Beware the Recaster(s)

[pixletwin]

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

Why not? One creates private art for private customers while the other plagiarizes that private art for their own gain.

 

[Wulf]

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.

Thanks for clarifying it for me.

 

[thenammagazine]

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

Sure you can. I can commission an artist to produce a one-off for me of anything I want and per the law, that's perfectly legal, and no rights are necessary at all. Should someone recast it and sell it, that's actually illegal. But some of these entitlement freaks would have you believe that just because something exists, they have a right to own it, without having to pay what it's worth, and therefore, recasting is suddenly legit!

 

[LipSmack]

Why not? One creates private art for customers while the other copies that private art for profit.

and neither of them pay licensing fees or royalties to the person they sculpting.. one piece is for your self is "Art" but the original sculptor is himself casting and producing multiples to sell for profit... so he himself is technically a recaster

 

[thenammagazine]

.

Why was I quoted?

 

[pixletwin]

and neither of them pay licensing fees or royalties to the person they sculpting.. one piece is for your self is "Art" but the original sculptor is himself casting and producing multiples to sell for profit... so he himself is technically a recaster

Sigh.... Please refer to Nam's post above. It is not the first time this point has been made.

 

[LipSmack]

Sure you can. I can commission an artist to produce a one-off of anything I want and per the law, that's perfectly legal, and no rights are necessary at all. Should someone recast it and sell it, that's actually illegal. But some of these entitlement freaks would have you believe that just because something exists, they have a right to own it, without having to pay what it's worth, and therefore, recasting is suddenly legit!

read the post I just posted

 

[LipSmack]

Sigh.... Please refer to Nam's post above. It is not the first time this point has been made.

His post is exactly what I said... a one off is art but the sculptors are selling multiple themselves.... so that kind of defeats the purpose

 

[thenammagazine]

read the post I just posted

There's a difference between casting and recasting.

Example: If I commission a piece in flesh tone, and the artist sculpts in wax, he would need to recast the wax piece to deliver what I initially commissioned. That's not recasting. Recasting would be taking the fleshtone piece I get and casting that and selling copies of that.

 

[LipSmack]

There's a difference between casting and recasting.

just someone else doing it...

 

[vareika]

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.

This is it. It is a grey area for sure and that's why I think ultimately there really isn't anything stopping guys like Q, save a lawsuit from the actual license owner. But if anything, they'd crack down on the bigger custom figure makers we all buy from. Since they probably won't do that unless someone makes a big deal, Q will pretty much go unstopped. HOWEVER, this doesn't stop a community from kicking his *** because he's committing bad sheet that breaks the community's "norms". For example, freaks giving him a hard time at conventions, getting F&S's to boot his arse, or submitting a boat load of ebay complaints.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

Why was I quoted?

Weird, I wasn't quoting you, hahaha. Sorry.

 

[karamazov80]

Yeah thats why their TT dont have Heads anymore

I'm actually pretty sure it's done for cost. HT charges the same price without having to cast and paint those heads, and people still pay it. Would would HT bother releasing them anymore?

But why can't folks take issue with one type of questionable/debatable behavior but accept another? Do you really hold that any action that violates (or potentially violates) any law or norm is equally problematic? Laws vary so much across countries, municipalities, etc., as do cultural norms. We are necessarily going to hold certain "rules" as more or less acceptable than others. I don't think punching a child is OK, but I think it's OK in some instances for folks to use marijuana, even if it's deemed illegal or immoral by some. Is it not acceptable to hold those distinctions? If I have a local ordinance making it unlawful to sell beer on Sunday, but I buy some from a friend anyway, is that just as bad as my shooting puppies?

 

[Levit05]

But what I wonder why such deep ethics are only applied to the recasters and not the artists who make products without approval of the owners? It's a legit question.

because when the collector is getting what he wants made by that "artist" then he wants to make sure to protect his own collector interest in getting "original" headsculpts from that artist...so he defends that artist's work vehemently...the artist sees his valiant effort...and rewards him by making another unlicensed headsculpt and limits it to just 10...but makes sure to tell his defender that no matter what...he will be getting one...this is a sick cycle...


like my comment above or not...people usually reply to these types of threads with..."Oh man...what a D-bag so-so is for recasting this...now we won't be able to get so-so headsculpt again"...this is why i think that the sentiment of how you feel about recasters is led by the ability of the collector NOT to be able to get something that they wanted...almost like if that recaster took something from them that they never had in the first place...SMH...

 

[LipSmack]

Weird, I wasn't quoting you, hahaha. Sorry.

probably hit the mutli quote button on accident

 

[pixletwin]

just someone else profiting off someone else's work...

 

[batfan08]

just someone else doing it...

I just think this logic is a little flawed. A recaster rides on the coattails of a sculptor. A sculptor, meanwhile, puts a lot of work and effort into crafting something. Is it a moral gray area when you factor in licenses and other things? Sure, but, then, that's not always the case.

Just as a scenario, take Trevor Grove's Bad Scientists. Was he wrong to offer those sculpts? The creator of the show was okay with it. Bryan Cranston thought it was awesome, even though it wasn't licensed, and it even led to Trevor sculpting official BB figures for Mezco, which both the creator and Cranston likely get cut of.

 

[LipSmack]

I'm actually pretty sure it's done for cost. HT charges the same price without having to cast and paint those heads, and people still pay it. Would would HT bother releasing them anymore?

But why can't folks take issue with one type of questionable/debatable behavior but accept another? Do you really hold that any action that violates (or potentially violates) any law or norm is equally problematic? Laws vary so much across countries, municipalities, etc., as do cultural norms. We are necessarily going to hold certain "rules" as more or less acceptable than others. I don't think punching a child is OK, but I think it's OK in some instances for folks to use marijuana, even if it's deemed illegal or immoral. Is it not acceptable to hold those distinctions? If I have a local ordinance making it unlawful to sell beer on Sunday, but I buy some from a friend anyway, is that just as bad as my shooting puppies?

Yeah the world is drastically different no matter where you go, like I said before I dont care about the laws all that much when it comes to these sculpted heads and whatnot, I just cant see how a recaster is any worse, the Artist really has no say what happens to his work once it heads out into the world.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I dunno if anybody can really complain unless they have a license. time and effort or not

 

[karamazov80]

Yeah the world is drastically different no matter where you go, like I said before I dont care about the laws all that much when it comes to these sculpted heads and whatnot, I just cant see how a recaster is any worse, the Artist really has no say what happens to his work once it heads out into the world.

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The point is, though, that the consensus among the collecting community is that the recasters are worse. Whether or not you agree doesn't change that.