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

[Asta]

What I don't understand though is the willingness/eagerness of some of these people to scream "you wasted your money, you wasted your money, you wasted your money" in a fellow collectors face, before giving it a bit of Beetlejuice wrist action just to wrap things up.

Yes, it's only money. And we all spend it in the manner that gives us the most satisfaction.

Right now there's once again a big 'discussion' over Sideshow's pricing (with reference to the Luke Snowspeeder figure being set at $269.99). I'll no doubt be called an enabler for ordering at that price - though I'll be throwing an amount of reward points into the cost.

But it's where we all see value.

There's 'cutting corners' and then there's 'hitching a ride all the way there on someone else's back'.

Iminime: Hiring Trevor Grove and some of the the best 1/6 painters and tailors in the business to produce an original piece: cutting corners.

Redman: recasting and copying the work of another: cutting corners in a more 'understandable' way.

Of course it's wrong to recast. To steal another's work. But is it hurting Iminime's business? They have a strategy for limited releases at premium prices, and have built up a very loyal following to whom the product is regarded as the Rolls Royce of action figures.

Redman is never going to be able to have that claim, nor command the same after market values. And why I call them an 'odd sausage' is that while they hitch a ride they don't ride the whole distance. They get off and walk the final bit: they make changes, some of which are actually improvements. As in Angel Eyes' Remington; the spurs; the length of Blondie's jeans that suggest that at one stage they might have considered using a taller body (I got them onto a tall Coo which made the figure the correct 6'4" scale). Other changes are retrograde, such as the poncho or the fit of Blondie's shirt which will require a good deal of water treatment and futzing.

Apart from the sculpts the Redmans do differ from the Iminimes. So can it be said that Redman are copying the entire figure, or merely taking a pre-existing head sculpt and designing their own outfits based on the film rather than the previously released toy? The latter might explain parts such as the Remington or the spurs.

I have no justification for buying the bootlegs, yet neither do I feel any more guilt than buying a Head Play recast of a Hot Toys' sculpt. And this must also go for those retailers who stock both Iminime and Redman products. They're interested in the profit, and I'm interested in the bargain.

I've tried to make myself feel guilty, but it doesn't work. I see only the price and the opportunity, and the fun of messing with three lower end figures for the price of one of the originals. And that, I suppose, is where the mileage varies. It's the value you place on the items that attract your money.

 

[superado]

Where has anyone who has posted (in this thread) in support of Iminime/custom artists in general groaned about the price they paid?

I guess it was too much for me to presume, based on the bunched panties and flared hemorrhoids from the Iminime owners who are all up in arms to defend the artist's work, which btw was stolen from the rightful property owners and personalities his figures are based on. Like I said, no one among them are innocent, so why not live and let live?

The thousands and thousands of hours they have dedicated to being the best they can be, even if its not good enough for everyone. Its about respecting them.

Have you ever worked thousands and thousands of hours? If yes, good, and if it was exceptional work, all the more better. The privilege alone that someone like Iminime has, to earn from the skills he was born with and has honed all his life, is a priceless gift that few of us have the opportunity to realize and kudos to him for accomplishing that; so he should be thanking his buyers for sustaining his vocation. But as you've said, he got paid just as you get paid for your labor, which seems like a fair exchange with no need to bestow an unbalanced amount of tribute (with an orchestra of violins playing in the background as Oslo deliberates about the Nobel Peace Prize for Iminime) while slamming a copier and the people who buy those products.

 

[superado]

This has nothing to do with money. It is about getting the best possible representation of a figure, for many of us. If you are satisfied with sub par quality, irregardless of the price, then good for you. I can't speak for others, but I rather have quality. I really couldn't care less what you prefer, it has no effect on me. I will continue to support the artists who provide quality, but will not support any re-casted products.

Well, what can I say, this most recent response is pretty reasonable, which is radically different from the tone of your earlier comment; in the effect, that whoever preferred the Redman products need to have their heads examined. And to the contrary to what you just said, about not caring what I preferred, you did "care" enough to slam Redman buyers. More power to you in supporting artists who misappropriate copyrighted material, but hey, I don't love them any less than the so-called recasters!

 

[ishothimsixtimes]

I guess it was too much for me to presume, based on the bunched panties and flared hemorrhoids from the Iminime owners who are all up in arms to defend the artist's work, which btw was stolen from the rightful property owners and personalities his figures are based on.

You're right it was.

By the way, 'the artists work (i.e the sculpt, the paint, the tailoring?)' was stolen from the rightful property owners? The actual work itself? That was created entirely by their own hands, no one else's. They may have based said work on images and characters they had not obtained permission to use the likeness of, but the effort, time and 'work' that went into the actual figures was their own. Or do you actually believe Clint sit's their sculpting himself and sewing little mini outfits worn by his past characters (perhaps squinting menacingly whenever the slightest little creak breaks his concentration) and Iminime's team somehow sneaked in and stole that 1/6 work when he wasn't looking? You'll be telling me they stopped on the way out to give Clyde a good (but totally unnecessary) slap on their way out next.

 

[Asta]

 

[superado]

You're right it was.

By the way, 'the artists work (i.e the sculpt, the paint, the tailoring?)' was stolen from the rightful property owners? The actual work itself? That was created entirely by their own hands, no one else's. They may have based said work on images and characters they had not obtained permission to use the likeness of, but the effort, time and 'work' that went into the actual figures was their own. Or do you actually believe Clint sit's their sculpting himself and sewing little mini outfits worn by his past characters (perhaps squinting menacingly whenever the slightest little creak breaks his concentration) and Iminime's team somehow sneaked in and stole that 1/6 work when he wasn't looking? You'll be telling me they stopped on the way out to give Clyde a good (but totally unnecessary) slap on their way out next.

I continue to be amazed at the lack of actual reason in this argument. First, so, you're saying that not obtaining legal permission from the rights owners, including the personalities (or their heirs) being depicted, is okay? Second, did Iminime go through all that effort for charity? Where do I line up to get my free Iminime figure that was made with love?

And no, Clint doesn't need to sit there for hours-on-end for the artist, because I have news for you, there are these things called pause buttons and screen caps that can easily do the job. But do you realize that for those licensed figures, like, let's say, Star Wars as done by HT or Gentle Giant, they use those techniques, in addition to bringing in these actors to have their heads photographed and laser-scanned, but all on a legitimate basis because the licensing that's been set in place? Oh, I would also guess that in giving their consent, they along with their studio got paid for the rights and their trip to the scanning facility by the toy manufacturer.

 

[Snake Plissken]

 

[RavenEye]

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.

Dude... IT'S A COLLECTIBLE NOT A TOY...

The fact it isn't made in high volume with such great quality is what makes it desirable. Your argument is like telling a man that Rolls Royce aint worth a penny because you can own a Ford Taurus. "Oh, they both have 4 wheels."

 

[Asta]

 

[ishothimsixtimes]

I continue to be amazed at the lack of actual reason in this argument. First, so, you're saying that not obtaining legal permission from the rights owners, including the personalities (or their heirs) being depicted, is okay?

Where did I say that then? I pointed out there was a difference between creating something based on a likeness you don't have the rights to and that creation, in and of itself, being 'stolen work', as you claimed.

I will say it now though; I don't give a flying one if a figure is licensed or not and I don't believe for one instant that anybody on these boards has ever refused to buy an Iminime release for that sole reason. I'm presuming the people who are so concerned about "the personalities depicted" being denied a share of the profits have never purchased so much as a t-shirt, poster or mug plastered with an iconic image from a movie without first stopping to make sure it was licensed?

It's also just a totally redundant defence to roll out in favour of Redman. The issue is quite obviously of no concern to anyone who buys their figures either.

 

[superado]

Where did I say that then? I pointed out there was a difference between creating something based on a likeness you don't have the rights to and that creation, in and of itself, being 'stolen work', as you claimed.

I will say it now though; I don't give a flying one if a figure is licensed or not and I don't believe for one instant that anybody on these boards has ever refused to buy an Iminime release for that sole reason. I'm presuming the people who are so concerned about "the personalities depicted" being denied a share of the profits have never purchased so much as a t-shirt, poster or mug plastered with an iconic image from a movie without first stopping to make sure it was licensed?

It's also just a totally redundant defence to roll out in favour of Redman. The issue is quite obviously of no concern to anyone who buys their figures either.

You seem to speak for the whole lot; are you? Why is it then that several of the Iminime supporters are railing on the recasting evil being done by Redman? Based on your t-shirt analogy, are you saying that buyers of the Iminime sets are blissfully ignorant of the licensing infringement? Must be the case in this upsidedown world in which those who don't exercise judgement are the ones with the wads of disposable cash!

Btw, what do you mean by "stolen work"? Did Redman burglarize Iminime's workshop and physically take anything? Should Iminime take Redman to court, will he have a case to stand on, based on "stealing" a likeness that in itself is unlicensed with the property owners? What would you call taking something that doesn't belong to you? In terms of right and wrong, creating a likeness without permission is no different from what you consider as stolen work and it cannot be made more simple as that.

 

[Asta]

Not sure if popcorn or not.


In case it's popcorn,

 

[superado]

Dude... IT'S A COLLECTIBLE NOT A TOY...

The fact it isn't made in high volume with such great quality is what makes it desirable. Your argument is like telling a man that Rolls Royce aint worth a penny because you can own a Ford Taurus. "Oh, they both have 4 wheels."

How does the collectible vs. toy thing figure into this? Are you implying that unlike Iminime figures, Redman figures are mere toys and not collectibles...based on the huge difference in their price points? Your Rolls Royce argument is flimsy because flipped around, you can (wrongfully) say that no one should buy a Ford when a Rolls is available. It's a matter of choice and it's the "artist supporters" who are dealing out judgement on whoever supports Redman's market. And how are they doing this? By trying to assume a moral high ground!

 

[siquisiri]

I get that the ones that bought the iminime sets are upset by this, but when some of them make elitist comments that poke of people that cannot afford them, i kinda have to take a step back and kinda chuckle a bit.

 

[Lejuan]

Dave has commented before about what he sees as a very clear distinction between those companies that produce unlicensed figures, and those that recast.

This thread...

 

[greatlakes6]

I think people miss the point of this whole debate.
I'm guessing, the people that say Redman is justified using some one else's work for their own, are the same people that call other companies like HT, ThreeZero, Sideshow and others lazy because the end product doesn't live up to what they think it should. It's about appreciation of the artists that make all these things that we love. The thousands and thousands of hours they have dedicated to being the best they can be, even if its not good enough for everyone. Its about respecting them. Yes they get paid to make stuff. And yes you have the right to say it isn't good or good enough. But just because something isn't good enough for you, doesn't make them lazy or stupid or blind. Speaking on behalf of some of the custom collectors, we appreciate the artists work. When we buy a custom for $1000, we aren't buying a toy or dolly. We are saying to the sculptor, the tailor, the painter, the artist, that we see what you have done as important and thank them for their dedication to their craft. I'm pretty certain that the artists are not sitting at the bar every night getting drunk and hitting on girls. They are at home working on their craft like they have been doing for years before you ever saw the results. In short, its about respecting the artist and their commitment to their craft. That's all.
Just my opinion.

 

[greatlakes6]

Where has anyone who has posted (in this thread) in support of Iminime/custom artists in general groaned about the price they paid? The only people who ever seem 'sore' about the asking price for Iminime's stuff are those who don't buy them. Whenever this recasting issue raises it's head, the difference in cost is continually drummed home by one side only. Those who say 'you paid a stack, we paid the equivalent of....i don't know.... a ******* flapjack (for something that looks almost exactly the same, if you squint a bit). I'll now point that out, claim it as some sort of victory on my part and presume you must feel like a right tit in comparison'.

I certainly feel not a twinge of regret at coughing up full whack for the Iminime trio set, nor does the fact a cheaper rip-off reared it's head a couple of years later have me cursing about chucking coin away needlessly. Personally, I would always choose an original product crafted by talented artists over a blatant copy by a bunch of quick buck opportunists.

Price isn't a factor in my decision making. I recognise that isn't the case for everyone. They may not be able to afford the asking price, or they may simply deem it not to be worth the asking price. That's entirely understandable. What I don't understand though is the willingness/eagerness of some of these people to scream "you wasted your money, you wasted your money, you wasted your money" in a fellow collectors face, before giving it a bit of Beetlejuice wrist action just to wrap things up.

There's 'cutting corners' and then there's 'hitching a ride all the way there on someone else's back'.

Iminime: Hiring Trevor Grove and some of the the best 1/6 painters and tailors in the business to produce an original piece: cutting corners.

Redman: recasting and copying the work of another: cutting corners in a more 'understandable' way.

I think you summed it up pretty well

 

[superado]

And folks, that's what's called as a recycled argument. Literally. Absolutely no new value added at all.

 

[ishothimsixtimes]

Why is it then that several of the Iminime supporters are railing on the recasting evil being done by Redman? Based on your t-shirt analogy, are you saying that buyers of the Iminime sets are blissfully ignorant of the licensing infringement? Must be the case in this upsidedown world in which those who don't exercise judgement are the ones with the wads of disposable cash!

Btw, what do you mean by "stolen work"? Did Redman burglarize Iminime's workshop and physically take anything?

The 'stolen work' part originally came from you, not me :

"....the artist's work, which btw was stolen from the rightful property owners and personalities his figures are based on"

I simply pointed out that Iminime didn't steal another's 'work'. The actual work that went into creating the figures was entirely their own (well, apart from the bodies, that is). Yes, said work was based on characters/actors whose likenesses they hadn't obtained permission to use. I haven't denied that. I haven't said it's morally or legally justifiable. I just said I don't give a s##t about it, purchasers of customs don't give a s##t about it and nor do purchasers of Redman figures (clearly), otherwise they wouldn't be buying the figures. So, if the two opposing groups in this discussion demonstrably (by their own buying habits) don't care about it, then it's nothing more than a mere side issue and a half-arsed defence that people who purchase recasts seek to inject and hide behind: 'I may be in the wrong, but you were in the wrong first...and despite what your mother said, two wrongs do make a right when it comes to getting your hands on dolls you otherwise wouldn't own'.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a hobby, a community, that only exists due to the talent and creativity of gifted artists. People who put in hours upon hours honing their craft and working on pieces that pay homage to the iconic characters and movies we all love. Some are hired to do licensed work, others do unlicensed custom work. Sometimes the same people do both. Whichever it is; the end result is still their work. Lack of a signature saying it's legal to create and sell something based on that particular subject doesn't make it any less their work. Redmans 'work', on the other hand, amounts to getting hold of something someone else has already produced and ripping it off to make easy money off that someone else's artistic efforts. His only talent is spotting that there's a willing section of the market who don't care where the figures on their shelves come from, as long as they can get a 'close enough' version of something deemed desirable at a decent price.

As for the second part about physically taking something? That's just the same scenario I put forward to you in jest, except flipping it around and trying to fire it back doesn't really work because.....yes, of course Redman got his/their hands on something 'physical' and tangible of Iminime's (and then attempted to pass it off as his/their own). They recast the heads, remember? They weren't simply 'inspired by' an Iminime sculpt, nor did they copy it from mere sight.

Anyway, that's my take on it, but when it comes to this subject everyone here is already too entrenched in their view to be swayed by the opinion of others. Like every time this argument crops up, we just end up going round in circles.

 

[superado]

The 'stolen work' part originally came from you, not me :

"....the artist's work, which btw was stolen from the rightful property owners and personalities his figures are based on"

I simply pointed out that Iminime didn't steal another's 'work'. The actual work that went into creating the figures was entirely their own (well, apart from the bodies, that is). Yes, said work was based on characters/actors whose likenesses they hadn't obtained permission to use. I haven't denied that. I haven't said it's morally or legally justifiable. I just said I don't give a s##t about it, purchasers of customs don't give a s##t about it and nor do purchasers of Redman figures (clearly), otherwise they wouldn't be buying the figures. So, if the two opposing groups in this discussion demonstrably (by their own buying habits) don't care about it, then it's nothing more than a mere side issue and a half-arsed defence that people who purchase recasts seek to inject and hide behind: 'I may be in the wrong, but you were in the wrong first...and despite what your mother said, two wrongs do make a right when it comes to getting your hands on dolls you otherwise wouldn't own'.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a hobby, a community, that only exists due to the talent and creativity of gifted artists. People who put in hours upon hours honing their craft and working on pieces that pay homage to the iconic characters and movies we all love. Some are hired to do licensed work, others do unlicensed custom work. Sometimes the same people do both. Whichever it is; the end result is still their work. Lack of a signature saying it's legal to create and sell something based on that particular subject doesn't make it any less their work. Redmans 'work', on the other hand, amounts to getting hold of something someone else has already produced and ripping it off to make easy money off that someone else's artistic efforts. His only talent is spotting that there's a willing section of the market who don't care where the figures on their shelves come from, as long as they can get a 'close enough' version of something deemed desirable at a decent price.

As for the second part about physically taking something? That's just the same scenario I put forward to you in jest, except flipping it around and trying to fire it back doesn't really work because.....yes, of course Redman got his/their hands on something 'physical' and tangible of Iminime's (and then attempted to pass it off as his/their own). They recast the heads, remember? They weren't simply 'inspired by' an Iminime sculpt, nor did they copy it from mere sight.

Anyway, that's my take on it, but when it comes to this subject everyone here is already too entrenched in their view to be swayed by the opinion of others. Like every time this argument crops up, we just end up going round in circles.

Yes, it was obvious you were reacting to what I posted and I merely restated the facts, which you and your bias dismissed as a "half-arsed defense." Facts are facts are facts and no opinion can magically alter those, that the law was broken by the creation of the very product that is being infringed upon by Redman; what's so difficult to understand about that?

You are correct that all it does is go around in circles, despite me restating the facts about that other important aspect of the equation that you and others like to conveniently ignore, that the very genesis of this cycle resulted from misappropriation of intellectual property, e.g., creating a likeness of specific movie characters without obtaining the proper license from the license holder and the actors involved, which in itself is a crime. This evening, I just watched a film with footage of the then recently deceased Fred Astaire and in the end-credits it said, "Permission to for the sequences featuring Fred Astaire was given by Mrs. Fred Astair." ...why would it say that?

What basis is that for a community that's built up on the warm and fuzzy intention of artists spending countless hours to deliver to fan demand, then when comparable misappropriation is made by another party like Redman, all hell breaks loose. In the aftermath, parties like Iminime have already profited enough (a portion thereof, in principle, should be going to the intellectual property owners, btw) to allow them to continue in their enterprise, so how does that break community...unless members of said community are the ones actively stirring a s*** storm as it's now taking place in this thread and others. Custom work is just one aspect of this community, and when violations are perceived to be taking place, there should be a sober examination of the major factors involved as should be in this particular situation.

I appreciate the willingness of artists to offer such works, just as I appreciate other parties offering their affordable versions of said work, but I won't indict one act over the other, unless it's a case of someone duplicating properly licensed products like knock-offs of Hot Toy sculpts, so outside of that, live and let live.