1/6 REDMAN TOYS - The Lost Man (David)

[burtial]

Technically they are stealing other's work. They make and sell figures based on another companies characters and likenesses. Other people worked hard on those designs and the people like Rainman and Iminime prophet from it without paying for any of the rights, so yes, that's stealing other's work.

It's strange not having a problem with them doing that but hating on Redman for taking their sculpt and selling it. Both are shady, both are technically illegal. I mean if you're going to sculpt and sell figures of characters you do not own any rights too, don't call foul if someone is also stealing your stuff and selling it.

I agree 100%. To say on one hand it's perfectly fine to steal from actors and those that own the rights to the movies while charging an INSAINE price for unlicensed collectibles. Yet on the other hand lose it when another company grabs that unlicensed sculpt and runs with it, allowing people to purchase it at a tenth of the cost is just plain ridiculous.

 

[SwedishHeat]

They key difference here is that the custom figure is original, creative piece of work.

What Redman is doing is copying someone else's work and claiming it as their own.

I learned fairly early on in school that that was not okay. I wasn't allowed to copy someone else's homework and turn it in as my own.

 

[Ted Knight's Ghost]

They key difference here is that the custom figure is original, creative piece of work.

What Redman is doing is copying someone else's work and claiming it as their own.

I learned fairly early on in school that that was not okay. I wasn't allowed to copy someone else's homework and turn it in as my own.

No, it's not an original work. It's funny the school analogy you used applies to Iminime first. He was looking at someone else's work (The Lost boys character, Sutherland) and was copying their work and passing it off as his own. He was literally copying dude's face and the character's designs and selling it as his. Doesn't matter if he was sculpting it with his two hands, he was copying someone else's face and design without permission. That's intellectual property theft.

Iminime makes money off other's intellectual properties and no one cares, Redman is going to make money off Iminime sculpts now, karma?

I hope Redman toys starts using more of Iminime's and Rainman's sculpts from now on so people don't have to pay those ridiculous prices they go for on the secondary market.

But seriously, people who have morals against this but are okay with what Iminime does, well, that ridiculous. There is a reason these sculptors are almost ALWAYS in China because they would get their ***** sued off to oblivion for what they do. Doesn't matter if you're sculpting it yourself or not. I'd like to see a company in the U.S. just decide to look at Iron Man, Wolverine, Superman or some other property and make original sculpts of them and sell it without permission. They'd be sued into bankruptcy.

I mean it's common sense to know just because you're sculpting it and it's an original sculpt that the character isn't yours and what you're doing is illegal. Does it suck that someone comes along and steals that? Yep but there is no honor among thieves.

Lucky for me, I don't care about the morals of either of these things and I'll buy bootlegs and etc. I just like to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

 

[Ted Knight's Ghost]

I agree 100%. To say on one hand it's perfectly fine to steal from actors and those that own the rights to the movies while charging an INSAINE price for unlicensed collectibles. Yet on the other hand lose it when another company grabs that unlicensed sculpt and runs with it, allowing people to purchase it at a tenth of the cost is just plain ridiculous.

Totally agree. After all that people are still posting stuff like that lol.

 

[Positron]

Definitely agree with Ted Knight Ghost post. Iminime, Cultking, rainman and etc have capitalized enormously by making figures before another company does.

 

[blazio]

Cinema and movies are for everyone. Culture, art, in general is for everyone. Everyone inside own memories and feelings. The artist take some feelings and after hours of sculpts and research in this case create a figure. So it's a interpretation. Redman took this personal interpretation and copy.
I mean, u can do same character but not exactly the same face, exactly the same outfit.

 

[Ted Knight's Ghost]

Cinema and movies are for everyone. Culture, art, in general is for everyone. Everyone inside own memories and feelings. The artist take some feelings and after hours of sculpts and research in this case create a figure. So it's a interpretation. Redman took this personal interpretation and copy.
I mean, u can do same character but not exactly the same face, exactly the same outfit.

Saying ''exactly the same face or outfit'' doesn't even make sense. No one could sculpt someone's face exactly or have the clothes exactly right. Every company that sells any licensed merchandise doesn't have it exactly lol. Doesn't matter if the nose is slightly off or the outfit doesn't match up exactly, it's still copyright infringement.

Yeah, you can sculpt, paint and draw these characters all day long but as soon as you profit from it, it's illegal and copy right infringement.

It doesn't matter if you claim it's your interpretation. If that was legal to claim that, every company would do it and name the character ''Iron Guy'' and have it look just like Iron Man but claim ''I sculpted it, it's my interpretation''. They would be sued and they would lose. Chinese and other bootleg companies can skirt by and do it because they can't be sued because China's horrible policies.

You can sculpt them all day long but when you're selling them as that character and it has a strong resemblance to said copyrighted character, it's illegal. Hell even rip off characters have gotten people sued into oblivion. Captain Marvel was a rip off of Superman and DC comics sued and won and the company in charge of Captain Marvel had to stop all production.

It's even technically illegal to sell fan art. Those are people interpretations of the character and it's still illegal but the bigger companies don't usually go after the little guy....until they do.

No matter what your opinion is on the subject being right or morally wrong, it's illegal. Look what happened with Sideshow recently on this very site. They were telling websites affiliated with them that they wouldn't tolerate these sculptors selling characters that didn't hold the license to said character. Sideshow Collectors tried to comply but to many custom threads and ect caused Sideshow to step away. Now I think Sideshow were being *******s and I don't agree with their way of thinking because these third party companies and customizes are what makes this hobby shine but they were technically right, it is illegal. They have to pay a fortune to buy the copyright to characters and it sucks for them that other people just sell it and don't have to worry about that.

So not matter what you're feelings are, rainman and the other sculptors that sell these figures are doing it illegally the second they profit off of it. Most of them are located in other countries and skirt the law. Does not matter if the faces aren't exactly the same or the outfits. Hell, most sculptors don't get the outfits exactly right and they sure don't sculpt the face exactly right, that's impossible.

here is just one google search about it. Either way, I'm done with this subject because it feels like I'm saying the same exact thing and people are still posting saying it's legal when it's 100% not. Just learn the copy right law and quit speculating. I mean I thought it was common knowledge. Either way, I'm done with this subject.


https://www.google.com/search?ei=Tr...i71j35i39j0i20i263j0j0i67j0i22i30.GgB_YdtEiUA

 

[xipotec]

If you factor in the amount of money spent to bring those characters to screen....its more apt to make sense.

What Rainman does is make money of the creation from a film that costs millions to produce and make.
They are not his original designs , and therefor he is copying someone else’s designs and making a profit off them....

Lets say he just uses a computer to recreate the actual sculpt , rather than use his hands and wax....either way its not his art.

So if he is getting ripped off for this , then he also is doing said ripping....

It matters not one bit how the property was created, only that is not his original design and creation......

Do you think he could have charged 1000.00 for a generic vampire and sell as many? Of course not, but since he had the millions of dollars of the studio in advertising , actors, set designs, script writers, production crew....he was able to sell his dolly for a bank load of money....and all those people involved in the original production see not a dime.



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[snoop101]

If you factor in the amount of money spent to bring those characters to screen....its more apt to make sense.

What Rainman does is make money of the creation from a film that costs millions to produce and make.
They are not his original designs , and therefor he is copying someone else’s designs and making a profit off them....

Lets say he just uses a computer to recreate the actual sculpt , rather than use his hands and wax....either way its not his art.

So if he is getting ripped off for this , then he also is doing said ripping....

It matters not one bit how the property was created, only that is not his original design and creation......

Do you think he could have charged 1000.00 for a generic vampire and sell as many? Of course not, but since he had the millions of dollars of the studio in advertising , actors, set designs, script writers, production crew....he was able to sell his dolly for a bank load of money....and all those people involved in the original production see not a dime.



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

Well said.

 

[Ted Knight's Ghost]

If you factor in the amount of money spent to bring those characters to screen....its more apt to make sense.

What Rainman does is make money of the creation from a film that costs millions to produce and make.
They are not his original designs , and therefor he is copying someone else’s designs and making a profit off them....

Lets say he just uses a computer to recreate the actual sculpt , rather than use his hands and wax....either way its not his art.

So if he is getting ripped off for this , then he also is doing said ripping....

It matters not one bit how the property was created, only that is not his original design and creation......

Do you think he could have charged 1000.00 for a generic vampire and sell as many? Of course not, but since he had the millions of dollars of the studio in advertising , actors, set designs, script writers, production crew....he was able to sell his dolly for a bank load of money....and all those people involved in the original production see not a dime.



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

Great post! Better than my posts!

 

[Rzeznikk]

Saying ''exactly the same face or outfit'' doesn't even make sense. No one could sculpt someone's face exactly or have the clothes exactly right. Every company that sells any licensed merchandise doesn't have it exactly lol. Doesn't matter if the nose is slightly off or the outfit doesn't match up exactly, it's still copyright infringement.

Yeah, you can sculpt, paint and draw these characters all day long but as soon as you profit from it, it's illegal and copy right infringement.

It doesn't matter if you claim it's your interpretation. If that was legal to claim that, every company would do it and name the character ''Iron Guy'' and have it look just like Iron Man but claim ''I sculpted it, it's my interpretation''. They would be sued and they would lose. Chinese and other bootleg companies can skirt by and do it because they can't be sued because China's horrible policies.

You can sculpt them all day long but when you're selling them as that character and it has a strong resemblance to said copyrighted character, it's illegal. Hell even rip off characters have gotten people sued into oblivion. Captain Marvel was a rip off of Superman and DC comics sued and won and the company in charge of Captain Marvel had to stop all production.

It's even technically illegal to sell fan art. Those are people interpretations of the character and it's still illegal but the bigger companies don't usually go after the little guy....until they do.

No matter what your opinion is on the subject being right or morally wrong, it's illegal. Look what happened with Sideshow recently on this very site. They were telling websites affiliated with them that they wouldn't tolerate these sculptors selling characters that didn't hold the license to said character. Sideshow Collectors tried to comply but to many custom threads and ect caused Sideshow to step away. Now I think Sideshow were being *******s and I don't agree with their way of thinking because these third party companies and customizes are what makes this hobby shine but they were technically right, it is illegal. They have to pay a fortune to buy the copyright to characters and it sucks for them that other people just sell it and don't have to worry about that.

So not matter what you're feelings are, rainman and the other sculptors that sell these figures are doing it illegally the second they profit off of it. Most of them are located in other countries and skirt the law. Does not matter if the faces aren't exactly the same or the outfits. Hell, most sculptors don't get the outfits exactly right and they sure don't sculpt the face exactly right, that's impossible.

here is just one google search about it. Either way, I'm done with this subject because it feels like I'm saying the same exact thing and people are still posting saying it's legal when it's 100% not. Just learn the copy right law and quit speculating. I mean I thought it was common knowledge. Either way, I'm done with this subject.


https://www.google.com/search?ei=Tr...i71j35i39j0i20i263j0j0i67j0i22i30.GgB_YdtEiUA

If you factor in the amount of money spent to bring those characters to screen....its more apt to make sense.

What Rainman does is make money of the creation from a film that costs millions to produce and make.
They are not his original designs , and therefor he is copying someone else’s designs and making a profit off them....

Lets say he just uses a computer to recreate the actual sculpt , rather than use his hands and wax....either way its not his art.

So if he is getting ripped off for this , then he also is doing said ripping....

It matters not one bit how the property was created, only that is not his original design and creation......

Do you think he could have charged 1000.00 for a generic vampire and sell as many? Of course not, but since he had the millions of dollars of the studio in advertising , actors, set designs, script writers, production crew....he was able to sell his dolly for a bank load of money....and all those people involved in the original production see not a dime.



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

Bravo!
BRAVO!
[emoji106][emoji482][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]

I wish people would get this through their skulls.

I'm not condemning Rain Man or Iminime or Yunsil or Inigo etc. I applaud their work. But let's call it by it's true name. You cant applaud the one while condemning the other. All that is is hypocrisy.

I could argue with folks on Facebook about this till I'm blue in the face. They just don't get it. [emoji23]

Thank you guys for posting it better than I could articulate it. [emoji122][emoji122]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[burtial]

Very well said guys, and I agree 100%. There are some though that will never understand this. Some will never understand that they are guilty of the very thing they are criticizing.

 

[take9]

Black & white thinking about law & morality... I think we all know the differences between Redman or Rainman. It's more difficult to speak about the similarity.

 

[marlindesign]

So for example:
If I painted a picture of say kiefer sutherland, and then made a few limited copies of my artwork to sell - like every screen printed poster, and I numbered them and signed them to be a collectors item so to speak... and then someone scanned that poster and reproduced it and sold it as their own artwork - this is ok with all of you??? Because that what red man are doing....

 

[xipotec]

So for example:
If I painted a picture of say kiefer sutherland, and then made a few limited copies of my artwork to sell - like every screen printed poster, and I numbered them and signed them to be a collectors item so to speak... and then someone scanned that poster and reproduced it and sold it as their own artwork - this is ok with all of you??? Because that what red man are doing....

Did you pay keifer for the rights to his image?



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[marlindesign]

Did you pay keifer for the rights to his image?



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

No. It’s fan art and a limited edition - expression which is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. So I don’t need to.

 

[Drake]

You are entitled to create a unique piece of art inspired by an outside source, the second you make copies of it without acquiring said rights first you are infringing copyright. One can be classified as unique art. Two or more is product. They may or may not go after you, if whatever you are selling isn't worth the time and cost investment it would take to chase down then they probably won't, but just because you can (probably) get away with something that doesn't make it in any way legal.

 

[marlindesign]

You are entitled to create a unique piece of art inspired by an outside source, the second you make copies of it without acquiring said rights first you are infringing copyright. One can be classified as unique art. Two or more is product. They may or may not go after you, if whatever you are selling isn't worth the time and cost investment it would take to chase down then they probably won't, but just because you can (probably) get away with something that doesn't make it in any way legal.

You can make many copies, as long as it isn’t mass produced - but you are both missing the main point

 

[Drake]

A) Good luck with that defense in a court of law.

B) No one is missing the point, you just seem to refuse to acknowledge anyone else might have one.

But hey, believe what you will. Said my piece, so I'm out. Peace.

 

[marlindesign]

A) Good luck with that defense in a court of law.

B) No one is missing the point, you just seem to refuse to acknowledge anyone else might have one.

But hey, believe what you will. Said my piece, so I'm out. Peace.

A - I won’t need luck. It’s the law. In my example I haven’t done anything illegal.

B - no, I can’t see anyone’s point because it isn’t the same.

Rainman - Artist. Very talented. sculpts by hand. Produces unlicensed limited high end pieces with numbered, signed certificates . Uses one of the best 1/6 tailors who for months source screen accurate fabric . Hand makes all his accessories. Hand paints each individual sculpt/accessory. Usual run was about 30. Produces a piece of Art, not just a toy figure.

Iminime - has a small team. Commissions a talented artist to produce a sculpt by hand. Produces unlicensed limited high end pieces with numbered, signed certificates . Uses one of the best 1/6 tailors who for months source screen accurate fabric. Produces accessories. Commissions a professional painter to paint the sculpts etc individually. Usual run <100 pieces. Produces high end collector pieces.

Redman - takes these sculpts that artists have done. Recasts them. Copies everything about the above releases poorly. Mass Produces 1000’s of low end quality toy figures with a price tag to match the quality. Claim it to be their own work. Have Used actual pictures of the original pieces to sell their work.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME. Just because you are producing something unlicensed, doesn’t mean it is ok to steal the art.
And if you do not own a Rainman piece, then do not argue the point. You have no reference to compare. There is no comparison to quality. It is like comparing a Lamborghini to a Toyota and saying - well they are both cars, I don’t see the difference for the price tag?

I would have nothing against redman if they produced their own pieces. Not rip off other artists.