Dark Toys 1/6 Rick Deckard

[Mad Old Lu]

I suppose I'm not arguing that the second thief is stealing too. He is. I'm just saying the first thief has no "claim" on the item or reason to complain since he himself got it illegally. Both are thieves. Neither should have had possession of the object. The second thief is no worse than the first, which seems to be what people here are alleging.

I guess it's kinda like if the first thief stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He spent thousands on resources and equipment to facilitate the theft, most of which was pre-financed by benefactors. On his way home from the theft, he gets mugged and the second thief runs away with the Mona Lisa and ends up selling it for millions. I don't have more pity for the first thief just because he put more work and effort into the theft than the second thief. Both are thieves.

 

[ZE_501]

This is an interesting and sticky argument. The only unlicensed custom I own is a Sean Dabbs Pfeiffer Catwoman head sculpt, bashed on to a Supermad costume, TB League body etc.

Why did I buy the unlicensed sculpt? I wanted the character on my shelf and didn't see a licensed copy being produced at HT scale or quality. Even today, after spending all that custom money, I'd buy a Hot Toys release in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd buy 2, so it's not like this even impacts my consumption of a licensed product. Not in this case anyway.

Michelle Pfeiffer didn't authorize her likeness, the studio/company that owns the rights to Batman Returns didn't authorize the sculpt.

Does it fall under some esoteric 'fair use' or 'public domain' thing? Not sure it does. This isn't 'satire' or 'parody' nor is it fan art for strictly personal use.

Famous actors are the subjects of fan art all the time. You could try to argue that Dabbs is making fan art, yet he sold them for profit which negates that. Practically speaking, this has no discernible effect on the multi-millionaire actor or the rights holders of Batman Returns. But it falls outside the bounds of what's legal, both selling for profit and maybe my purchasing it as well.

It also brings up the ethical question of how much control a celebrity should be granted over their likeness. Does the public own your face just because you're a highly paid actor? No they do not. In practical terms it may be beneath the actor's notice, but technically it's still wrong. Arguably worse if they've never granted rights to their likeness for use in toys, which isn't the case in my example but still ... who owns your likeness?

Now what if a faceless company knocked off his Catwoman sculpt and offered the mass-produced figure for sale?

If it's an inferior copy, I'd argue that it's not cannibalizing his sales because hardcore fans want the best, not an inferior knock-off, and will pay for the privilege.

The kind of fan who will buy the inferior product either will not spend the money, or cannot afford, the real thing, which is scarce anyway because Dabbs does not seem concerned with producing or selling his sculpts in any significant quantity.

His work has still been stolen, but if the reproduction is inferior in every way, does it matter to him?

As an artist who has produced original work (mostly fine jewellery, a little sculpture) and sold it, it would certainly irk me but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the product was clearly inferior.

But what if I *had no legal right* to produce and profit from a piece of work and had *that* stolen?

It's theft of my hard work, but not a violation of my legal contractual rights. I had no right to profit from it in the first place.

As Wor-Gar says, it's still stealing therefore it's still wrong. But that doesn't make the first thief "right".

I read an article years ago about industrial design, specifically high-end furniture. A designer toured a factory in China producing knock-offs of his work. He didn't have a problem with it, since it drove aspirational tendencies and attention for his own work, and was never going to cannibalize sales of the real thing since that customer base wouldn't lower themselves to buy an inferior copy. In the end it increased the cachet of his work.

Still, theft is theft.

If you go murder a murderer (like Dexter) you have still broken the law and are now a murder-y murderer.

How someone *feels* about a thing is a separate set of issues. In strictly legal terms, it seems to be a case where EVERYONE involved has in fact, broken the law.

I think?

I'm no expert.

 

[ZE_501]

I suppose I'm not arguing that the second thief is stealing too. He is. I'm just saying the first thief has no "claim" on the item or reason to complain since he himself got it illegally. Both are thieves. Neither should have had possession of the object. The second thief is no worse than the first, which seems to be what people here are alleging.

I guess it's kinda like if the first thief stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He spent thousands on resources and equipment to facilitate the theft, most of which was pre-financed by benefactors. On his way home from the theft, he gets mugged and the second thief runs away with the Mona Lisa and ends up selling it for millions. I don't have more pity for the first thief just because he put more work and effort into the theft than the second thief. Both are thieves.

What he said.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

What he said.

I was going to write the same thing for your post!

This is an interesting and sticky argument. The only unlicensed custom I own is a Sean Dabbs Pfeiffer Catwoman head sculpt, bashed on to a Supermad costume, TB League body etc.

Why did I buy the unlicensed sculpt? I wanted the character on my shelf and didn't see a licensed copy being produced at HT scale or quality. Even today, after spending all that custom money, I'd buy a Hot Toys release in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd buy 2, so it's not like this even impacts my consumption of a licensed product. Not in this case anyway.

Michelle Pfeiffer didn't authorize her likeness, the studio/company that owns the rights to Batman Returns didn't authorize the sculpt.

Does it fall under some esoteric 'fair use' or 'public domain' thing? Not sure it does. This isn't 'satire' or 'parody' nor is it fan art for strictly personal use.

Famous actors are the subjects of fan art all the time. You could try to argue that Dabbs is making fan art, yet he sold them for profit which negates that. Practically speaking, this has no discernible effect on the multi-millionaire actor or the rights holders of Batman Returns. But it falls outside the bounds of what's legal, both selling for profit and maybe my purchasing it as well.

It also brings up the ethical question of how much control a celebrity should be granted over their likeness. Does the public own your face just because you're a highly paid actor? No they do not. In practical terms it may be beneath the actor's notice, but technically it's still wrong. Arguably worse if they've never granted rights to their likeness for use in toys, which isn't the case in my example but still ... who owns your likeness?

Now what if a faceless company knocked off his Catwoman sculpt and offered the mass-produced figure for sale?

If it's an inferior copy, I'd argue that it's not cannibalizing his sales because hardcore fans want the best, not an inferior knock-off, and will pay for the privilege.

The kind of fan who will buy the inferior product either will not spend the money, or cannot afford, the real thing, which is scarce anyway because Dabbs does not seem concerned with producing or selling his sculpts in any significant quantity.

His work has still been stolen, but if the reproduction is inferior in every way, does it matter to him?

As an artist who has produced original work (mostly fine jewellery, a little sculpture) and sold it, it would certainly irk me but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the product was clearly inferior.

But what if I *had no legal right* to produce and profit from a piece of work and had *that* stolen?

It's theft of my hard work, but not a violation of my legal contractual rights. I had no right to profit from it in the first place.

As Wor-Gar says, it's still stealing therefore it's still wrong. But that doesn't make the first thief "right".

I read an article years ago about industrial design, specifically high-end furniture. A designer toured a factory in China producing knock-offs of his work. He didn't have a problem with it, since it drove aspirational tendencies and attention for his own work, and was never going to cannibalize sales of the real thing since that customer base wouldn't lower themselves to buy an inferior copy. In the end it increased the cachet of his work.

Still, theft is theft.

If you go murder a murderer (like Dexter) you have still broken the law and are now a murder-y murderer.

How someone *feels* about a thing is a separate set of issues. In strictly legal terms, it seems to be a case where EVERYONE involved has in fact, broken the law.

I think?

I'm no expert.

I thought that line was particularly, and beautifully, succinct and to the point.

 

[Cocoboloboy]

Probably the most interesting and civil discussion Ikve seen on the subject. I only brought it up earlier because many of those against recasting seem to react in a very strong, negative way by casting insults and ostracizing those that remotely show interest in a product that may have used another artists sculpt as a base but never seem to acknowledge that the artist by definition is not producing his sculpts legally. They just focus on the reproduction of another’s “art” without his or her permission and not that the artist never acquires the right to produce it for profit in the first place.

If you want to base an opinion on just the legalities of it then both sides have some ground. If you want to base an opinion simply on the morality of the situation then, again, both sides have some ground.

What I have noticed is individually people either justify or condemn the purchase of a knock-off, boot leg, recast or whatever you want to call it based on their own personal reasonings whether it’s that it’s not ok because it’s someone’s art or it’s ok because they made it for profit. Or it’s not ok because they only sell a few or it’s ok because they sold 100s.

Like I mentioned before, I don’t have strong feelings either way.

To quote Jerry Seinfeld “Look to the cookie, Elaine. Look to the cookie.”

 

[Wor-Gar]

I guess it's kinda like if the first thief stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He spent thousands on resources and equipment to facilitate the theft, most of which was pre-financed by benefactors. On his way home from the theft, he gets mugged and the second thief runs away with the Mona Lisa and ends up selling it for millions. I don't have more pity for the first thief just because he put more work and effort into the theft than the second thief. Both are thieves.

But you do sympathize with the first thief. They do it in movies all the time, like the Oceans 11 movies, etc. You never like to see the first thief get thieved.

I understand what you mean. Technically, I agree. But I think the law considers that the first thief has possession currently and therefore can be robbed. His true ownership would be a separate case.

If you go murder a murderer (like Dexter) you have still broken the law and are now a murder-y murderer.

This is the best way to encapsulate the idea clearly.

 

[TonTon]

If it's an inferior copy, I'd argue that it's not cannibalizing his sales because hardcore fans want the best, not an inferior knock-off, and will pay for the privilege.

The kind of fan who will buy the inferior product either will not spend the money, or cannot afford, the real thing, which is scarce anyway because Dabbs does not seem concerned with producing or selling his sculpts in any significant quantity.

His work has still been stolen, but if the reproduction is inferior in every way, does it matter to him?

As an artist who has produced original work (mostly fine jewellery, a little sculpture) and sold it, it would certainly irk me but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the product was clearly inferior.

What if the cast is 95% the same quality, which can potentially be achieved in some cases? Not much track record with this company so we can't assume it's going to be a cheap knockoff. There were so few made that the originals are likely extremely high quality in detail.

I think in reality it'll be somewhere in the middle, but we have seen cases where the recast surpassed the original, like the resized MJ Choi Indy sculpt. Of course there was also the Treasure Hunter version as being the more classic example of the inferior mass-produced option, but even some preferred that for improved size and it had decent enough paint. At the end of the day, it's not entirely clear what those did to the value of the original MJ Choi, seems rare enough these days but can't recall how many were produced.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Probably the most interesting and civil discussion Ikve seen on the subject.

As it should be among friends. I mean, we're talking about dolls here, not the Mona Lisa.


And my hands are as dirty as anyone elses around here, I'm certain I've purchased knock-offs... like the HT KO bodies. In fact, we call them knock-offs.

 

[ZE_501]

What if the cast is 95% the same quality, which can potentially be achieved in some cases? Not much track record with this company so we can't assume it's going to be a cheap knockoff. There were so few made that the originals are likely extremely high quality in detail.

I think in reality it'll be somewhere in the middle, but we have seen cases where the recast surpassed the original, like the resized MJ Choi Indy sculpt. Of course there was also the Treasure Hunter version as being the more classic example of the inferior mass-produced option, but even some preferred that for improved size and it had decent enough paint. At the end of the day, it's not entirely clear what those did to the value of the original MJ Choi, seems rare enough these days but can't recall how many were produced.

Well, it doesn't change the legalities. Both parties are breaking the law.

As to how one *feels* about it, arguably the 2nd thief is more of a **** for capitalizing on the first thief's hard work. But the law does not deal in feelings (although arguments interpreting it do). The law deals in logic and precedent.

So we have two thieves, and one of them is an aggrieved thief.

 

[ZE_501]

I was going to write the same thing for your post!

I thought that line was particularly, and beautifully, succinct and to the point.

The rest of the stuff is me thinking out loud. Showing my work, if you will.

 

[TonTon]

Well, it doesn't change the legalities. Both parties are breaking the law.

As to how one *feels* about it, arguably the 2nd thief is more of a **** for capitalizing on the first thief's hard work. But the law does not deal in feelings (although arguments interpreting it do). The law deals in logic and precedent.

So we have two thieves, and one of them is an aggrieved thief.

It's like the saying, "no honor among thieves." What is clear is that none of us are too concerned about the intellectual property holder here, as anyone in this thread either has interest in Blade Runner custom projects or this third-party figure. Blade Runner is somewhat unique though, where no company has even been able to acquire the rights to make the 1/6 figures, always these tales of how unattainable they are. Even Sideshow seems to have tried and failed -- thinking of their prototype from a few years back.

 

[potato]

It's like the saying, "no honor among thieves." What is clear is that none of us are too concerned about the intellectual property holder here, as anyone in this thread either has interest in Blade Runner custom projects or this third-party figure. Blade Runner is somewhat unique though, where no company has even been able to acquire the rights to make the 1/6 figures, always these tales of how unattainable they are. Even Sideshow seems to have tried and failed -- thinking of their prototype from a few years back.

everyone has a price. if sideshows paid the price, would you pay sideshow their price?

 

[potato]

I kinda have to go with Coco on this. The way I see it, the original Buffy(?) sculpt and figure were already illegal ventures. I understand the "artist" angle, but I don't see it as true art. It was a product that was produced in multiples in order to sell and make a profit. Most art is unique and one of a kind. I also don't think calling a head sculpt a product and not a piece of art diminishes the talent, skill and time it takes to create it.

Wor-Gar, I'm not sure I would say stealing from a thief is illegal. I don't know if it's even immoral or even unethical at that point. Maybe "looked down on"? Or "more of a guideline than a rule"? It's one thing if the thief was unaware that the object was stolen. It's quite another if the thief stole the very object that was stolen from him.

But ok, let's say Buffy looked at what he did as his art, and every one of his 20-30 Deckards received the same careful attention and focus, and perhaps each one is slightly unique because of how the paint was applied, etc. He still took someone's intellectual property and made money from it, even if it only barely covered his own costs. Personally, I'm completely 100% fine with this. The little bit of money he made wouldn't even be pocket change to the people who hold the license. I say go for it. However, I think that having someone else come along and steal his work for their own profit is also fair game. Buffy chose the life of "crime". He shouldn't call foul when someone else comes along and makes money on something he made. Buffy made money on something someone else created. And it's not really our place to judge either--even though that's exactly what I'm doing!

stealing from a thief itself is still a crime, the "stealing part". the merchandise maybe invalid but the action itself is still a crime.

same as killing a serial killer, is still a crime.

 

[potato]

We're drawing some fine lines on what is theft versus not theft. Again, Dark Toys could have made their own figure with a new sculpt and nobody would be saying anything other than judging the figure on its merits, but instead they stole the work that went into making the sculpt and are misrepresenting the clothing by showing another tailor's work.

So we'd be okay with supporting someone buying up all of Coco's stands (sorry to single you out, but there are few other custom artists here), which are marketed as being for various movies, and recasting every single model he's put out and selling them here as well? I'm guessing a few people would be upset about that, other than just Coco.

it is obvious these companies are created by the factories or people with access to the factory, so obviously they do not have the talent to create but facilities to reproduce. But there are only few factories out there so so far i've only heard a handful of companies that do this.

 

[potato]

This is an interesting and sticky argument. The only unlicensed custom I own is a Sean Dabbs Pfeiffer Catwoman head sculpt, bashed on to a Supermad costume, TB League body etc.

Why did I buy the unlicensed sculpt? I wanted the character on my shelf and didn't see a licensed copy being produced at HT scale or quality. Even today, after spending all that custom money, I'd buy a Hot Toys release in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd buy 2, so it's not like this even impacts my consumption of a licensed product. Not in this case anyway.

Michelle Pfeiffer didn't authorize her likeness, the studio/company that owns the rights to Batman Returns didn't authorize the sculpt.

Does it fall under some esoteric 'fair use' or 'public domain' thing? Not sure it does. This isn't 'satire' or 'parody' nor is it fan art for strictly personal use.

Famous actors are the subjects of fan art all the time. You could try to argue that Dabbs is making fan art, yet he sold them for profit which negates that. Practically speaking, this has no discernible effect on the multi-millionaire actor or the rights holders of Batman Returns. But it falls outside the bounds of what's legal, both selling for profit and maybe my purchasing it as well.

It also brings up the ethical question of how much control a celebrity should be granted over their likeness. Does the public own your face just because you're a highly paid actor? No they do not. In practical terms it may be beneath the actor's notice, but technically it's still wrong. Arguably worse if they've never granted rights to their likeness for use in toys, which isn't the case in my example but still ... who owns your likeness?

Now what if a faceless company knocked off his Catwoman sculpt and offered the mass-produced figure for sale?

If it's an inferior copy, I'd argue that it's not cannibalizing his sales because hardcore fans want the best, not an inferior knock-off, and will pay for the privilege.

The kind of fan who will buy the inferior product either will not spend the money, or cannot afford, the real thing, which is scarce anyway because Dabbs does not seem concerned with producing or selling his sculpts in any significant quantity.

His work has still been stolen, but if the reproduction is inferior in every way, does it matter to him?

As an artist who has produced original work (mostly fine jewellery, a little sculpture) and sold it, it would certainly irk me but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the product was clearly inferior.

But what if I *had no legal right* to produce and profit from a piece of work and had *that* stolen?

It's theft of my hard work, but not a violation of my legal contractual rights. I had no right to profit from it in the first place.

As Wor-Gar says, it's still stealing therefore it's still wrong. But that doesn't make the first thief "right".

I read an article years ago about industrial design, specifically high-end furniture. A designer toured a factory in China producing knock-offs of his work. He didn't have a problem with it, since it drove aspirational tendencies and attention for his own work, and was never going to cannibalize sales of the real thing since that customer base wouldn't lower themselves to buy an inferior copy. In the end it increased the cachet of his work.

Still, theft is theft.

If you go murder a murderer (like Dexter) you have still broken the law and are now a murder-y murderer.

How someone *feels* about a thing is a separate set of issues. In strictly legal terms, it seems to be a case where EVERYONE involved has in fact, broken the law.

I think?

I'm no expert.

so would you buy a Star Ace Pulp fiction official figure, or some average looking 3rd party non-license figure. coz Star Ace's figure doesn't look average at all coz it's so bad.

 

[potato]

Probably the most interesting and civil discussion Ikve seen on the subject. I only brought it up earlier because many of those against recasting seem to react in a very strong, negative way by casting insults and ostracizing those that remotely show interest in a product that may have used another artists sculpt as a base but never seem to acknowledge that the artist by definition is not producing his sculpts legally. They just focus on the reproduction of another?s ?art? without his or her permission and not that the artist never acquires the right to produce it for profit in the first place.

If you want to base an opinion on just the legalities of it then both sides have some ground. If you want to base an opinion simply on the morality of the situation then, again, both sides have some ground.

What I have noticed is individually people either justify or condemn the purchase of a knock-off, boot leg, recast or whatever you want to call it based on their own personal reasonings whether it?s that it?s not ok because it?s someone?s art or it?s ok because they made it for profit. Or it?s not ok because they only sell a few or it?s ok because they sold 100s.

Like I mentioned before, I don?t have strong feelings either way.

To quote Jerry Seinfeld ?Look to the cookie, Elaine. Look to the cookie.?

i would be pissed too if i paid $500 for a custom sculpt just to realize you can get a recast with 95% likeness for $30.

anyway maybe it's time this forum make a decision on unlicensed products just like it did back when affiliated with Sideshow. this means 0 unlicensed including low production customs. would help remove any potential liabilities from IP holders.

 

[TonTon]

it is obvious these companies are created by the factories or people with access to the factory, so obviously they do not have the talent to create but facilities to reproduce. But there are only few factories out there so so far i've only heard a handful of companies that do this.

So far as I can tell, Supermad is not taking other people's work outright, though I suspect they reworked the HT old Han for their old Deckard. I can't speak to their other figures, but It seems they're still putting in a fair amount of work for their prototypes and figures.

If anything it seems Present Toys might just now be taking Supermad's accessories for their K. I guess there's different tiers when it comes to these unlicensed figure companies.

 

[davejames]

I don't really see much point in trying to justify this myself, since it's obviously a sh-tty thing they did recasting this guy's hard work... but at this point I'm so deep in with all the unlicensed stuff that it's something I decided I can live with if it means having a better figure in the collection.

 

[blazio]

To make discussion more Easy ...Buffy and Iris aren't a thief. They worked looking the movie, they research hours and hours to find the right fabrics, the right Deckard expression, profile, painting , sculpting ,sewing ecc. Everyone did a job from own interpretation of the character. They didnt Copy someone else work.
They spent months and months like this and when All the work Is finish someone come ,steal all that and put on sale exactly the same for a cheap price . Who Is the thief ? And more easely, where Is the pleasure to own a item like that .
I don't understand why in this forum Custom work are now banned but presentation or discussion of something coming from Company like that are granted.

 

[SwedishHeat]

To make discussion more Easy ...Buffy and Iris aren't a thief. They worked looking the movie, they research hours and hours to find the right fabrics, the right Deckard expression, profile, painting , sculpting ,sewing ecc. Everyone did a job from own interpretation of the character. They didnt Copy someone else work.
They spent months and months like this and when All the work Is finish someone come ,steal all that and put on sale exactly the same for a cheap price . Who Is the thief ? And more easely, where Is the pleasure to own a item like that .
I don't understand why in this forum Custom work are now banned but presentation or discussion of something coming from Company like that are granted.

First, customs aren't banned. That was something that was done to appease Sideshow, but they went ahead and pulled funding anyways.

Second, the issue is that in order to sell items based on someone else's likeness, you need to have their permission, Buffy didn't do that. Ergo, laws were broken.

You look at it from Buffy's perspective of all the work put into the sculpt. But what about all the work that Ford, Scott, and the film crew put into Blade Runner? Don't they deserve compensation for their work? Buffy is profiting from their work without compensating them.