Bale sculpts "Personal collection"

[karamazov80]

If someone sells you something, and you decide to modify it, destroy it, or copy it for your own use, then it seems like that is the owner's prerogative. If you want to copy it for resale or trade purposes, then that's a no-no. If you want to copy it to give out as gifts, well. . .that seems like a gray area, but I personally wouldn't care for it if I were the artist who originally created the thing. Because, putting this case with the 8 year olds aside, who knows who folks would be giving these things to or what those other people would be doing with it.

As for asking the artist whether they would approve of a guy recasting them, I think the context does matter. If you're just doing it for yourself to experiment with different mods or to put different figures together--particularly when you're talking about a rare sculpt that you can't get extras of--then I don't see why the artists would get so upset. What's the next logical complaint they might raise? That they can't be painted or repainted, because it would sully the integrity of the original product? That it can't be glued to a neck post for the same reason? That they can't be altered in any way, even by accident (say, scratched or scuffed), or the owner should return it to the artist? If you own it, and if you aren't giving it to someone else, then you can do what you want with it IMO.

 

[axecutioner18]

Great, since I have everyones moral support here, Im gonna do me some recasts of my own of the Bale head

 

[karamazov80]

I haven't heard a compelling argument yet as to why someone couldn't, if it were for their own use. Sellers get upset when folks re-sell casts of their sculpt, not when they try to do something innovative with them for their own use (though that hardly ever happens in my observations). Go for it.

 

[Devil_666]

If someone sells you something, and you decide to modify it, destroy it, or copy it for your own use, then it seems like that is the owner's prerogative. If you want to copy it for resale or trade purposes, then that's a no-no.

Quoting this because IMHO, this is the problem with this whole debate.

Every single "custom" head sculpt that's ever been sold on this board was done so without a license and without permission from the owner(s) of the property and the actor/actress who's likeness was being used. Not a hard concept to grasp; They're all ILLEGAL.

There's no legal argument because you can't involve cops or courts when your hands are dirty. That's the equivilant of buying illegal drugs and then calling 5-0 or trying to sue because the dope dealer ripped you off.

And there's no moral or ethical argument because claiming that a recaster is "ripping off someone elses work" completely ignores that the original sculptor was ALSO "ripping off someone elses work" by sculpting an unlicensed and unauthorized piece.

I find it hilarious how people can support custom sculpts being sold illegally while looking down on recasted/modified sculpts ALSO being sold illegally.

 

[thenammagazine]

Most of you guys forget that these heads still need to be painted and to be honest, without a good paint job, they are crap. You can say that about every home recasted head. As good as the sculpt might be, bad paintjob=trash.

Not if you just pass along one or more of those recast heads to the artist in trade for paints.

 

[axecutioner18]

Ima gonna recast some Bale heads for all you freaks as gifts... just pay shipping. Its a gift, so wont take a single penny for it...

 

[Imaresqd1]

Quoting this because IMHO, this is the problem with this whole debate.

Every single "custom" head sculpt that's ever been sold on this board was done so without a license and without permission from the owner(s) of the property and the actor/actress who's likeness was being used. Not a hard concept to grasp; They're all ILLEGAL.

There's no legal argument because you can't involve cops or courts when your hands are dirty. That's the equivilant of buying illegal drugs and then calling 5-0 or trying to sue because the dope dealer ripped you off.

And there's no moral or ethical argument because claiming that a recaster is "ripping off someone elses work" completely ignores that the original sculptor was ALSO "ripping off someone elses work" by sculpting an unlicensed and unauthorized piece.

I find it hilarious how people can support custom sculpts being sold illegally while looking down on recasted/modified sculpts ALSO being sold illegally.

First off, I'd like to thank all of you who are concerned about this issue, and your support(axecutioner18, intothevoid, Hydeous....and many others I can't fit all ur names here)
However, as much as I hate to admit, Devil_666 is absolutely right in this case. For those of you who are familiar with me here, I was never comfortable with selling my stuff here in the past.(Maybe you've sent pms to me in the past without hearing back from me. Sorry). I posted some of my portraitures a couple of years back on here, and some of the members pmed me telling me how much they liked it and such. I was very much flattered and impressed by people's interest. I overheard from somewhere that if you sell less than 10 pieces that's ok. I could be totally wrong about that(I think I am).
Anyway, after receiving so many requests on my stuff, a few members and I soon became friends, and I sold a very limited edition of a few of my sculpts before the massive release of the Wayne heads, and along with some ooak private commissions. I was in college at that time, and some extra cash was pretty darn great to help out with my tuition and rent, but that doesn't justify what I did, and it was wrong.
Honestly, it is a very hard profession of being an artist in this specific field, and I'm sure no one wants to see recasts of their works. I'm not saying that it's ok to recast someone's sculpture without their permission, but in this specific case, selling a sculpt of movie character/ celebrity without license is also illegal for sure. If someone were copying and selling Michelangelo's David at his time, Michelangelo had every right to be upset and sue the guy; because Michelangelo created the piece from scratch, very bit of it, the artistic idea, composition, forms etc. In my case, I did not come up with the idea or the imagery of the movie stars/characters, and I simply just copied their likenesses to my best ability from photographs.
I'm sorry for what I did in the past, and from now on I'd like to keep what I do merely as a personal hobby, and I'd like to thank you all for your understanding and support. You all been very kind to me. Thank you!
Sincerely
Adam

 

[steven.giunta]

The whole not paying for a liscence is the worst argument I ever heard.does hot toys pay for the likeness rights on there truetypes?there,mass produced.I wouldn't even know how to contact bale to get his permission.do you really think he cares if adam made a little bit of money?ifyour talking millions of dollers maybe but not on a run of 130.

 

[K.bowen]

this thread is very intseresting, what do you guys mean by modding thought?

 

[KingGrayskull]

this thread is very intseresting, what do you guys mean by modding thought?

For example make Adams Bale sculpt bold and add a little stubble beard for a John Connor sculpt.

 

[K.bowen]

alright to do that if it was the original sculpt bought from the sculptor?

 

[Thrustmaster]

I'm sorry for what I did in the past, and from now on I'd like to keep what I do merely as a personal hobby, and I'd like to thank you all for your understanding and support. You all been very kind to me. Thank you!
Sincerely
Adam

saying sorry because you've brought so much joy to us with your outstanding work? I still can't say enough times how happy I am for making your bale head available. and it makes me sad to not be able of having some more of your art. for me and others you're the best sculpter out there. I was so looking forward to your begins cowl head but I guess this and the 2face sculpt won't never be available now, right?

nevertheless thank you so much for making and giving us so much from you and your art. I hope you'll change your mind some day.

 

[yruh8n]

The problem with this whole issue is that there are double standards all over the place. Many of the popular kids on this site are actively participating in the recasting of certain heads. Lots of excuses being used like "the sculpt was modified" or "it's been resized" or "I'm not making any money off of it" but it's still a recast, regardless of what kind of spin you try to put on it. The funny thing is a lot of sculptors set themselves up for this by limiting the number of castings they offer. There is no licensing agent restricting the number of castings you can sell, so why stop at a certain number? One of the top reasons people will give you for buying a recast is that they can't get it anywhere else. The idea of offering a unlicensed bootleg sculpt as a numbered and limited edition is absurd to me. Adam's Bale is a good example. People want it, and if they want it bad enough they don't care if it's a recast or not. I would be willing to bet that a handfull of people who bought that sculpt did so with the intention of recasting it once the limit number was sold out and demand got higher.

 

[K.bowen]

i recently modified a head, but its not a recast it was bought direclty from the sculptor. so that should be alright lol

 

[intothevoid]

First off, I'd like to thank all of you who are concerned about this issue, and your support(axecutioner18, intothevoid, Hydeous....and many others I can't fit all ur names here)
However, as much as I hate to admit, Devil_666 is absolutely right in this case. For those of you who are familiar with me here, I was never comfortable with selling my stuff here in the past.(Maybe you've sent pms to me in the past without hearing back from me. Sorry). I posted some of my portraitures a couple of years back on here, and some of the members pmed me telling me how much they liked it and such. I was very much flattered and impressed by people's interest. I overheard from somewhere that if you sell less than 10 pieces that's ok. I could be totally wrong about that(I think I am).
Anyway, after receiving so many requests on my stuff, a few members and I soon became friends, and I sold a very limited edition of a few of my sculpts before the massive release of the Wayne heads, and along with some ooak private commissions. I was in college at that time, and some extra cash was pretty darn great to help out with my tuition and rent, but that doesn't justify what I did, and it was wrong.
Honestly, it is a very hard profession of being an artist in this specific field, and I'm sure no one wants to see recasts of their works. I'm not saying that it's ok to recast someone's sculpture without their permission, but in this specific case, selling a sculpt of movie character/ celebrity without license is also illegal for sure. If someone were copying and selling Michelangelo's David at his time, Michelangelo had every right to be upset and sue the guy; because Michelangelo created the piece from scratch, very bit of it, the artistic idea, composition, forms etc. In my case, I did not come up with the idea or the imagery of the movie stars/characters, and I simply just copied their likenesses to my best ability from photographs.
I'm sorry for what I did in the past, and from now on I'd like to keep what I do merely as a personal hobby, and I'd like to thank you all for your understanding and support. You all been very kind to me. Thank you!
Sincerely
Adam

You don't need to apologize to anyone Adam, as Thrust said, it's an honour to own some of your art

In any case, I hope you never stop your sculpting, whether as a hobby or a profession.

Always look forward to seeing your work

 

[K.bowen]

You don't need to apologize to anyone Adam, as Thrust said, it's an honour to own some of your art

In any case, I hope you never stop your sculpting, whether as a hobby or a profession.

Always look forward to seeing your work

its even an honor to look at pics of your work
as i missed

 

[karamazov80]

Quoting this because IMHO, this is the problem with this whole debate.

Every single "custom" head sculpt that's ever been sold on this board was done so without a license and without permission from the owner(s) of the property and the actor/actress who's likeness was being used. Not a hard concept to grasp; They're all ILLEGAL.

There's no legal argument because you can't involve cops or courts when your hands are dirty. That's the equivilant of buying illegal drugs and then calling 5-0 or trying to sue because the dope dealer ripped you off.

And there's no moral or ethical argument because claiming that a recaster is "ripping off someone elses work" completely ignores that the original sculptor was ALSO "ripping off someone elses work" by sculpting an unlicensed and unauthorized piece.

I find it hilarious how people can support custom sculpts being sold illegally while looking down on recasted/modified sculpts ALSO being sold illegally.

While this is a legitimate opinion to hold, you're making the same argument that Nam has, which equates legality with acceptability within a community of collectors. I'm really focusing on the latter, right or wrong in your opinion, or in the eyes of the law. But if you want to talk about law, I ran across this article, which brings the strict interpretation of illegality you and Nam hold into question:

https://www.jjkaufman.com/articles/artistvcelb.htm

These issues apparently differ based on state law (which all differ from one another in some way), and as these issues are actually brought to court, exceptions are frequently made based on interpretation of those state laws in a way that often expands what artists are allowed to do from a legal POV. So, is it as cut and dry as you suggest? When the First Amendment argument comes into play, I would say that it isn't.

I don't know if recasters are committing any more or less illegal an act doing what they are doing, so I haven't made an argument one way or the other there (though based on what has happened with some of Andy Warhol's works, reselling copies could well be illegal in the eyes of the law though the initial creation of the sculpt may not be). But there is a clear distinction (call it ethics if you want, or violation of acceptable behavior, or whatever) from the POV of the custom collecting world.

 

[intothevoid]

I agree with the notion that there is a distinction between selling original unlicensed sculpts and selling recasts of an unlicensed sculpt, as far as this community is concerned (completely disregarding the legal aspect).

If you want to be a cynic, call it honour among thieves, but it is what it is, we're a community and we exist by a set of expected standards amongst ourselves.

 

[karamazov80]

Well I changed my post a bit, void. Because I really just don't know if there is a legal distinction or not between creating a custom head for sale and selling copies for profit, though the implication in what you quoted was that I would assume they are uniformly legal/illegal in general.

And here is a salient quote from that link I posted that highlights an argument I was making to Nam the other day:

What these three cases show is a trend in which courts are finding First Amendment protection for artists when they are using the celebrities' images in certain art works. No artist should take these cases as an invitation for the carte blanche exploitation of a celebrity's likeness without permission. That would be foolhardy, but it also means that instant capitulation in the face of a cease and desist letter may also not be appropriate. These cases provide a need for a close analysis as to whether or not the celebrities' permissions are needed in regard to the exploitation of their images in art related projects. The review must be done on a case by case basis.

Legal interpretation is key.

 

[intothevoid]

I edited my post since you edited the quoted part