their current game won't be good. They already have 29% funding.

 

By the way, why are people in the Brony community starting to use Indiegogo more that Kickstarter? I thought the whole Paypal case damaged Indiegogo.

[Guest]

 

 

Based on your signature I'm going to assume this entire post was made sarcastically and I will not be taking it seriously. You almost had me fooled there!

 

I am being legitimate. Accusing me of sarcasm at this point is just an attempt to hide the fact that you have no proper argument to respond with.

A far as I know they're not in legal fire since they use original characters and music not owned by Hasbro.

I know that you still miss Fighting is Magic, but that doesn't mean their current game won't be good. They already have 29% funding.

 

By the way, why are people in the Brony community starting to use Indiegogo more that Kickstarter? I thought the whole Paypal case damaged Indiegogo.

I could care less about Fighting is Magic. I based by thoughts on that the game will not be successful based upon my knowledge of video games, what it takes for a fighting game to be successful, and their business strategy. As I said before, legally they are in the technical clear, but that doesn't mean Hasbro won't kick up a fuss.

[Limeblossom 482]

I based by thoughts on that the game will not be successful based upon my knowledge of video games, what it takes for a fighting game to be successful, and their business strategy.

You could ask them to hire you as a business strategist and advisor.

 

 

but that doesn't mean Hasbro won't kick up a fuss.

And it could result in a discouragement to use original characters. Just think of it; you make an original character for your game and a company who has no connections with your character or project is suing you about an OC they don't own.

[Guest]

 

 

You could ask them to hire you as a business strategist and advisor.

 

Hahaha, nah. I doubt I'd do a good job, I know the basics and that's about it.

 

 

 

And it could result in a discouragement to use original characters. Just think of it; you make an original character for your game and a company who has no connections with your character or project is suing you about an OC they don't own.

 

 

Not saying I agree or that they'd win, but they could definitely try to cause a ruckus.