Headplay recast Rainman's monkey sculpt again!

[MisterToyNYC]

See. Agitators.

Eric

 

[dchung]

Ugh! I can't take it anymore. I have to chime in. Everyone is forgetting part of what this hobby is about. Customizing! Within this hobby, when a sculptor (an artist with the ability to take a lump of clay and bring it to life) sculpts something, whether it's a generic headsculpt or that of an actual actor, that is the sculptor's work. When someone else takes that head and recasts it to sell it as is, that is the thief. That's what this is about. Period! It's not about likeness rights. It's about some taking someone else's hard work and profitting from it without the consent of the artist.
Eric

Exactly! Thanks.

 

[Kuzeh]

 

[MisterToyNYC]

Exactly! Thanks.

You've explained it very well. I'm going to be generous and give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they know the point that is being made here.

Eric

 

[dchung]

yes , this is just not fair to rainman at all after paying so much to get the license to make the stuff he does and than to name it differently so no studio catch the item being made and than charging over a grand for that item,
how dare another person recast or remake that item ----
not fair at all----------------------------------------------------

Your handle is "mojo customz". Why do you vilify Rainman, a fellow customizer? Or is it that you simply like agitating...? I don't get it.

 

[Deckard]

The list of people that will never be allowed to participate in any custom commissions I host just keeps growing. Got about a dozen people now who support or sympathise with recasters that I will never ever sell a custom head to or allow on an interest list.

 

[mojo customz]

Your handle is "mojo customz". Why do you vilify Rainman, a fellow customizer? Or is it that you simply like agitating...? I don't get it.

you are right about my handle and knowing what i do at times making a item that i never paid for its licensing newer claimed copyrights just because i sculpted something , i do not gripe if someone re sells or re cast stuff i have done as it is what i did as well so i do not pretend that my poo does not smell , now in the thread someone posted that rainman is not happy at all, now i will say that rainman is the best in what he does and i am a big fan, but he needs to understand that he is making something that belongs to someone else who paid a lot to produce it, rainman should say the truth and know that he did the same as the one he is not happy with.......
he did it, they are doing it and more will follow-----it is just that-----
just because you and i see it differently does not mean i am agitating----

 

[thenammagazine]

ENOUGH WITH THE "A THIEF IS A THIEF" NONSENSE...!

At Costco, they often offer free samples. Sometimes, these samples are laid out, toothpicks in them, and the attendant leaves. It is okay, even encouraged, to take these items for free. The rest of the food, you gotta pay for... the prices are marked. Pretty clear. You are not a thief for taking something from someone who is happy to give it to you.

But in sculpting heads, it's not so clear. Some celebrities don't want you to sculpt/sell their likeness at all, some without cutting them in on it, and others are flattered and love seeing themselves in 1/6 without any thought to charging the sculptor/seller. We have seen all three types. Trying to find out whether a celeb is one way or the other is often impossible. I've tried contacting agents, managers, studios, and due to my small scale, I usually don't get a "yes" or a "no". Whether permission is granted, implied, or denied in these no-response instances is unclear. Therefore, I proceed with the full understanding that I will respond/comply immediately should I ever get a "cease and desist", "request for remuneration", or "wow, I'm flattered/that's cool/rock on" letter. Truthfully, I've never received any feedback but that last one.

The laws, as far as I know, state that celebs are entitled to profits made from their likeness if they are so inclined to demand it. Those profits, however, would not exist if the sculptor hadn't made/sold heads. Working without a formal license does NOT automatically make you a thief. You haven't stolen anything. Again, the law says if they ask you to stop or to pay them, then you have to. If you refuse to, then yeah, you're a thief. [There is this issue of whether to press charges. The police always ask if you wish to press charges... you can decline. If the offending party goes on his merry way because you have chosen not to press charges, that does not make them a fugitive from the law, or a criminal, or whatever...]

Same is true with CD/DVD piracy. The studios/record companies have made it known that they do not appreciate bootleggers. However, some educational documentaries, small bands starting out, PSAs definitely WANT you to copy, distribute and disseminate their stuff. You are not a thief if you copy these works and distribute them.

ON THE OTHER HAND, when you willfully take, copy, sell the work of someone who has asked you not to, when you are ignoring their requests that you cease and desist, and continue to do so... all the while claiming/implying the work is your own, never attributing the work to the original artist... THEN YOU ARE A THIEF (AND LIAR).

Every time I see the "A THIEF IS A THIEF" argument, it irritates me that people refuse to distinguish the two, when the difference (as explained above) is night and day.

So enough with the ASSUMPTION that working without a formal license agreement automatically makes you a thief.

Ignorance is not an excuse. The term "likeness rights" exist for a reason and everybody, not just actors, have a right to their likeness. NOBODY has the right to profit off of multiple headsculpts of anybody's likeness. Call it what you want, but that's what the law says, and those ignoring it, or not knowing it, are essentially stealing an intellectual property that does not belong to them. So yes, profiteering off of an individual's likeness without giving them royalties, is stealing. Which... last time I checked, makes you a thief. Read up on the law before jumping on your soapbox and crying foul.

Ugh! I can't take it anymore. I have to chime in. Everyone is forgetting part of what this hobby is about. Customizing! Within this hobby, when a sculptor (an artist with the ability to take a lump of clay and bring it to life) sculpts something, whether it's a generic headsculpt or that of an actual actor, that is the sculptor's work. When someone else takes that head and recasts it to sell it as is, that is the thief. That's what this is about. Period! It's not about likeness rights. It's about some taking someone else's hard work and profitting from it without the consent of the artist.

I can't imagine that this type of ridiculous conversation goes on in The Clubhouse. (Then again there are agitators everywhere.) I'm sure garage kit collectors know the difference. And I know it here as well. Some people just like to be agitators.

Look at it this way, if you hired Rainman to do a headsculpt that you intend to sell, paid him $800 and then a month or so later see your headsculpt being offered on eBay by someone else. Would you feel that it's ok? Yes, recasting is the downfall of offering heads online. There's really no way of avoiding it.

Rainman was just pointing out what was happening to some of his work. Giving everyone a heads-up. I think we can all agree that it is his work and talent that made that head and no one else should be able to profit from it without his consent.

Eric

What rights and claims does he have to a likeness he didn't pay for?

 

[MisterToyNYC]

Whatever. You win. Rainman should stop whining and take it like a man! Oy vey!

Sadly, because of all this bull this forum probably lost a great talent.

Eric

 

[peterparkernypd]

That´s exactly my point, and if someone won´t never "allow me" the honor of PAY some hundred dollar for a unlicensed headsculpt, so be it...

Rainman has some incredible skills, as many others sculpters had...

But claim for being recasted seems very strange for me...

 

[dchung]

...profiteering off of an individual's likeness without giving them royalties, is stealing...

Not necessarily. It's done for charity, it's done for freedom of expression, it's done as a transformative work of art, it's done in lots of ways in which no royalties are involved and it's not stealing. The law merely spells out who would prevail in a claim.

Businesses should not proceed without licensing because if they lose in a dispute, there could be catastrophic financial loss. To protect themselves against disputes, it is safer to obtain written permission beforehand.

But the fact remains, not every celeb who gets his/her likeness rendered in sixth scale would consider it a "theft".

I can see that you wish to see the world in black and white, but it's not black and white.

 

[MisterToyNYC]

Not necessarily. It's done for charity, it's done for freedom of expression, it's done as a transformative work of art, it's done in lots of ways in which no royalties are involved and it's not stealing. The law merely spells out who would prevail in a claim.

Businesses should not proceed without licensing because if they lose in a dispute, there could be catastrophic financial loss. To protect themselves against disputes, it is safer to obtain written permission beforehand.

But the fact remains, not every celeb who gets his/her likeness rendered in sixth scale would consider it a "theft".

I can see that you wish to see the world in black and white, but it's not black and white.

dchung, you may as well as be talking to yourself. I think some people here are just not seeing exactly what the issue is. Sadly, I don't think they will.

Eric

 

[Cheungkinmen]

Asians, specially Koreans treat their artists and sculptors with respect, as they are an artistic and cultural driven countries. Ironically the scumbag HP recasters are based in china, but scumbags exists everywhere.

Also, US laws only applies to the US.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

when a sculptor (an artist with the ability to take a lump of clay and bring it to life) sculpts something, whether it's a generic headsculpt or that of an actual actor, that is the sculptor's work.

This...

 

[dchung]

What rights and claims does he have to a likeness he didn't pay for?

To the likeness, none. But to his work of art, as a copyright issue, every.

Surely, you realize, in very many legal disputes, there are differing rights issues: rights to publicity, privacy interests, misappropriation of identity, copyrights, trademarks, etc. The combination changes from case to case.

No one is saying Rainman had a legitimate claim to the likeness, but to his own work of art, his rendering, he does... These are separate and different rights.

"A thief is a thief" is about as intellectually sophisticated as "a rapist is a rapist". Luckily, the legal system is more sophisticated in its thinking than you, and bothers to distinguish between statutory **** and forced ****, and even makes allowances for s.**** based on the relative age of the participants. The justice system quite naturally treats an eighteen year old who had *** with her seventeen year old boyfriend very differently than it does some guy who wrestles an objecting girl to the ground and penetrates her.

Similarly, some of us sophisticates choose to regard Rainman differently than Headplay, because to us, a "thief is a thief" logic is about as poorly thought-out as "a rapist is a rapist".

Whether you still, after all this, can't see a difference or simply choose not to, doesn't matter. Because the rest of us do.

 

[dchung]

dchung, you may as well as be talking to yourself. I think some people here are just not seeing exactly what the issue is. Sadly, I don't think they will.

Eric

Thanks. You're probably right.

But I don't debate here to convince him or change his mind. It would be gravy, sure, but the main reason I do it is because this is a community and a forum. And I know that there are many other people who value well-reasoned arguments to help them form their own opinions and conclusions.

What you and I say can influence them because their egos are not tied up in the debate.

 

[mojo customz]

To the likeness, none. But to his work of art, as a copyright issue, every.

Surely, you realize, in very many legal disputes, there are differing rights issues: rights to publicity, privacy interests, misappropriation of identity, copyrights, trademarks, etc. The combination changes from case to case.

No one is saying Rainman had a legitimate claim to the likeness, but to his own work of art, his rendering, he does... These are separate and different rights.

"A thief is a thief" is about as intellectually sophisticated as "a rapist is a rapist". Luckily, the legal system is more sophisticated in its thinking than you, and bothers to distinguish between statutory **** and forced ****, and even makes allowances for s.**** based on the relative age of the participants. The justice system quite naturally treats an eighteen year old who had *** with her seventeen year old boyfriend very differently than it does some guy who wrestles an objecting girl to the ground and penetrates her.

Similarly, some of us sophisticates choose to regard Rainman differently than Headplay, because to us, a "thief is a thief" logic is about as poorly thought-out as "a rapist is a rapist".

Whether you still, after all this, can't see a difference or simply choose not to, doesn't matter. Because the rest of us do.

can you send me a picture of you, i am working on a custom 1/6 toy for the gay prom industry that they will auction for charity, i am sure you wont mind if i use your likeness----right

 

[El Calvo]

dchung, you may as well as be talking to yourself. I think some people here are just not seeing exactly what the issue is. Sadly, I don't think they will.

Eric

Is it that they dont see exactly what the issue is or that they dont want to see what the issue is.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

can you send me a picture of you, i am working on a custom 1/6 toy for the gay prom industry that they will auction for charity, i am sure you wont mind if i use your likeness----right

.

 

[MisterToyNYC]

To the likeness, none. But to his work of art, as a copyright issue, every.

Exactly! This is what this is about and what some people seem to be ignoring!

As I tried to clearly point out before, if I am correct Rainman is not claiming that he has copyrights to the actor's likeness. He's claiming that someone stole his work . The piece that he brought to life with his talent.

Eric