1/6 Scale REDMAN TOYS Collectible Figure Accessory Lethal Weapon A & B

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Did the "original artist" pay the intellectual property owners of the Lethal Weapon movies for the rights to produce collectibles based on their movies?

Such a cop out excuse. Yes, obviously they did not pay for the rights. However the fact is they have still created an item from scratch, utilising time, effort, skill and resources. The rights for these properties are unattainable however that does not then open up the game for any tom, **** or harry to just steal someone else's art. Recasting is ********.
 
Last edited:
So, the unfulfilled demands of collectors justify violating the legal rights of intellectual property owners? If it's the Robin Hood factor that justifies the ripping-off of intellectual property, then wouldn't Redman's affordable price-points vs. that of Iminime sets (that only those with the big bucks can routinely afford) absolve Redman for his recasting? If not, then shame on the reputable retailers frequented by members on this board for even selling Redman sets, and the Sideshow Freaks board itself should be held accountable for allowing Redman merchandise to be sold in the Commerce section.

no one says it's justifiable. we're just explaining why this happens and why people still purchase them. supply vs demand. if the original maker can't supply the demand, someone else will fill in the gap, legal or not.
 
Such a cop out excuse. Yes, obviously they did not pay for the rights. However the fact is they have still created an item from scratch, utilising time, effort, skill and resources. The rights for these properties are unattainable however that does not then open up the game for any tom, **** or harry to just steal someone else's art. Recasting is ********.

It's incredibly amazing how you can zero in on one wrong and quickly dismiss the first one. "Yes, obviously they did not pay for the rights!" It's like saying I can go to the 7-Eleven and steal a candy bar just as long as I come up with a novel and beautiful scheme to pull it off.
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that Iminime might be ripping off Redman Toys instead of the other way around?

Suppose Iminime were in possession of a time machine. They go forward in time, steal the original sculpts from Redman Toys, then return to the original date of departure, and present the stolen Redman sculpts as their own creation.

great_scott_back_to_the_future.gif

:lol
 
Well, someone's making a killing through volume at more affordable prices. If this is about pure business tactics regardless of law or ethics, it's survival of the fittest.
 
Invasion of privacy by commercial appropriation / rights of publicity

These rights are violated when a person’s likeness is used on or in connection with products or merchandise (“goods”), or to sell or advertise goods or services.
With respect to artwork, the courts have generally considered works of fine art to be expressions of the First Amendment rights of free speech, and thus immune from liability for violation of privacy or publicity rights. Only commercial reproductions of the artwork qualify as goods under this standard. Thus, the original painting of your husband would not be a violation of his rights of privacy or publicity. However, if the artist subsequently reproduces the painting on t-shirts, postcards, etc., those items would be considered “commercial” goods, and that would violate your husband’s rights of privacy and publicity under this standard.

The grey area would be reproduction of the painting as a limited edition of fine art prints. Most courts consider such prints to be free speech just like the original artwork and thus, still immune from rights of privacy or publicity. For example, in New York an edition of 5,000 prints of a painting depicting Tiger Woods was held immune as an artistic expression of free speech. However, in California, the standard is more subjective. In a recent case concerning a portrait of the Three Stooges, the California Supreme Court held that artwork is immune only if it is “transformative.”

Unfortunately, the meaning of “transformative” is elusive. The court said that an artwork is transformative if it is perceived as “primarily the artist’s own expression rather than the subject’s likeness.” This could mean that the style of the rendering is what matters: if a painting is a caricature, it is probably transformative. If it’s a conventional realistic portrait, it’s not transformative. However, it could also mean that the artwork’s appeal to the consumer is what matters: if they want to buy it because of the wonderful artistic technique, it is transformative. If they want to buy it because they want a picture of that person, it is not transformative. Most consumers don’t know him, so they would want to buy the painting of your husband for its artistic quality, not because it depicts him. If it has artistic qualities beyond a conventional realistic portrait, that would further support the argument that it is transformative; for example, if stylized distortion or harsh colors contribute to the unflattering depiction. See Legalities 3 for more on the rights of publicity.
 
Redman as they stand right now, couldn't exist without Iminime. As for their ability to sell at such a cheap price, it's only because Iminime puts in all the leg work. They create the produce and pay the sculpt team, not to mention the necessary overhead expenses. They have high end painters, also paid. They do all the research to make the product correctly, employees are paid, etc. Redman sidesteps all these areas and they don't have the expense or time invested in the product to bring it to the public. You can only sell these items cheaply when you let someone else do the majority of the work, pay the majority of the expenses, and create the original market. Also, if you have held the same figure from Iminime and Redman in hand, they are not even in the same ballpark quality wise.
 
Invasion of privacy by commercial appropriation / rights of publicity

These rights are violated when a person’s likeness is used on or in connection with products or merchandise (“goods”), or to sell or advertise goods or services.
With respect to artwork, the courts have generally considered works of fine art to be expressions of the First Amendment rights of free speech, and thus immune from liability for violation of privacy or publicity rights. Only commercial reproductions of the artwork qualify as goods under this standard. Thus, the original painting of your husband would not be a violation of his rights of privacy or publicity. However, if the artist subsequently reproduces the painting on t-shirts, postcards, etc., those items would be considered “commercial” goods, and that would violate your husband’s rights of privacy and publicity under this standard.

The grey area would be reproduction of the painting as a limited edition of fine art prints. Most courts consider such prints to be free speech just like the original artwork and thus, still immune from rights of privacy or publicity. For example, in New York an edition of 5,000 prints of a painting depicting Tiger Woods was held immune as an artistic expression of free speech. However, in California, the standard is more subjective. In a recent case concerning a portrait of the Three Stooges, the California Supreme Court held that artwork is immune only if it is “transformative.”

Unfortunately, the meaning of “transformative” is elusive. The court said that an artwork is transformative if it is perceived as “primarily the artist’s own expression rather than the subject’s likeness.” This could mean that the style of the rendering is what matters: if a painting is a caricature, it is probably transformative. If it’s a conventional realistic portrait, it’s not transformative. However, it could also mean that the artwork’s appeal to the consumer is what matters: if they want to buy it because of the wonderful artistic technique, it is transformative. If they want to buy it because they want a picture of that person, it is not transformative. Most consumers don’t know him, so they would want to buy the painting of your husband for its artistic quality, not because it depicts him. If it has artistic qualities beyond a conventional realistic portrait, that would further support the argument that it is transformative; for example, if stylized distortion or harsh colors contribute to the unflattering depiction. See Legalities 3 for more on the rights of publicity.

Well said Robbie.
 
I see the difference between Iminime and Redman is Iminime is using a few artists with a very limited run. Redman is using factories to produce large quantities. Iminime could fall in the category as fine art and because of this they can use the argument that its self expression.
With that argument, Redman is not only copying artists work but also producing commercial goods.
 
Definately, Iminime produces "conventional, realistic portaits" and are not "transfomative" in the legal sense as nicely explained above. "Transfomative" is best illustrated by the Gangster line by DAM Toys.

And BTW, do we know anything about the actual accounting and production costs behind any of these sets, whether they be the $50 outfit and sculpt packages or the $600-$900 boutique figure sets? Seems like we get a clearer pic why the cheaper sets are priced as they are, but the sets from the smaller teams (and 1-man outfits) are a bigger "let's guess" mystery on how they arrive at their price-points, apart of course from supply and demand.
 
It's incredibly amazing how you can zero in on one wrong and quickly dismiss the first one. "Yes, obviously they did not pay for the rights!" It's like saying I can go to the 7-Eleven and steal a candy bar just as long as I come up with a novel and beautiful scheme to pull it off.

That's a terrible analogy because 7-Eleven already had a "LEGAL RIGHT" to distribute whereby Mars, Inc (for example) is getting their rightful payment. In addition, Redman isn't going to Iminime's home/business/factories, breaking in and physically stealing his figures and reselling them.
 
That's a terrible analogy because 7-Eleven already had a "LEGAL RIGHT" to distribute whereby Mars, Inc (for example) is getting their rightful payment. In addition, Redman isn't going to Iminime's home/business/factories, breaking in and physically stealing his figures and reselling them.

You are missing the point; beyond my example, if you can't objectively understand the basic concept of stealing intellectual property because you choose to ignore that aspect of this particular scenario, then there's really little more anyone can add to enlighten you about facts, truth and plain logic. Btw, having the last word will not automatically win your argument...only reason will.
 
You are missing the point; beyond my example, if you can't objectively understand the basic concept of stealing intellectual property because you choose to ignore that aspect of this particular scenario, then there's really little more anyone can add to enlighten you about facts, truth and plain logic. Btw, having the last word will not automatically win your argument...only reason will.

Sorry you're correct,total brain fart, I misread your post. I agree with you on this position and for some reason I got your message mixed up with a different poster. mea culpa :duff
 
Sorry you're correct,total brain fart, I misread your post. I agree with you on this position and for some reason I got your message mixed up with a different poster. mea culpa :duff

Mea culpa for me to, brother, I thought I was responding to another poster, lol, which would explain why it reads like there's already an ongoing exchange!
 
And BTW, do we know anything about the actual accounting and production costs behind any of these sets, whether they be the $50 outfit and sculpt packages or the $600-$900 boutique figure sets? Seems like we get a clearer pic why the cheaper sets are priced as they are, but the sets from the smaller teams (and 1-man outfits) are a bigger "let's guess" mystery on how they arrive at their price-points, apart of course from supply and demand.

It is pretty easy to come to how the smaller run figures are priced, as most of the prominent artists involved sell their work separately. Iminime and Rainman's tailors both do work outside of the project, for instance, and their average simple (shirt, normal looking jacket, pants) outfits range around $250. Most sculpt castings cost between $50-70, and most high-quality paint jobs range in the $80-100 range. Add that together on the low end and you have a $380-ish figure without shoes, accessories, etc. The Iminime Riggs was in the $450 range and included a complex jacket, boots, pistol, and badge.
 
Back
Top