Haolonggood - New for 2025

[Shane]

I don't believe you can copyright an interpretation of an existing animal (like a skeletal drawing) unless there are specific elements that are demonstrably unique to that specific interpretation that make it proprietary. For existing creatures, it is exceedingly difficult to do this, and if your skeletal drawing is meant to represent an accurate version of the animal, I'd imagine it's very unlikely that a judge would deem that is something that is copyright protected by having notable distinguishing elements. As Blaine noted, if they used Dan's actual literal drawing in marketing or promotion, then that's another thing altogether. But simply referencing a skeletal drawing to create a fully fleshed out figurine would be extremely difficult to prove as copyright infringement in court.

I can't really think of a reason to destroy fully completed production figurines barring a serious QC issue.

[thomasw100]

I don't believe you can copyright an interpretation of an existing animal (like a skeletal drawing) unless there are specific elements that are demonstrably unique to that specific interpretation that make it proprietary. For existing creatures, it is exceedingly difficult to do this, and if your skeletal drawing is meant to represent an accurate version of the animal, I'd imagine it's very unlikely that a judge would deem that is something that is copyright protected by having notable distinguishing elements. As Blaine noted, if they used Dan's actual literal drawing in marketing or promotion, then that's another thing altogether. But simply referencing a skeletal drawing to create a fully fleshed out figurine would be extremely difficult to prove as copyright infringement in court.

I can't really think of a reason to destroy fully completed production figurines barring a serious QC issue.

I would agree with you here as well. If it would be the case that using a skeletal as inspiration for developing a 3D model, then by the same reasoning using pictures of a mounted skeleton in a paleontological museum would also come with copyright.

[Faelrin]

What an absolute waste, and a shame. They looked wonderful (regardless of some potential minor faults). Guess we'll have to wait and see how it can be "improved" from here.

[Flaffy]

Dr. Scott Hartman's take on the matter, which I find incredibly fair. HLG's conduct has been quite poor in this instance given they straight up ignored Dan Folkes's attempts to enquire further about this project.

"Skeletal Reconstructions
Because skeletal reconstructions combine scientific data with various levels of educated inference they fall into a something of a copyright gray area. To avoid misunderstandings I'll elaborate on how I* view them:

The skeletal diagrams I produce are intended as scientific representations of real animals. As a result items like general proportions, pose, and specific anatomical details (e.g. the position and shape of the eye socket) are not copyrightable. Moreover, I want them to be used as references.

That said, the images themselves are copyrighted - you can't decide to put one in a book, museum display, etc. without licensing them. And while the pose itself can be copied (in fact, please do) the outline of the image cannot be - i.e. if you make your own skeletals please adopt the pose, but you can't cut and paste the outline onto a children's toy without permission.

Could you clarify for specific scenarios?
Sure, but first let's make use of an analogy: I run a blog on this website as well. The ideas and data I share on the blog cannot be copyrighted, but the specific words in the order I've arranged them belong to me. People are free to take those concepts and write about them on their own blogs (in fact I want them to), use them as the basis for a documentary, etc, although doing so without attribution is impolite. If you like you can print out my blogs and read them in the privacy of your own home, or even share them with a colleague. On the other hand you cannot take the blog posts and make them into a book and sell them. In my view skeletal reconstructions work in much the same way.

Putting that into specifics - if you are making use of the images as a reference for creating non-commercial artwork, you don't need permission. If you later decide to post that work online (in a non-commercial sense) that's fine too, but please cite me (better yet, link to my site).

If you are doing commercial work and want to reproduce or modify the images in any way you need permission. If you are doing commercial work and want to use them as general anatomical references I don't feel that breaks copyright law, but that doesn't excuse being impolite. Recognition and links are the currency of the internet (and common courtesy is the currency of human decency), so please use them.

As a general policy I would prefer to be contacted ahead of any commercial use - I enjoy learning how my work is being used, and as an added benefit I can make sure the commercial work isn't too derivative before there is any trouble. Better yet, hire me. My rates are reasonable, I have 17 years of experience doing commissions and consulting for all manner of media projects, and I bend over backwards to make sure the needs of clients are met. I realize that not every project has the same budget (or even a proper budget at all), but if you contact me we can at least make sure proper credit is given, and that there will be no hard feelings after the fact.

 

Fair Use
As many internet denizens know, there is a thing called "fair use." If you know what it is and it applies to you, go right ahead and fairly use my content, but please make sure you credit me when using them. At times the internet skates dangerously close to (and sometimes right over) the line that delineates fair use. I'm usually pretty reasonable, especially with academic or educational applications, so if you are in doubt at all please drop me a line first.

Disclaimer
*I am not a lawyer, so you should not construe my statements as in any way indicative of the legal views of other content owners."

[Over9K]

A Chinese company giving a sweet sh*t about Western IP theft resulting in international copyright infringement once they get caught (by potential customers, not legal authorities), AND destroying a significant amount of INVESTMENT in an effort to apologize and repair the problem with the product?

Naw. They're removing the lips.

[Flaffy]

A Chinese company giving a sweet sh*t about Western IP theft resulting in international copyright infringement once they get caught (by potential customers, not legal authorities), AND destroying a significant amount of INVESTMENT in an effort to apologize and repair the problem with the product?

Naw. They're removing the lips.

That would be a shame if true. Was looking forward to getting a lipped Giganotosaurus finally. The HLG Giga did show great promise despite my minor nitpicks with the head.

If not the whole skeletal debacle, I wonder what else could've possibly resulted in this drastic an action? HLG has let plenty of scientific inaccuracies both major and minor slide before, what changed?

[crazy8wizard]

The drastic choice to destroy all produced copies is strange to me because Haolonggood has previously made a second batch with a fixed error for a couple dinosaurs. Then again, the Ouranosaurus was already on the market when they decided to fix it, so maybe they did destroy all previous copies and we never knew.

[Sim]

I too don't think Haolonggood is redoing the Giganotosaurus due to being based on Dan's skeletal, which I'm not even sure is confirmed.  I think it's most likely that they want to modify the nasal ridge to look more like what Mark Witton concluded carcharodontosaurid nasals looked like.  I donj't think it's necessary though, the figure looked excellent already.  I find it strange though that in contrast to being well-received on this forum, the Giganotosaurus figure received a lot of criticism on Paleofiguras's page.  I don't see anything so bad about the Giganotosaurus.

[Sim]

As for why they're altering the Giganotosaurus when they haven't done that for other figures besides the Ouranosaurus, I think it's due to the popularity of Giganotosaurus.  The Haolonggood Carcharodontosaurus was a success and I think they want to achieve that with Giganotosaurus too.  Haolonggood did say they want to be more scientifically rigorous, which doesn't strike me as being consistent with using someone's skeletal.

[Manospundylus gigas]

At first, I thought the complaints about the nasal and lacrimals were unfounded. The available photos weren't good enough to see that region, and the origin of the complaints, the author of that comparison and post, which has since been deleted,  didn't say anything with any basis and mixed things up, coelurosaur ridges and stuff... It was also laughable that they posted the eofauna giga when it's now completely outdated with many errors. However, the photos that have been published along with the statement show that there is indeed a ridge that runs down from the lacrimal to the side of the nasal and there's a bulge between the two nasals, which isn't correct. They might want to correct this before they start selling them en masse, which could be a more scientific approach on HLG's part. But, for example, the nasals of the Pnso Mapusaurus are also too high, too allosaurid crest, rather the rugose nasals of carcharodontosaurids.

About the skeletal and copyright I think that is absolute BS. They werent selling the skeletal, and pretty sure they used also other reconstructios as reference. The only thing would remain are the proportions that are pretty much the same in most modern giga and carcharodontosaurid reconstructions, there is also a lot of Taurovenator on that giga and vice versa. So good luck proving anything. It is polite? NO; legal? YES. Also I doubt that was their only reference, and they have never credited any skeletal artist before in their models, AFAIK, why would they start now? why not all the other previous ones? Moreover, Dan Folkes Ceratosuchops Riparovenator skeletal has been stolen twice by a spanish team and artist and published the copy with no shame in 2 subsequent papers, this has been noted by Dan himself, he reached them and they just didnt give a F, and did it again. And that was the skeletal directly, and nothing happened, he couldng do anything. Why would HLG have any copyright proble if it was only used as reference? one among many others probably? 

[Berno]

Assuming the problem is the ridges, wouldn't it be easier to chop off the head and replace it?

[Sim]

Assuming the problem is the ridges, wouldn't it be easier to chop off the head and replace it?

Then you'd have seams which people don't like.

[Over9K]

Assuming the problem is the ridges, wouldn't it be easier to chop off the head and replace it?

Then you'd have seams which people don't like.

And can you imagine trying to match the paint? Yikes. Better to recycle the materials into new castings, use the original body mold, sculpt a new head/jaw, assemble, paint and ship it next spring.

I hope whatever they're changing is worth it for them. This one is going to cost them significantly more to produce, now that they're essentially doing it twice.

[SidB]

It sure looked as if it was going to be a pretty niffty piece, but in any event, it wasn't on my acquisition list as I currently have the old but still fine Carnegie Safari, the newer Wild Safari Giga, the Eofauna, the Favorite and finally, the PNSO, which I could get Bravo Models to 'lip', if I was so inclined. A surfeit of Giganotosaurs really.

[Pinbacker]

Via Paleofigura:

#HAOLONGGOOD Giganotosaurus (Update)

Regarding the cancellation of production and the destruction of previously manufactured figures of the recently released Giganotosaurus, the brand reiterated that the decision was made due to criticism regarding the figure's reconstruction. Therefore, they opted to remake it as part of a commercial strategy. They also clarified that the cancellation was not a decision due to alleged copyright infringement.

The good news is that the prototype for a new version is already ready, and they hope to release the figure as soon as possible.

**Note:** If any batches have not been destroyed and are sold, these pieces could become highly valued collectibles.

[suspsy]

I'm still unhappy with how they're not specifying just what it is that fans were complaining about and what changes will be done.

[Skorpio V.]

The mixed emotions I get when the plot of real life starts to thicken

I'm a fan of the head sculpt that we're seeing now, apart from the crests as stated before. I love how tight that seal looked on the lips and the rest of the model overall looked good. I don't think it warranted the batch's destruction, if that is indeed the reason behind it. I really do hope they're not removing the lips.

I speculate they might've used Folkes' skeletals for the packaging if not only as reference for the sculpt, as they tend to feature skeletal diagrams on their boxes. That would be a bigger ordeal than using it for the model. There's a lot that's going into this that we'll probably never know of.

[thomasw100]

Honestly I think that whatever is the reason for this action, I consider this as a very bad move. Simply because it will cost Haolonggood a lot of money and will therefore limit their capacity for future investment of any sorts.

Like they could invest in exciting future figures like more large sauropods, get better molding machines, expand their palette of paint colors, improve the resources of their development team, improve their marketing, produce reconstruction videos like PNSO does, launch collaborations with paleontologists, you name it.

[Turkeysaurus]

They should release them as Mapusaurus for a cheaper price.

[Abobo]