Paleoart and colour

[Dinoguy2]

I believe the artist should contact Safari if he feels he has a case. I personally do not think you can copyright colours. Yes, credit would have been nice but it's not theft.

This is getting boring.

Speaking as an artist, you absolutely can copyright a color scheme. Why wouldn't you be able to? The color scheme was made up and obviously interesting enough for someone to copy and make money off of.

I'm sorry you're bored because people who get their hard work ripped off for no pay and no credit while the person the company hired to do a job got paid for doing literally zero work. It's disgusting and it's morally bankrupt.

Here's how this is supposed to work: Company sees color scheme in a picture they like. They email the artist and ask for rights to use the picture. Artist agrees and negotiates a fee. OR, Safari hires an artist that *gasp* thinks up their own colors!

Here's what apparently actually happened. Safari hires an artist to design paint scheme. Artist doesn't know what to do. Artist looks up subject on Google. Artist copy/pastes paint scheme. Artist gets paid for spending 5 minutes copying somebody else's art. Is this person actually an artist? No. They are a talentless hack.

Here's an idea. Maybe instead of buying Safari's Anzu, I'll 3D scan it and print my own. Then I'll paint it myself and sell it on my web site. I'm sure Safari would be cool with that right? After all, I'm just copying the sculpt. You can't copyright a dinosaur!

[stargatedalek]

Actually you can't copyright a dinosaur, because imagine if that was possible and someone had copyrighted a black iridescent Microraptor. Either that person would now own the right to use a part of nature when no one else could, which is a slippery slope of terrifying proportions, or their copyright would become void wasting the large amount of time and expenses needed to get a proper copyright.

While it's clear that some things (JP designs for instance) are never going to end up being true to nature, I can understand why courts would not want to attempt to make that distinction. Especially since any such legal ruling could easily become partisan, there are people out there who think for example that feathered dinosaurs challenge their religious beliefs. Lawyers representing parties like these could bring up the works of outliers like Alan Feduccia or David Peters to argue that the science is not conclusive, and if the courts saw them as valid even once that would in itself create another dangerous precedent, where the court system is deciding what makes for valid science.

I would much rather put up with some occasional moderate laziness from companies like Safari and hordes of JP clones from every corner of the world than take the risks.

[DinoToyForum]

I believe the artist should contact Safari if he feels he has a case. I personally do not think you can copyright colours. Yes, credit would have been nice but it's not theft.

This is getting boring.

Speaking as an artist, you absolutely can copyright a color scheme. Why wouldn't you be able to? The color scheme was made up and obviously interesting enough for someone to copy and make money off of.

I'm sorry you're bored because people who get their hard work ripped off for no pay and no credit while the person the company hired to do a job got paid for doing literally zero work. It's disgusting and it's morally bankrupt.

Here's how this is supposed to work: Company sees color scheme in a picture they like. They email the artist and ask for rights to use the picture. Artist agrees and negotiates a fee. OR, Safari hires an artist that *gasp* thinks up their own colors!

Here's what apparently actually happened. Safari hires an artist to design paint scheme. Artist doesn't know what to do. Artist looks up subject on Google. Artist copy/pastes paint scheme. Artist gets paid for spending 5 minutes copying somebody else's art. Is this person actually an artist? No. They are a talentless hack.

Here's an idea. Maybe instead of buying Safari's Anzu, I'll 3D scan it and print my own. Then I'll paint it myself and sell it on my web site. I'm sure Safari would be cool with that right? After all, I'm just copying the sculpt. You can't copyright a dinosaur!

This is an official warning for an intentional personal attack (against the artist) and general provocation (Forum rule 1). Were this a second offence, I would most certainly be banning you. So, please reconsider how you communicate your point of view in the future. Thanks

In any case, I'm glad you qualified your accusation with "apparently" because your fabrication about who decided the Anzu colour and why contains many unfounded assumptions. I can confidently assert, having worked with them, that you're severely mischaracterising the artist.

[Dinoguy2]

Actually you can't copyright a dinosaur, because imagine if that was possible and someone had copyrighted a black iridescent Microraptor. Either that person would now own the right to use a part of nature when no one else could, which is a slippery slope of terrifying proportions, or their copyright would become void wasting the large amount of time and expenses needed to get a proper copyright.

While it's clear that some things (JP designs for instance) are never going to end up being true to nature, I can understand why courts would not want to attempt to make that distinction. Especially since any such legal ruling could easily become partisan, there are people out there who think for example that feathered dinosaurs challenge their religious beliefs. Lawyers representing parties like these could bring up the works of outliers like Alan Feduccia or David Peters to argue that the science is not conclusive, and if the courts saw them as valid even once that would in itself create another dangerous precedent, where the court system is deciding what makes for valid science.

I would much rather put up with some occasional moderate laziness from companies like Safari and hordes of JP clones from every corner of the world than take the risks.

An artistic reconstruction of a dinosaur is in no way a part of nature. If we were talking about casts of bones that would be a different story.

I'm sorry that the culture of dinosaur collecting has collectively decided that paleortists don't matter and don't deserve to be compensated for their work. Just because ripoffs are common doesn't make the right.

[stargatedalek]

Actually you can't copyright a dinosaur, because imagine if that was possible and someone had copyrighted a black iridescent Microraptor. Either that person would now own the right to use a part of nature when no one else could, which is a slippery slope of terrifying proportions, or their copyright would become void wasting the large amount of time and expenses needed to get a proper copyright.

While it's clear that some things (JP designs for instance) are never going to end up being true to nature, I can understand why courts would not want to attempt to make that distinction. Especially since any such legal ruling could easily become partisan, there are people out there who think for example that feathered dinosaurs challenge their religious beliefs. Lawyers representing parties like these could bring up the works of outliers like Alan Feduccia or David Peters to argue that the science is not conclusive, and if the courts saw them as valid even once that would in itself create another dangerous precedent, where the court system is deciding what makes for valid science.

I would much rather put up with some occasional moderate laziness from companies like Safari and hordes of JP clones from every corner of the world than take the risks.

An artistic reconstruction of a dinosaur is in no way a part of nature. If we were talking about casts of bones that would be a different story.

I'm sorry that the culture of dinosaur collecting has collectively decided that paleortists don't matter and don't deserve to be compensated for their work. Just because ripoffs are common doesn't make the right.

You're avoiding my point. Any reconstruction that is scientifically sound, however unlikely, could theoretically represent the real appearance of the animal. What if someone copyrighted a design, and then new findings proved that was how the animal looked in life. It would be ethically wrong for that copyright holder to be allowed to charge others for using the animals true to life appearance.

Microraptor having black iridescent feathers is a part of nature, if someone had copyrighted a Microraptor design with black iridescent feathers, they could prevent others from reconstructing the animal with a feature that it actually had in life.

[Dinoguy2]

Actually you can't copyright a dinosaur, because imagine if that was possible and someone had copyrighted a black iridescent Microraptor. Either that person would now own the right to use a part of nature when no one else could, which is a slippery slope of terrifying proportions, or their copyright would become void wasting the large amount of time and expenses needed to get a proper copyright.

While it's clear that some things (JP designs for instance) are never going to end up being true to nature, I can understand why courts would not want to attempt to make that distinction. Especially since any such legal ruling could easily become partisan, there are people out there who think for example that feathered dinosaurs challenge their religious beliefs. Lawyers representing parties like these could bring up the works of outliers like Alan Feduccia or David Peters to argue that the science is not conclusive, and if the courts saw them as valid even once that would in itself create another dangerous precedent, where the court system is deciding what makes for valid science.

I would much rather put up with some occasional moderate laziness from companies like Safari and hordes of JP clones from every corner of the world than take the risks.

An artistic reconstruction of a dinosaur is in no way a part of nature. If we were talking about casts of bones that would be a different story.

I'm sorry that the culture of dinosaur collecting has collectively decided that paleortists don't matter and don't deserve to be compensated for their work. Just because ripoffs are common doesn't make the right.

You're avoiding my point. Any reconstruction that is scientifically sound, however unlikely, could theoretically represent the real appearance of the animal. What if someone copyrighted a design, and then new findings proved that was how the animal looked in life. It would be ethically wrong for that copyright holder to be allowed to charge others for using the animals true to life appearance.

Microraptor having black iridescent feathers is a part of nature, if someone had copyrighted a Microraptor design with black iridescent feathers, they could prevent others from reconstructing the animal with a feature that it actually had in life.

There's always going to be details we don't know. For example we don't know what color the iridescence is. If somebody had made a black iridescent Micro before they discovered that, and somebody copied them, that could be plagiarism (though in this case it's such a common color I wouldn't press the issue.) If they happened to get really lucky then their claim to originality is gone.

In the case of Anzu, it's a unique color pattern. It's not copied from a living thing though it's inspired by several birds, it's an original mash-up of those inspirations. Giving Microraptor the colors of a grackle is different because the artist copied nature in the first place.

Maybe Anzu really looked like that. But we don't know it did. So until that's proven, the artist's work belongs to the artist.

[stargatedalek]

There's always going to be details we don't know. For example we don't know what color the iridescence is. If somebody had made a black iridescent Micro before they discovered that, and somebody copied them, that could be plagiarism (though in this case it's such a common color I wouldn't press the issue.) If they happened to get really lucky then their claim to originality is gone.

In the case of Anzu, it's a unique color pattern. It's not copied from a living thing though it's inspired by several birds, it's an original mash-up of those inspirations. Giving Microraptor the colors of a grackle is different because the artist copied nature in the first place.

Maybe Anzu really looked like that. But we don't know it did. So until that's proven, the artist's work belongs to the artist.

You're still avoiding my second point. If the court ever tried to step in and say "this dinosaur is too close to the real thing to be copyrighted", that has a lot of potential repercussions.

[DinoToyForum]

Liopleurodon is frequently depicted with blue-black patterns on top and white on the bottom, as per Walking with Dinosaurs, which made the genus famous.

Safari Ltd adopted this colouraton for their Liopleurodon, sculpted by Doug Watson. Dinoguy2, in your opinion is this different from the Anzu example?

[Reptilia]

Does this topic belong in the "New for 2018" section?

[DinoToyForum]

Does this topic belong in the "New for 2018" section?

No, I split it from the Safari Ltd new for 2018 thread, so it was automatically plonked in that section. I have moved it.

[Neosodon]

I'm surprised people are so worried about copying color schemes. Considering that like 80% of figures are either green or brown; even if you were trying to avoid copying a color scheme you would still end up with figures that appear copied.

How many shades of green and brown can you make? There is enough paleoart around that no matter how a figure was painted you could find a illustration with a near identical color scheme.

[Shonisaurus]

As Mr. Doug Watson said (it is not literal what he said) with so many paleoartists that exist in the panorama of prehistoric animal illustration, there will always be figures with colors similar to paleoartist works even if the impossible is done. It would not be serious to make an anzu with pink colors and gold and silver stripes, so customers would not buy such figures.

For many artistic jugglers that a sculptor does, there will always be works that are identical in the paleoartistic panorama in relation to the dinosaurs. I sincerely understand, and I maintain that Safari did not plagiarize and I do not think it's good taste sincerely to tarnish the reputation and honor of a company (in this case Safari) with the assertions that copied a figure made by a paleoartist.


The green, blue and white colors in this case in the anzu (a feathered theropod dinosaur) are copied to current birds of nature. Sincerely what happened is a coincidence and even made an anzu with the colors of a rainbow parrot sure that there will be some paleoartistic representation of a feathered dinosaur similar to that bird.

What is said is a coincidence

[Dinoguy2]

Liopleurodon is frequently depicted with blue-black patterns on top and white on the bottom, as per Walking with Dinosaurs, which made the genus famous.

Safari Ltd adopted this colouraton for their Liopleurodon, sculpted by Doug Watson. Dinoguy2, in your opinion is this different from the Anzu example?

No it's not different. Neither are the thousand ripoffs of the JP T. rex. I'm not saying this kind of plagiarism is worth suing for (as if any paleoartists could ever dream of paying legal fees), just that it's creatively bankrupt, and it's an awful shame that companies pay people to design-by-Google, while actual paleoartists go unpaid and unrecognized.

Generic brown or green colors, and colors copied from living animals, are a totally different story.

Shonisaurus, I'm unsure how you can continue to argue that this example is a coincidence. It's one thing if it were just similar colors, but they're exactly the same. That combined with the fact it's the exact same species out of hundreds of possible choices... the only possible explanation is that the designer did a Google Images search for "Anzu" and liked this pic. It is demonstrably not inspired by any one particular species of bird, just inspired by several, which makes it an original creation rather than an application of a naturally occurring color scheme. And what is Safari's "reputation"? Is it "honor" to copy and paste a painting by Luis Rey (one of the most well known and stylistically distinct paleoartists of all time) into a 3D sculpt and sell it for a profit without even telling him? (Or was that a "coincidence" too? Anybody could have come up with a neon pink and blue Citipati in that exact pose right?) Or to essentially make and mass produce a bootleg WWD Liopleurodon in order to capitalize on a recognizable creature design created by others? How is this any different from cheap toy manufacturers making "Space Wars" light up laser swords to sell in the Star Wars section of Walmart? It's just barely not plagiarism, just different enough to get away with it. That's honorable? In what world? Honorable would be hiring a paleoartist to create new and original designs that can compete with the ones people already like, not copy those.

As I've posted before, plagiarism is rampant in dinosaur toys. Papo is basically a bootleg toy company, and now we have Rebor making bootlegs of their bootlegs. And they make money hand over fist doing it. Safari is way better than those, but they're not immune. And that doesn't make it right.

[Cretaceous Crab]

From what I understand, the subject in question has to be a certain percentage different from the alleged original work. I don't recall what that percentage is.

Let's take the JP Tyrannosaurus for example. The brown standing Papo rex is clearly reminiscent of it and the product is not an official JP toy. Maybe the scalation or color inside the mouth is different enough to allow this, but that's between Papo's legal team and JP's.

A real life animal (extinct or otherwise) cannot be copyrighted. Nor can a general color. But if a particular artist creates a piece of work depicting say, a red Suchomimus, that work of art (painting, illustration, photograph, sculpture, etc), is what is copyrighted. Anyone else can a draw a red Suchomimus. If Gregory Paul and Todd Marshall both draw a red Suchomimus, as long as the entire piece of art as a whole is different enough from the other, there is no copyright violation. Neither artist can arbitrarily claim any red Suchomimus as their own.

[Reptilia]

Papo is basically a bootleg toy company, and now we have Rebor making bootlegs of their bootlegs. And they make money hand over fist doing it. Safari is way better than those, but they're not immune. And that doesn't make it right.

I would be careful using the word bootleg. A bootleg is supposed to be an illegal copy of an existing figure, as there are tons available that replicate Papo, Schleich, Rebor, Safari, etc. Using the design of a franchise like Jurassic Park to make figures that are original sculpts is not bootlegging. Might be unethical, but at this point is safe to assume it is perfectly legal. Or at least the aforementioned companies do it in a legal way, otherwise they would have been sued and forced to stop, at this point.