Papo Plagiarism

[dinotoyblog]

Continued from our heated discussion on the Dino toy blog thread...

Here is a thought - Papo are clearly rip-off dinosaurs - I wonder if anybody at Universal (or wherever) is considering sueing Papo - or perhaps Papo have an agreement? Do you think they woud have a case?

[thetyrantlizard]

I doubt they have an agreement--@$$bro definitely has the exclusive rights to the JP dinosaur line, so in a way it's a violation of copyright.

I remember though a similar discussion from the JPtoys site, and the conclusion was that, as long as Papo does not officially or overtly market their toys as the "official" line, Universal would have a difficult case. Dinosaurs are generic in a sense that, say, Darth Vader is not, so Papo could argue any resemblance is a coincidence. It isn't, of course ;D

[jigrig]

I dont know about a rip off but I definately see some resemblance of the Papo Allosaurus to this Godzillasaurus.
What do You think?[img src="[/imgi257.photobucket.com/albums/hh231/jigrig/gsaurus.jpg"]
I dont know if I did this right but, Hey, I tried.
I guess You could copy & paste to see what I'm refering to if You are so inclined.

[jigrig]

[dinotoyblog]

Yep, you did it right, except you created two posts.

I see what you mean, but I think the similarity is a coincidence. I think they based the Allosaurus purely on the painting by Todd Marshall. Piltdown posted a likely candidate in the...um...which thread? Either Papo toys or Dino blog theads.

Although I say 'based', I really mean plagiarized

[Agustín]

dinotoyblog said:

Yep, you did it right, except you created two posts.

I see what you mean, but I think the similarity is a coincidence. I think they based the Allosaurus purely on the painting by Todd Marshall. Piltdown posted a likely candidate in the...um...which thread? Either Papo toys or Dino blog theads.

Although I say 'based', I really mean plagiarized

Double posting is allowed .
Even if Papo dinos ARE let's say, highly inspired by JP dinos, they are awesome. Hell, that makes them even better imo.
But I don't think they have a case, really. It's not like they're imitating Assbro's toys, they just copied the looks of the dinosaurs in the movie...

[jigrig]

LOL!
I see what You mean.
As far as plagerism goes, I see 2 problems for JP, first, Their own line of toys which came first bear less likeness to the movies Dinosaurs than Papo's figures do.
2nd I dont know that You can claim rights to an animal unless it is a creation like Godzilla or The Creature even though there are counless knock offs of both those characters in the toy department.

[thetyrantlizard]

jigrig said:

As far as plagerism goes, I see 2 problems for JP, first, Their own line of toys which came first bear less likeness to the movies Dinosaurs than Papo's figures do.

Precisely.

[thetyrantlizard]

@$$bro has released goodness knows how many dozens of "velociraptors" for the official toy lines from the movies, plus the repaints, CamoXtreme, Chaos Effect etc etc. Yet not a single one of them even remotely resembles their movie counterparts the way the Papo velociraptor does.

[dinotoyblog]

yeaaaaaah - I suppose so.

But at the end of the day, It still doesn't settle well with me. It's probably becasue I work in education, and have a skewed perspective on what dinosaur replicas should represent, this is related to the underlying philosophy behind WHY Papo copied JP.

OK, the company has clearly put in huge amounts of effort into creating the most detailed and accurate dinosaur figures ever - Kudos to that. But they have done it purely for money- it is strikingly obvious, almost cringeworthy, that they have copied JP so that the figures are recognisable and sell well.

I'm not saying other companies don't think about what will sell well, but they do at least consult palaeontologists, they at least aim to be accurate, aim to educate.

If they came with a disclaimer saying (not entirely based on fossils), I would be fine with Papo.

The Allosaurus shows that they dinos don't have to be based on JP to be Amazing.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying thats how I feel.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy...give me some time...

[thetyrantlizard]

Yes, other companies consult paleontologists about their figures, which is probably why we are suffering from a rash of feathered 'dinosaurs' [sic] ;D But that does not guarantee accuracy--Safari's figures are associated with Carnegie, for instance, so why are they allowed to continue with a spinosaurus with a carnosaur head? Heck, even Battat (Boston Museum) is guilty of solipsism--why does Stegosaurus have 8 tail spikes, when it has long been realised it had only 4?

And palaeontological accuracy does not necessarily make for a great toy. Some of the earlier Safari dinos are so crude it is shocking they are still being repainted in 2007.

And aside from the pteranodon teeth--since I think of it as a ludodactylus I don't mind ;D -- there is really nothing egregiously wrong about Papo's dinosaurs. Yes, the raptor is not feathered (thank goodness ;D ), doesn't have a straight tail (but doesn't the special edition Safari velociraptor have a curved tail too?), and the hands are not correctly positioned, but they are minor imperfections in a great toy. (And anyway Papo will eventually be proven correct about the scaliness of its velociraptor ;D ) After all, Papo dinosaurs don't come with tags proclaiming they are "museum quality". When Safari says its stegosaur is museum quality, I'd rather have non-authenticated dinosaurs ;D

[thetyrantlizard]

And anyway strictly speaking only Universal Studios, or whoever owns the copyright, has the right to complain. If they haven't by this time secured an injunction against the sale of the Papo dinosaurs, that can only mean that either they have no legal claim, or they tolerate the uncanny resemblance. If the copyright owners don't mind, I certainly won't ;D

And really I wonder why copying the dinosaurs from JP should be considered blameworthy. If @$$bro can't make decent JP dinos, then Papo, or whoever else, might as well ;D This year's Schleich spinosaurs is also a blatant copy of the JP/// spinosaurus, and its 'anhanguera' is clearly based on the ornithocheirus in WwD. Since Toyway stopped production of the WwD line, I also am not about to complain ;D

[thetyrantlizard]

And anyway Papo is hardly the only toy company who are, erm, 'inspired' by other artist's works. The 2007 "pterosaur" of Wild Safari, for instance, is a direct copy of a Todd Marshall painting. Since the pterosaur was identified by Marshall simply as an "African Pterosaur" (it wasn't formally described at the time it was painted) then Safari had no choice but to also call its imitation pterosaur a 'pterosaur.' Bullyland's 2007 stegosaurus is unmistakably based on the angry stegosaurus in WwD. Yes, it is unfair to the artists that they are not compensated for their inspiration, but that would be like saying Virgil is a plagiarist for imitating the Iliad, or that Shakespeare is a hack for copying Plutarch verbatim. Art works in as mysterious ways as God ;D

[thetyrantlizard]

T. S. Eliot once said that minor artists copy, and great artists steal. By that standard Papo is the greatest toy company in existence ;D

[dinotoyblog]

thetyrantlizard said:

Art works in as mysterious ways as God ;D

Or "I have faith in Papo" ;D

I agree that loads of Museum Quality replicas are also( ;D) unsatisfactory in terms of accuracy, and palaeontologist are not always right. It's very minor, almost niggly, but its the blatancy of the intention of Papo to cash in.

Feathered dinos?
The evidence for scales - A 1993 blockbuster movie (no, seriously! thats it!)
The evidence for feathers - a squillion papers accepted as consensus by the maj. palaeontologist community (i.e. all of them I know where I'm putting my money
Shall we take this outside!? ;D