Beware the Recaster(s)

[Pajji]

I think you were selectively reading his rules. GB said:

"Custom items can be recast and sold/given away if the person paid for ownership of the item or has an agreement with the artist."

If the agreement is for total ownership, then that includes the right to do whatever one pleases with it. This seems quite straightforward to me. The exception is if the agreement expressly precluded such action (which apparently was part of previous agreements by Rainman to do 1-off sculpts). Sure, it is good form to ask about this ahead of time, but if you pay someone for a pure commission, then once the commission is done the artist no longer holds the right to dictate how something is used.

I did not want to get involved in this discussion, since well Im sorta new to this board...BUT...as an ARTIST/ANIMATOR/DESIGNER for a major TV Network, and a FREELANCE ARTIST on the side, all our work is owned by the network...they can chose to do what they want with it when they want with it. Its stated in our contracts....we even had a meeting recently where we where warned that if we did outside work on company computers, that, that TOO would be property of the network. I just finished a freelance gig where i got paid and handed over all ASSETS (illustrations, designs, animations) to buyer. He took it in his drive, and the assumption is, he has the right to do what he pleases with it...its his...no longer mine...I was hired by him...I finished the job, I got my money, now if he chooses to destroy the drive that's on him, or if he chooses to take my animation later down the road and get it reworked by another designer, thats his choice as well.
Again, Im just speaking on behalf of an ARTIST being commissioned to create something. The person who commissioned it then OWNS it after job is complete... we just walk away to the next job in hopes to see our work in public...and theres been times when our work changes so many hands it different by the time it reaches broadcast..BUT again...its in our contracts. So we are well aware of it.

 

[pixletwin]

well a couple people have answered as to what happened, is that not proof enough? I dont know anything about it personally but people seem to know it happened

Oh "people say this" or "people say that" doesn't cut butter. You want to raise a point, back it up. If you can't back it up other than by offering general hearsay, then you are adding nothing to the dialog.

 

[galactiboy]

I did not want to get involved in this discussion, since well Im sorta new to this board...BUT...as an ARTIST/ANIMATOR/DESIGNER for a major TV Network, and a FREELANCE ARTIST on the side, all our work is owned by the network...they can chose to do what they want with it when they want with it. Its stated in our contracts....we even had a meeting recently where we where warned that if we did outside work on company computers, that, that TOO would be property of the network. I just finished a freelance gig where i got paid and handed over all ASSETS (illustrations, designs, animations) to buyer. He took it in his drive, and the assumption is, he has the right to do what he pleases with it...its his...no longer mine...I was hired by him...I finished the job, I got my money, now if he chooses to destroy the drive that's on him, or if he chooses to take my animation later down the road and get it reworked by another designer, thats his choice as well.
Again, Im just speaking on behalf of an ARTIST being commissioned to create something. The person who commissioned it then OWNS it after job is complete... we just walk away to the next job in hopes to see our work in public...and theres been times when our work changes so many hands it different by the time it reaches broadcast..BUT again...its in our contracts. So we are well aware of it.

That does not really apply in most cases for custom work. Here the cast, clothing item, etc. is what you buy and have the right to do with what you please. But the original is generally owned and held onto by the artist. Just like buying a licensed piece, I can do whatever I want with the piece I bought. But I do not have the right to reproduce/copy it.

The only exceptions are when it's agreed upon, like in your contract, that the customer is buying the rights to copy the piece. Generally that results in a higher priced commission as the artist just has one shot at reimbursement.

 

[karamazov80]

No, you're not understanding my point, which was reiterating exactly what GB posted. My reference of "ownership" just implies possessing the piece, which is how you worded your initial post. You implied that simply by owning the piece of work, one is granted the permission to recast it. My point was, no you aren't. If someone or 100 people commission a piece from an artist that doesn't automatically grant them the right to recast it once they get it in the mail. That is an agreement that should be made between the artist and his clients.

Well we agree to disagree then, but I don't see any legal precedent suggesting that this would be the case without some other existing law in place, or a contract explicitly stating such.

I did not want to get involved in this discussion, since well Im sorta new to this board...BUT...as an ARTIST/ANIMATOR/DESIGNER for a major TV Network, and a FREELANCE ARTIST on the side, all our work is owned by the network...they can chose to do what they want with it when they want with it. Its stated in our contracts....we even had a meeting recently where we where warned that if we did outside work on company computers, that, that TOO would be property of the network. I just finished a freelance gig where i got paid and handed over all ASSETS (illustrations, designs, animations) to buyer. He took it in his drive, and the assumption is, he has the right to do what he pleases with it...its his...no longer mine...I was hired by him...I finished the job, I got my money, now if he chooses to destroy the drive that's on him, or if he chooses to take my animation later down the road and get it reworked by another designer, thats his choice as well.
Again, Im just speaking on behalf of an ARTIST being commissioned to create something. The person who commissioned it then OWNS it after job is complete... we just walk away to the next job in hopes to see our work in public...and theres been times when our work changes so many hands it different by the time it reaches broadcast..BUT again...its in our contracts. So we are well aware of it.

Absolutely. I work at a University, and the same thing applies since work we do there is technically owned by the University. We get a cut if we sell something we create there, and there are other complicated laws around it, but essentially, they own what you come up with on their dime using their resources. But if I'm just a sculptor doing a commission from someone, then no more encompassing contract I signed comes into play.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

In general a sculptor might not be the owner of the likeness, but he IS the owner of the sculpt he made.

Like an illustrator doing a caricature of wolverine at a convention, he does not own the wolverine, but he owns the drawing and the style he uses.

 

[LipSmack]

Oh "people say this" or "people say that" doesn't cut butter. You want to raise a point, back it up. If you can't back it up other than by offering general hearsay, then you are adding nothing to the dialog.

No need to get pissy, I was just saying that people started bringing up that they had knowledge of the C and D one page back, so that to me indicates that it happened,

 

[pixletwin]

Are we talking about the legality of the matter or the local board ethics?

 

[karamazov80]

That does not really apply in most cases for custom work. Here the cast, clothing item, etc. is what you buy and have the right to do with what you please. But the original is generally owned and held onto by the artist. Just like buying a licensed piece, I can do whatever I want with the piece I bought. But I do not have the right to reproduce/copy it.

The only exceptions are when it's agreed upon, like in your contract, that the customer is buying the rights to copy the piece. Generally that results in a higher priced commission as the artist just has one shot at reimbursement.

The argument I'm making is over a commissioned work, not a small run collectible, and I think there is a difference. But this straddles issues of legality and appropriateness (which are different things of course), so I can completely understand someone taking a different view. Though I personally don't think it's wrong, I can understand a Rocco being upset over his commissioned work being re-cast for sale. And that very likely contributed to his current rule of not doing commissions. So, certainly there could be negative consequences to that behavior.

 

[Kuzeh]

Wow...
Been catching up with this thread...

Here are my 2 pesos...
There are VERY talented people on these and other boards that do some amazing work, and I for one am glad they share it with us.
It's similar to what some comic book artist do, as far as commissions, sketches or art. They most likely don't pay royalties to Marvel, DC, etc to use their characters, and sell prints, or other media to fans.
Personally I don't see a problem with that...

The issue is when these items are "counterfeits" if you will... but that too is debatable...

It's definitely a VERY grey area that will continue to be debated 'ad nauseam'...

There are a lot of implications that can be right and wrong depending on the individual, but we, as a community, have to agree on certain basic principles to keep the hobby alive I think.

 

[pixletwin]

No need to get pissy, I was just saying that people started bringing up that they had knowledge of the C and D one page back, so that to me indicates that it happened,

I wasn't getting pissy. I am not currently pissy. So slow down there pilgrim in your assumptions.

Since recasting is a part of the hobby we have no control over, nor can ever hope to control, my part in this discussion has been with reference to the boundries of this board and what should be done to erradicate it from here. That's it.

 

[LipSmack]

Wow...
Been catching up with this thread...

Here are my 2 pesos...
There are VERY talented people on these and other boards that do some amazing work, and I for one am glad they share it with us.
It's similar to what some comic book artist do, as far as commissions, sketches or art. They most likely don't pay royalties to Marvel, DC, etc to use their characters, and sell prints, or other media to fans.
Personally I don't see a problem with that...

The issue is when these items are "counterfeits" if you will... but that too is debatable...

It's definitely a VERY grey area that will continue to be debated 'ad nauseam'...

There are a lot of implications that can be right and wrong depending on the individual, but we, as a community, have to agree on certain basic principles to keep the hobby alive I think.

ok but have any of these sculptors done work for or with in any capacity the companies who own the property and rights to the things theyre sculpting? very different situations

 

[karamazov80]

ok but have any of these sculptors done work for or with in any capacity the companies who own the property and rights to the things theyre sculpting? very different situations

I don't think that plays any role in this. The companies don't sign off on these things, and artists will often do sketches of properties they haven't previously worked on at conventions. Trevor Grove worked for Sideshow. In your mind, is that sufficient to allow him to justifiably do sculpts of anything licensed by SSC?

 

[Ajkhunter]

Oh man this thread was funny now its getting old, some people agree with recasting some don't blah blah. No matter how much you argue or debate with each other whether civilized or not people aren't going to change their views, this thread feels like every political conversation between republicans and democrats ive ever heard. I for one don't agree with recasting but this thread is now a witch hunt I feel haha.

 

[LipSmack]

I don't think that plays any role in this. The companies don't sign off on these things, and artists will often do sketches of properties they haven't previously worked on at conventions. Trevor Grove worked for Sideshow. Is that enough to allow him to justifiably do sculpts of anything licensed by SSC?

that would be for him to sort out, I don't know any big name artist that work for Marvel or DC but im sure there are rules written in contracts regarding what they can do with the characters. Obviously they cant start their own comic book using Marvel charcters

 

[LipSmack]

Oh man this thread was funny now its getting old, some people agree with recasting some don't blah blah. No matter how much you argue or debate with each other whether civilized or not people aren't going to change their views, this thread feels like every political conversation between republicans and democrats ive ever heard. I for one don't agree with recasting but this thread is now a witch hunt I feel haha.

please dont take this the wrong way but there are plenty of other threads and topics you could look at and enjoy. I for one love debate, I think its purposeful and allows for people to express their views and challenge the views of others.

 

[karamazov80]

Kuzeh was discussing artistic commissions, not attempts to manufacture products to a mass audience. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Oh man this thread was funny now its getting old, some people agree with recasting some don't blah blah. No matter how much you argue or debate with each other whether civilized or not people aren't going to change their views, this thread feels like every political conversation between republicans and democrats ive ever heard. I for one don't agree with recasting but this thread is now a witch hunt I feel haha.

Personally, I value these discussions. Yeah, much if it is self-serving, most don't change opinions, and it does go round and round, but by openly discussing issues I think we can get a better gauge on what the real issues and opinions/expectations are regarding these issues. If we don't discuss them, then we are just stuck with our own opinions, board policy determined largely without non-mod member input, and legal issues that may affect certain behavior. These are complicated issues and affect many of us. Like U.S. democracy, it's not perfect. But do you prefer the alternative?

 

[Kuzeh]

ok but have any of these sculptors done work for or with in any capacity the companies who own the property and rights to the things theyre sculpting? very different situations

There's plenty of independent artist that have never worked for any of the big companies, yet still do commissions...

I don't think that plays any role in this. The companies don't sign off on these things, and artists will often do sketches of properties they haven't previously worked on at conventions. Trevor Grove worked for Sideshow. In your mind, is that sufficient to allow him to justifiably do sculpts of anything licensed by SSC?

I agree...

Kuzeh was discussing artistic commissions, not attempts to manufacture products to a mass audience. It's an apples to oranges comparison.


Personally, I value these discussions. Yeah, much if it is self-serving, most don't change opinions, and it does go round and round, but by openly discussing issues I think we can get a better gauge on what the real issues and opinions/expectations are regarding these issues. If we don't discuss them, then we are just stuck with our own opinions, board policy determined largely without non-mod member input, and legal issues that may affect certain behavior. These are complicated issues and affect many of us. Like U.S. democracy, it's not perfect. But do you prefer the alternative?

Exactly...
We just have to agree on the conventions we as a community have to keep the hobby alive I think...
throwing people under the bus or pointing fingers endlessly doesn't help...

 

[galactiboy]

The argument I'm making is over a commissioned work, not a small run collectible, and I think there is a difference. But this straddles issues of legality and appropriateness (which are different things of course), so I can completely understand someone taking a different view. Though I personally don't think it's wrong, I can understand a Rocco being upset over his commissioned work being re-cast for sale. And that very likely contributed to his current rule of not doing commissions. So, certainly there could be negative consequences to that behavior.

I think we agree on this... if I commission a specific piece then there should be an agreement as to what happens to the item. If I pay hundreds, up to thousands of dollars for commissioned item I would expect that either I a) own the rights to reproduce or not reproduce the head or b) that I will own the only copies or have save over how many copies are made and sold and the artist may or may not retain the original. That should be discussed and agreed upon before hand.

The issue with Rocco was, IMO, an example of how this can go wrong.

 

[Ajkhunter]

Kuzeh was discussing artistic commissions, not attempts to manufacture products to a mass audience. It's an apples to oranges comparison.


Personally, I value these discussions. Yeah, much if it is self-serving, most don't change opinions, and it does go round and round, but by openly discussing issues I think we can get a better gauge on what the real issues and opinions/expectations are regarding these issues. If we don't discuss them, then we are just stuck with our own opinions, board policy determined largely without non-mod member input, and legal issues that may affect certain behavior. These are complicated issues and affect many of us. Like U.S. democracy, it's not perfect. But do you prefer the alternative?

I know and you bring up great points, I just feel some people don't carry out these discussions how they should and instead point fingers and go on a witch hunt.

 

[LipSmack]

Kuzeh was discussing artistic commissions, not attempts to manufacture products to a mass audience. It's an apples to oranges comparison.


Personally, I value these discussions. Yeah, much if it is self-serving, most don't change opinions, and it does go round and round, but by openly discussing issues I think we can get a better gauge on what the real issues and opinions/expectations are regarding these issues. If we don't discuss them, then we are just stuck with our own opinions, board policy determined largely without non-mod member input, and legal issues that may affect certain behavior. These are complicated issues and affect many of us. Like U.S. democracy, it's not perfect. But do you prefer the alternative?

Then why would HT no do "artistic commissions" of their pieces?

I was more reffering to people like Adi Granov, but yeah there are smaller artists who do it to, I m gunna look into this some more