Bale sculpts "Personal collection"

[Imaresqd1]

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.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

 

[thenammagazine]

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 sure what's worse, your lack of morals or your typing skills.

 

[Lejuan]

Why Warhol's use of likeness is distinct from the use of likeness in photorealistic action figures (from: https://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another)

"As a general matter, you will not be held liable for using someone's name or likeness in a creative, entertaining, or artistic work that is transformative, meaning that you add some substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person. In other words, the First Amendment ordinarily protects you if you use someone's name or likeness to create something new that is recognizably your own, rather than something that just evokes and exploits the person's identity."

 

[karamazov80]

Sounds like the definition of subjectivity to me. The argument could easily be made that a hand-made, 1/6th scale sculpture contains as much of an artistic or creative element as what Warhol did IMO.

 

[Lejuan]

Sounds like the definition of subjectivity to me. The argument could easily be made that a hand-made, 1/6th scale sculpture contains as much of an artistic or creative element as what Warhol did IMO.

What does a photorealistic portrait seek to achieve if not primarily the evocation and exploitation of a celebrity's identity attained through the accuracy of the likeness? The function of the action figures we are interested in is to represent as faithfully as possible the likeness of the character upon which they are based.

Where is the "substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person" to be found in high-end AF portraits? Photorealism is the raison d'etre of these figures and the extent to which they achieve this constitutes the single greatest measure of their perceived success by consumers.

 

[lozric]

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[/QUOTE]

No more private commissions. How about I tell you want I want for my birthday, and you tell me what you want for your birthday. NO? No cash I promise

 

[thenammagazine]

Sounds like the definition of subjectivity to me. The argument could easily be made that a hand-made, 1/6th scale sculpture contains as much of an artistic or creative element as what Warhol did IMO.

It's not subjective though. Once again, you're ignoring the blatantly obvious to further a redundant argument.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

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

No one is gonna stop you, or anyone, but good to know what you think about this.

 

[karamazov80]

What does a photorealistic portrait seek to achieve if not primarily the evocation and exploitation of a celebrity's identity attained through the accuracy of the likeness? The function of the action figures we are interested in is to represent as faithfully as possible the likeness of the character upon which they are based.

Where is the "substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person" to be found in high-end AF portraits? Photorealism is the raison d'etre of these figures and the extent to which they achieve this constitutes the single greatest measure of their perceived success by consumers.

Well, I think the perceptions of customers is irrelevant to the issue you bring up, which is that the motivation behind the actions of custom artists only matters, and that this motivation is only to faithfully and "photo-realistically" portray a likeness, with little room for an artist's own stylistic dispositions and artistic vision to play a significant role. I'm not an artist, and I can only speculate as to the motivations of artists, but I suspect that many would disagree with you. Rainman has been accused of making sculpts too stylized, of having too stylized a painting style, and of not taking criticisms into appropriate account when sculpting heads. Some artists seem more interested in capturing the essence of a person/character than all of the details of a likeness. I hope this was the intention of Arnie Kim with his Indy sculpt. Some may wish to produce as realistic a likeness as possible, but still make decisions that contribute to the artistic merits of a sculpt. Trevor Grove has been accused of choosing obscure facial expressions for artistic purposes, for example. Sculpting a head is not the same as copying a picture onto a t-shirt or poster and trying to sell it. It is, intrinsically, an artistic enterprise with artistic merit.

So though I dispute that part of your argument, I concede that it is not my point of view, or yours, that matters. It is that of a court of law. If a court determines that the artistic contribution is not "paramount," then, in certain states anyway, the sales of a sculpt could be viewed as illegal. Courts have decided that Warhol's artistic message trumped the "exploitation" of likeness, for example. But how many lay people would agree with that? How many judges would? He took pictures and drawings of people and commercial items, stylistically painted them up, and printed them for sale. I agree that they are art, and that the artistic component is key, but reasonable people may disagree. If you painted each head sculpt you produced in strange colors, claiming it was artistic expression, would it then be acceptable in your eyes, as that would essentially be what Warhol did? These are very tricky distinctions, where someone in a court determines artistic motivation, and for that reason these issues can't be fully resolved by discussions on this forum. I realize that some have a difficult time with ambiguity and uncertainty, but that is the case with legal concerns such as this.

 

[yruh8n]

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

Isn't that what I said? When ask what is the greatest commandment Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and secondly to love your neighbor as yourself. He fulfilled the Old Covenant and established a new one. That's why the commandment to honor the sabbath day and keep it holy no longer applies. The sabbath is Saturday and Christians worship on Sunday. Besides being spiritually fulfilling, treating other people the way you want to be treated is just common sense. The amount of money a celebrity "loses" when someone does a custom head of them is so insignificant it would not make a blip on thier radar. Most of them probably carry around more cash in thier pocket or purse than they are losing. If a factory is churning out hundreds or thousands of an item with thier unauthorized likeness I could undserstand them being upset. Less than 50 custom heads is probably less then they spend on an average meal.

 

[thenammagazine]

Most of them probably carry around more cash in thier pocket or purse than they are losing. If a factory is churning out hundreds or thousands of an item with thier unauthorized likeness I could undserstand them being upset. Less than 50 custom heads is probably less then they spend on an average meal.

So that makes it okay to steal their likeness? You must be a card carrying member of the "occupy" movement. Just because they have more than you do doesn't mean you can steal from them.

 

[pixletwin]

This thread stinks of justification.

 

[yruh8n]

So that makes it okay to steal their likeness? You must be a card carrying member of the "occupy" movement. Just because they have more than you do doesn't mean you can steal from them.

Is stealing the correct term? It's not like they don't have it anymore. It's kind of like the old riddle "what do you have that belongs to you, but is used by others more than yourself?". Also lets not forget that often times an actor/actress signs over control of thier likeness with respect to certain characters. For example unlicensed heads of Heath Ledger Joker probably take more money out of Warner Brothers pockets than Ledger's estate. His heirs get some kind of royalty, but the bulk of licensed proceeds go to WB. I'll readily admit it's a grey area, but who is it really hurting? Recasting on the other hand is directly stealing the creative work of someone who put time and talent into creating a unique item, be it licensed or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. As for my politcal views don't assume to know anything about me based on my opinions on this one matter. I will say this though, making someone pay thier fair share as a citizen of the United States is not stealing. Take that to the bank and cash it.

 

[thenammagazine]

Is stealing the correct term? It's not like they don't have it anymore. It's kind of like the old riddle "what do you have that belongs to you, but is used by others more than yourself?". Also lets not forget that often times an actor/actress signs over control of thier likeness with respect to certain characters. For example unlicensed heads of Heath Ledger Joker probably take more money out of Warner Brothers pockets than Ledger's estate. His heirs get some kind of royalty, but the bulk of licensed proceeds go to WB. I'll readily admit it's a grey area, but who is it really hurting? Recasting on the other hand is directly stealing the creative work of someone who put time and talent into creating a unique item, be it licensed or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. As for my politcal views don't assume to know anything about me based on my opinions on this one matter. I will say this though, making someone pay thier fair share as a citizen of the United States is not stealing. Take that to the bank and cash it.

But there's no gray area. Whether or not it hurts anybody, it's still illegal. And at it's very heart, essentially stealing, since you're robbing the individual/company of dues owed for their likeness. So if you were to recast an unlicensed head, you'd be stealing from a thief, but you'd also be a thief, since you're not paying the rightful owner of the license their dues, and essentially no better than the artist who stole the likeness to begin with.

 

[toyadventurer]

This thread has run its course. It is now just fodder for some of the same old people who just enjoy arguing.

 

[KingGrayskull]

Show some customs!

 

[damagecase]

But there's no gray area. Whether or not it hurts anybody, it's still illegal. And at it's very heart, essentially stealing, since you're robbing the individual/company of dues owed for their likeness. So if you were to recast an unlicensed head, you'd be stealing from a thief, but you'd also be a thief, since you're not paying the rightful owner of the license their dues, and essentially no better than the artist who stole the likeness to begin with.

So what is, I guess the ultimate divination of this argument. Everybody steals. All that's relevant is if its enforced and the degree of harm caused by it. Or, more over, what good is caused by it. One of the largest industries today was based on a theft.

Most of us are too poor to have any real ethical code, especially if your outside the States.

The morality argument for intellectual properties is nearly bankrupt and the US would be wise to pull their collective heads out long enough to bear witness and evolve.

 

[Lejuan]

Well, I think the perceptions of customers is irrelevant to the issue you bring up

I don't think it is irrelevant in this context at all, since this would be one of the questions that would be discussed in a court of law.

"What does the typical consumer of these products value first and foremost in these things, these portraits?"

"Likeness, m'Lud"

"And is the typical consumer of these portraits inclined to purchase them first and foremost because of their admiration for the artist from whose hand they emanated?"

"Unlikely m'Lud"

I'm not an artist, and I can only speculate as to the motivations of artists, but I suspect that many would disagree with you.

I'm an artist, I work in a tertiary art institution and I have sculpted 3D digital portraits of celebrities in a commercial context. There aren't too many photorealistic sculptors who would be able to argue a convincing case that their rendition of a character contains a "substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person". The only exception I can think of might be Serang. It's only the uber-nerds who can identify the subtle nuances of the individual artist's hand in a sculpt - I'd predict that the 'reasonable person' couldn't tell a Rainman sculpt from a Kojun sculpt, much less identify the 'artistic and creative' components in their portraits beyond the rendition of likeness.

I hope this was the intention of Arnie Kim with his Indy sculpt.

I honestly believe that he just stuffed this up. The PERS mechanism may have thrown off the eyes, but there's no explaining away that chin. I look at every one of Kim's portraits and see a faithful rendering of the character - I can't see how he'd go all arty on Indy.

Some may wish to produce as realistic a likeness as possible, but still make decisions that contribute to the artistic merits of a sculpt.

I'm not saying there is NO room for artistry - I am saying though that photorealism in these portraits is their reason d'etre, and the room for creative input in producing a likeness - as opposed to technical mastery of the materials - is actually very narrow.

Sculpting a head is not the same as copying a picture onto a t-shirt or poster and trying to sell it. It is, intrinsically, an artistic enterprise with artistic merit.

I'm not arguing that it is an artistic enterprise with artistic merit - but I am arguing that the artistry takes a back seat to technique.

So though I dispute that part of your argument, I concede that it is not my point of view, or yours, that matters. It is that of a court of law.

Yes, which is why these things tend to be addressed on case-by-case basis. But the grey area you talk about is, once a judge has all the arguments put before them, more of a narrow sliver than an expanse.

I agree that they are art, and that the artistic component is key, but reasonable people may disagree.

Yes, though it is not just the opinion of the reasonable or lay person that is considered by the presiding judge when they deliberate on a case.

If you painted each head sculpt you produced in strange colors, claiming it was artistic expression, would it then be acceptable in your eyes, as that would essentially be what Warhol did?

The fact that complexion is a component of likeness would be significant - but really, how many strange coloured sculpts have you seen put out by 1/6 portrait sculptors?

These are very tricky distinctions, where someone in a court determines artistic motivation, and for that reason these issues can't be fully resolved by discussions on this forum. I realize that some have a difficult time with ambiguity and uncertainty, but that is the case with legal concerns such as this.

I respectfully disagree that these distinctions are as tricky as you claim

 

[DCM81]

Most of us are too poor to have any real ethical code, especially if your outside the States.

I'm sure (I hope!) that you didn't mean it that way but comments like that are the kind of ____ that pisses so many countries off about the USA.

I know, off topic, I'm sorry but that comment jumped ass first into my face and wouldn't let go

 

[yruh8n]

But there's no gray area. Whether or not it hurts anybody, it's still illegal. And at it's very heart, essentially stealing, since you're robbing the individual/company of dues owed for their likeness. So if you were to recast an unlicensed head, you'd be stealing from a thief, but you'd also be a thief, since you're not paying the rightful owner of the license their dues, and essentially no better than the artist who stole the likeness to begin with.

Not every law can be strictly enforced. Lots of things filter through the cracks. For example in the state of Georgia, o__l s e x is illegal, even when it involves partners who are legally married. Should everyone who engages in that activity be arrested? They are breaking the law. Law enforcment can't be everywhere all the time. That's why often it's on regular people to have a moral code of ethics. If an artist makes a couple of hundred bucks selling unlicensed Blondie heads is Clint Eastwood really damaged in any way whatsoever? Defending rich celebrities is almost as wack as defending the 1%. Recasting exist primarily because of the selfish nature of collectors. If they want a head bad enough they will buy it, period. That's why recasting nearly ruined ther garage kit hobby. If half the people who claim to admire what custom artist do would take a real stand against recasting it would go away. Also lets not forget that the current collectibles industry was largely built on the popularity of unlicensed garage kits. Companies like MacFarlane, NECA, Bowen Designs,and even Sideshow saw the merit in creating collectibles that may not sell at Toysrus or Walmart, but had enough of a fan base to support the production of limited edition collectibles.