Beware the Recaster(s)

[youbastards]

It is a grey area, for sure. People who recast are villified for stealing an artist's work, while the artists who create the work without authorization are looked upon as almost like a "Robin Hood" while they take in sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on unlicensed or unauthorized merch.

I'm not saying I'm against or for either one of these things, just offering perspective.

 

[drdandalek]

I agree that if you make it a limited edition/run, people will jump all over it. Just the human thought process of wanting to one up your buddy. There are a lot of sculpts I would like to have but I wait. I've been looking for Russ Lukich sculpts for a while and never found any for sale. I didn't buy the ones on eBay because of this forum and supporting the artists on here. I then received an im from Russ that he'll be selling sculpts again soon, so, with patience I get what I want. I understand that people today are part of the drive through mentality of getting thing right now when you want it. Unfortunately, that doesn't work out in this hobby. It takes time to get everything made, painted, etc. The one thing I've seen in this hobby that's a little silly is the scalper prices when people resale stuff. I saw a Rainman figure someone put on eBay for,gulp,$2000. Really? I know that has nothing to do with the recasters but I just wanted to bring to light with people in our hobby will do to one another. I guarantee that it would be someone from the forum that would be looking to buy itbecause honestly, pretty much no one outside of the forums would have any idea who Rainman was. Therefore you're running scalper prices on forum members. Is that right? And for those on the forum that say this scalping makes the recasting necessary, that's a bunch of bull stuff too. What it comes down to is there are problems in our hobby as there are in any hobby.We either live it or leave it. If people think they have to buy the recasts and can live with it, more power to them. I also don't find it productive to use foul language about these folks either. This is a forum for all ages.

 

[aesthetics]

But ... how can it be wrong to cast the likeness of an actor, when lets say, you can paint a picture of a character out of a movie and sell that painting, or print it on a t-shirt?

 

[aesthetics]

Sites like teefury for example wouldnt exist if they broke the law everytime they printed and sold a Sonic or Mario t-shirt, right?

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

But ... how can it be wrong to cast the likeness of an actor, when lets say, you can paint a picture of a character out of a movie and sell that painting, or print it on a t-shirt?

Then I guess companies like HT and Enterbay should stop bothering buying licenses and acquiring likeness rights and just make what ever they want if there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[thenammagazine]

Then I guess companies like HT and Enterbay should stop bothering buying licenses and acquiring likeness rights and just make what ever they want if there's nothing wrong with it.

They already do that. You think Enterbay paid Craig for the likeness on their nude? The Damon one on their previous one? You think HT pays for the likenesses on their Truetypes?

 

[karamazov80]

What entitles artists to create figures without the approval of the owners and make a profit of it? This is a serious question, not trying to be a smartass or something. As I've said, I'm open-minded.

That's an entirely different question, that we've been referring to a bit in this discussion because it's been argued whenever the recasting issue is brought up. The answer is, these artists aren't entitled to this right of course. Really, it's something that happens so long as someone with control over those rights doesn't seek to stamp it out. Within the custom collecting community, most of us have pretty much decided that the unlicensed use of the likeness of an actor/character is acceptable. As Nam points out, Sideshow and Hot Toys have themselves violated likeness rights before, and few have taken issue there. So where do you draw the line in the sand? It really is as gray an area as you'll find. I mentioned Andy Warhol earlier, and he too violated the rights of companies and actors/characters for artistic and commercial gain. But his work is protected by law while those illegally copying his work may violate law. . .so ethically and legally there is a gray area.

Past that point, there are community norms regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. If you believe that it is wrong to replicate the likeness of an actor or character in some medium for commercial gain without gaining the "license holder's" permission, then that's that, and the recasting issue doesn't really matter because the greater sin has already been committed. I don't think many on the boards really feel this way, and as (I believe) Pixletwin suggests, is more often a transparent justification made for the self-interested purpose of buying or making/selling recasts.

 

[LipSmack]

But ... how can it be wrong to cast the likeness of an actor, when lets say, you can paint a picture of a character out of a movie and sell that painting, or print it on a t-shirt?

Well legally if you are producing a product of a license or copyrighted property you have to pay a certain percentage to the owner of that property. So LEGALLY that owner could take them to court of lost money... Which is why Hot Toys pays for rights to properties, acting within the law

 

[aesthetics]

I think its a big difference going into mass production than just make, lets say 20 sculpts, and sell them to fans.

Also, now and then i see videos of actors being presented with a figure of a character they played, and not one single time have i heard one of them being angry and upset over someone making a sculpt with their likeness. Rather the other way around, like the Breaking Bad from Trevor for example, or Johnnys Black Dynamite.

 

[LipSmack]

They already do that. You think Enterbay paid Craig for the likeness on their nude? The Damon one on their previous one? You think HT pays for the likenesses on their Truetypes?

Yeah thats why their TT dont have Heads anymore

 

[karamazov80]

Then I guess companies like HT and Enterbay should stop bothering buying licenses and acquiring likeness rights and just make what ever they want if there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm confident that the only reason they do it is because it is in their interest to do so. If HT tried to make unauthorized Iron Man figures at the scale they do, Marvel's legal would crush them. Instead, by paying for use, they are able to make products legitimately and make money out the ears doing so. Recall that some of HT's earliest products were clear unlicensed versions of well known characters.

Just as Iminime is doing now, they used this to launch their business, and then went fully legit because it was the smart business move.

 

[LipSmack]

I think its a big difference going into mass production than just make, lets say 20 sculpts, and sell them to fans.

Also, now and then i see videos of actors being presented with a figure of a character they played, and not one single time have i heard one of them being angry and upset over someone making a sculpt with their likeness. Rather the other way around, like the Breaking Bad from Trevor for example, or Johnnys Black Dynamite.

as far as the laws are concerned there is no difference, its money lost for the owner. Only difference is, is it worth the legal battle for the property owner?

 

[drdandalek]

Well legally if you are producing a product of a license or copyrighted property you have to pay a certain percentage to the owner of that property. So LEGALLY that owner could take them to court of lost money... Which is why Hot Toys pays for rights to properties, acting within the law

Not to be argumentative but Hot Toys was an underground toy maker with unlicensed products for a good while.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

I guess marvel, dc comics and EVERY license holder should go and close down sites like deviantart.com, they all have unlicensed drawings of licensed characters and many of them sell prints of their drawings.

 

[LipSmack]

Yeah they were... and your point? George Lucas tried going after them at one point, and now they're the biggest toy company for 1 6, Im not saying sculpting and not paying fees is wrong, I could care less, but to assault re casters and praise the sculptors is ridiculous

 

[thenammagazine]

Not to be argumentative but Hot Toys was an underground toy maker with unlicensed products for a good while.

With the release of their previous TTA (not sure if it was late last year or earlier this year), they were still producing unlicensed heads.

 

[LipSmack]

With the release of their previous TTA (not sure if it was late last year or earlier this year), they were still producing unlicensed heads.

the last 3 didnt have any heads

 

[Cheungkinmen]

Yeah they were... and your point? George Lucas tried going after them at one point, and now they're the biggest toy company for 1 6, Im not saying sculpting and not paying fees is wrong, I could care less, but to assault re casters and praise the sculptors is ridiculous

.

 

[thenammagazine]

the last 3 didnt have any heads

That's only the last three, and only in the last, what, few months?

 

[LipSmack]

That's only the last three, and only in the last, what, few months?

Fair enough, and like I said I have no issues with sculptors Or recasters but you cant burn one and not the other