Bale sculpts "Personal collection"

[odellwyoung34]

I was sold a Spartacus head piece and it was a recast because when I got one from Serang you can tell the difference. I would never do that and take a recast and sell it to a fellow collector. This is simply a copied product that will be in my collection. Even if someone offered me money for one I would not do that because I'm not looking for profit. I think what Head Play is doing is shady to Rainman. All I did was extend Adams work in my personal collection. So it's just more of his work representing in my collection....the only profit is having his sculpt in my collection....that's it. I'm new to this collecting game and I'm learning things....but I truly don't see anything wrong as long as its for your personal collection. And 8yr olds will just play and have no ideal the structure around customs...but they are kids. Didn't mean at all to offend anyone....I just did the video to give an update on upcoming figures for my collection.

 

[batfan08]

I'm not arguing the legality, so much as the morality. I'm fine with this hobby, I love Adam's work, and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't want to see him continue on with it and continue sharing it with you guys, but for the sake of this argument, this is about Christian Bale's rights. Regardless of if he doesn't care, this man's face is being duplicated and sold without his knowledge, consent, or compensation. I just don't know how recasting is immoral, when the artist is duplicating Mama and Papa Bale's work to begin with?

That being said, keep doing what you're doing, Adam. The entire reason for this is because some people feel it's necessary to blow things out of proportion, even when there's no cause for alarm.

 

[karamazov80]

Regardless of if he doesn't care, this man's face is being duplicated and sold without his knowledge, consent, or compensation. I just don't know how recasting is immoral, when the artist is duplicating Mama and Papa Bale's work to begin with?

That's an argument that makes complete sense to me, if that's how you feel. But the other argument has less sway with me. Laws vary from place to place, and are imperfectly codified rules set up by men to help promote order, fairness, or other issues of "morality" or "ethics" or "rights" as defined by legislators, their constituents, and more often than not, special interest lobbying groups. If folks want to say that their ethical codes are driven by these laws, then that's fine. But to say that because a law exists, some other mode of behavior should be deemed unacceptable within a community isn't something I agree with. They are two very different things. A community can hold a view different from the legal establishment, and that doesn't make anyone a hypocrite for holding a distinction that isn't based in law. If you believe that it is wrong for someone's likeness to be used without approval, then that's one issue. If you believe that art (whatever it is) should not be copied without an artist's approval, that's a completely separate issue, unless you perceive that the two are logically intertwined, which is subjective.

 

[Devil_666]

Just for the record: I support all forms of hustling. So I'm good with custom artists AND recasters, etc. They're all hustling to make money and I can't hate on that.

 

[thenammagazine]

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.

100% correct about HT. Sideshow's also done it as recently as the Joe line having to hide Bana's unauthorized likeness on Dusty with paint. But toss in Dragon, Triad and many other 1/6 companies on the planet. So customizers aren't the only ones doing it.

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:

Legal interpretation is key.

But your view of "art" here is skewed. An artist is permitted to do a one-off beit a painting, bust or even a 1/6 head and even sell it. However, said artist is not permitted to produce dozens-hundreds of replicas of this same piece and sell those for profit. Then it becomes textbook infringement. Recasters would also fall right into the infringement category having no right to claim an exception since they did not produce the piece). So it's not a matter of "interpretation" so much as you playing at words to make what is an easily distinguishable difference indistinguishable.

 

[MisterToyNYC]

Just for the record: I support all forms of hustling. So I'm good with custom artists AND recasters, etc. They're all hustling to make money and I can't hate on that.

Complete honest! I like that and I agree with Devil!

For me, the only law that matters is the Lord's and I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the Good Book.

Eric

 

[SwedishHeat]

100% correct about HT. Sideshow's also done it as recently as the Joe line having to hide Bana's unauthorized likeness on Dusty with paint. But toss in Dragon, Triad and many other 1/6 companies on the planet. So customizers aren't the only ones doing it.

This is the toughest part about this entire debate is that every companies' base body is issued with a celebrity likeness on it and it's unauthorized.

I have a feeling that HT's Gambit head was approved by Marvel, but they simply chose not to produce the figure, so they just put it on the TT. Same with the T Howard head, and the Prison Break heads. All of them were approved by the licensor, they just decided to put them on a TT instead of the figure. The licensor got their money out of the deal, so it is what it is.

When Hot Toys is sending Marvel Studios royalty checks for thousands of dollars every quarter, I highly doubt they're gonna say "Hey, we're not getting royalties off that Gambit head".

I think Hot Toys gets a pass from a lot of the licensors because they make so much damn money for them. Jack Sparrow alone is probably at least $100,000 worth of business for them. Like Disney is going to go after them for a Jake Gyllenhaal head??

 

[thenammagazine]

Complete honest! I like that and I agree with Devil!

For me, the only law that matters is the Lord's and I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the Good Book.

Eric

Might wanna brush up on your Old Testament then. It's in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. 8th Commandment.

This is the toughest part about this entire debate is that every companies' base body is issued with a celebrity likeness on it and it's unauthorized.

I have a feeling that HT's Gambit head was approved by Marvel, but they simply chose not to produce the figure, so they just put it on the TT. Same with the T Howard head, and the Prison Break heads. All of them were approved by the licensor, they just decided to put them on a TT instead of the figure. The licensor got their money out of the deal, so it is what it is.

Not so sure given there was no "branding" other than HT on their product. Likely what happened was the figures went into the sculpting phase and for whatever reason HT decided not to do them and recouped their personal cost by releasing them on generic nudes.

When Hot Toys is sending Marvel Studios royalty checks for thousands of dollars every quarter, I highly doubt they're gonna say "Hey, we're not getting royalties off that Gambit head".

I think Hot Toys gets a pass from a lot of the licensors because they make so much damn money for them. Jack Sparrow alone is probably at least $100,000 worth of business for them. Like Disney is going to go after them for a Jake Gyllenhaal head??

That still doesn't make it right.

 

[karamazov80]

But your view of "art" here is skewed. An artist is permitted to do a one-off beit a painting, bust or even a 1/6 head and even sell it. However, said artist is not permitted to produce dozens-hundreds of replicas of this same piece and sell those for profit. Then it becomes textbook infringement. Recasters would also fall right into the infringement category having no right to claim an exception since they did not produce the piece). So it's not a matter of "interpretation" so much as you playing at words to make what is an easily distinguishable difference indistinguishable.

That's what Andy Warhol did. Interpretation of the nature of art as determined by a court is key. But beyond that, in that link I posted it mentions the "single and original works of art" issue as being part of California state law. But it is apparently not straightforward and unambiguous (containing exceptions and requiring interpretation), and may or may not apply to other states. Two of the three examples used in that article are instances where courts allowed the use of art produced in greater numbers than one.

 

[thenammagazine]

That's what Andy Warhol did. Interpretation of the nature of art as determined by a court is key. But beyond that, in that link I posted it mentions the "single and original works of art" issue as being part of California state law. But it is apparently not straightforward and unambiguous (containing exceptions and requiring interpretation), and may or may not apply to other states. Two of the three examples used in that article are instances where courts allowed the use of art produced in greater numbers than one.

Key word there, bub. Produced, not "reproduced."

While morally, it might be questionable, it's perfectly legal for an artist to do 200 original sculpts of say, Clint Eastwood, toss them in a gallery and sell every one of them for profit. It is however not legal for an artist to produce one sculpt of Eastwood, recast it 200 times, and sell all those pieces for profit. There's no gray area there.

 

[karamazov80]

Again, that's what Andy Warhol did. And the example in that link with the Three Stooges on t-shirts, I doubt those were all being produced individually by the artist.

 

[thenammagazine]

Again, that's what Andy Warhol did. And the example in that link with the Three Stooges on t-shirts, I doubt those were all being produced individually by the artist.

Do we know he didn't have the consent of his subjects? Do we know the law hasn't changed from 1987 to now? And I believe, like Nosferatu, the OG 3-stooges is public domain. At any rate, at this point in time, it's illegal. See my example of Clint Eastwood. You could argue a point to a judge siting all the ol' timey ____ you'd like to defend your case and in the end, especially if the case is filed in California, you're paying damages.

 

[karamazov80]

Well, I guess you didn't read that link.

"The Court used Andy Warhol’s portraits as an example of the type of art where the artist’s contribution was paramount and the artist’s rights would supersede the celebrity's right of publicity."

"The owner of the rights in the Three Stooges likeness sued under California law. . ."

 

[SwedishHeat]

How many Three Stooges paintings did Andy Warhol make? Did he paint one or did he paint multiples? Did he paint one and have his team copy his style and make 10?

I'm just not familiar with his operation.

 

[karamazov80]

Warhol wasn't doing the Stooges. That was another case. But Warhol would produce a piece of art, then have a limited number of prints made. Not sure if he always made the prints by hand or had someone else helping him out, particularly as he became more famous. But I think there is a clear analogy there to the head sculpting issue. There are even parallels with recasts, because people have made fake copies of the original Warhol prints and tried to pass them off as the real deal, which is illegal, though the production and sale of Warhol's original prints apparently was not.

 

[yruh8n]

Weither or not a custom head sculpt is licensed or not is a seperate issue from recasting. Smoking pot is illegal, but how many people do it? Celebrities and lawyers have discovered that such a small amount of money is involved that it cost more to sue someone than they can ever recover in damages. There was a case a few years ago where a guy was being prosecuted by Warner Brothers and DC over unlicensed garage kits of Adam West Batman characters. If I remember right the charges were dropped because the guy had so little they could take that it made them look bad to persue it. If a celebrity wants to take action they can. Usually a cease and desist request is sent first. If the producer of the unlicensed product chooses to ignore the C & D further action can be taken. Or not. I know Snyder-man no longer list his Chuck Norris heads on ebay because he got a request from Norris' attorneys to stop selling.

 

[yruh8n]

Warhol wasn't doing the Stooges. That was another case. But Warhol would produce a piece of art, then have a limited number of prints made. Not sure if he always made the prints by hand or had someone else helping him out, particularly as he became more famous. But I think there is a clear analogy there to the head sculpting issue. There are even parallels with recasts, because people have made fake copies of the original Warhol prints and tried to pass them off as the real deal, which is illegal, though the production and sale of Warhol's original prints apparently was not.

The Three Stooges are not public domain. The legal battles over the rights to the various incarnations of the Stooges make for interesting reading.

 

[pixletwin]

Complete honest! I like that and I agree with Devil!

For me, the only law that matters is the Lord's and I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the Good Book.

Eric

YES! In fact the Good Book encourages it. It says in Deuteronomy 14.25 "Thou shalt not steal, unless you can make a compelling case that the thing you covet was sort of stolen to begin with, in which case it's ok."

 

[yruh8n]

Technically the Lord's law is New Testament not OT. He said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In which case, yes, this is something recasters may want to think about. They would, and have, scream the loudest when someone starts ripping them off.

 

[ezkiel6]

Whos cares why even post this thread what do you have to prove if i wanted to recast heads from rainman or serang who's gonna stop me not that i am going to but aint no one gonna do ____e as they haven' even got copyrights in the first place