My Knockoff Red/Gold Excl. Iron Man Arrived!

[customizerwannabe]

WTF?... I was trying to illustrate your point and yes I'm pissed that you won't give me $400 to buy an IM comiquette.

Sorry man. I mistook what you said and had to change it before I made an azz of myself yet again.

 

[customizerwannabe]

Why don't you have a seat right over there?

 

[Blackthornone]

I can safely say I have never downloaded or shared music illegally. I have never bought a recast and I have never downloaded or bought illegal copies of movies. When your a fan of Hi-Def why would you want a crappy picture to watch.

Lets look at it this way. A guy is working in the china factory producing these legally for Sideshow. On the side he is also producing castings and selling them on the black market as recasted pieces. If these got onto the market before they began shipping from Sideshow would the people who have no objection to recasting be so forgiving?

No, I would not be so forgiving in that case. However, Sideshow has a license to make Marvel characters, and they decide to do a limited number of a piece that they think will cover their costs and be profitable for them. When they sell out of that piece, they've already made all the money they want to make off of a piece, so after that, recasts really can't hurt their business, UNLESS they were going to make more. If people want more pieces still, then there clearly just aren't anywhere near enough to go around, and that makes a lot of unhappy people. I say make people happy by producing more, and you know, if the original manufacturer doesn't, someone else will. Basically I think Sideshow makes too few of things sometimes. It's kind of sad, and really disappointing to learn of a really great collectible you'd like to have, and whoops, it sold out in less than ten minutes on the website! This proves they make WAY too few of a few things, which makes a LOT of disappointed people, and for what? So the precious few that bought them can make a bigger profit when they resell them? To me, collectibles are a lot more about the love of the characters and of what they represent THAN THE RESALE ie THE greatly INCREASED PROFIT MOTIVE FOR RESELLER. Don't misunderstand me, the items should always retain their value, and appreciate maybe 25% 100% in ten years, but to have prices skyrocket to triple or more in months is a bit much, and only serves to underscore how too few were produced. Couldn't there be more of a happy medium between enough being made to make people happy and the resale value?

If someone wants to buy second rate knock offs of an under produced item because they really want it, I find it difficult to fault them for that. Because I have some skill in art because I started when I was 4 years old, and practiced every day till I was 19 or so, if I really wanted a thing, I'd probably make it myself. However, I understand how it is to want something that you CAN'T make for yourself, and so because of that, I have empathy for someone who wanted a great piece of ART, not because of the monetary value, but because of their appreciation for the ART itself, or because of their great love of the character. This of course, is provided that the recasting happens AFTER the limited production run. What I don't tolerate is when people recast at the same time that the original company makes a thing, in order to undercut them.

 

[DVDVampire]

I must losing my mind, but did Bergholtz just delete all this posts from this thread?

 

[galactiboy]

I'm thinking so... I couldn't find the orignal posts as I was trying to read from the point he jumped in.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I would disagree that there is any comparison at all between buying a re-cast item - something that is solely intended to parasite an artist's and/or company's produced work - and buying an original piece of art that happens to be based on an unlicensed property.

No offense to any poster here - but it seems to me that comparing these entirely different situations is done only to somehow justify buying a recast. I can't believe that anyone would truly believe that there's any real comparison.

It is the policy of this forum to assist any way possible to uncover unauthorized recasts of commercial items. Any encouragement of recasters is heavily discouraged.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

I would disagree that there is any comparison at all between buying a re-cast item - something that is solely intended to parasite an artist's and/or company's produced work - and buying an original piece of art that happens to be based on an unlicensed property.

No offense to any poster here - but it seems to me that comparing these entirely different situations is done only to somehow justify buying a recast. I can't believe that anyone would truly believe that there's any real comparison.

It is the policy of this forum to assist any way possible to uncover unauthorized recasts of commercial items. Any encouragement of recasters is heavily discouraged.

How is taking another company's statue and reproducing it for sale without their permission any different than taking another company's intellectual property or a person's likeness and reproducing it for sale without their permission? I don't understand how stealing in one sense is ok, but not the other.

 

[Darklord Dave]

How is taking another company's statue and reproducing it for sale without their permission any different than taking another company's intellectual property or a person's likeness and reproducing it for sale without their permission? I don't understand how stealing in one sense is ok, but not the other.

One is stealing, the other is not stealing in any sense of the word.

Someone who recasts is putting no artistic expression into the work, they are not making it their own in any way, shape or form. Their sole intention is to mislead buyers into thinking they are getting a legitimate item for cheap.

There is no theft of Intellectual Property when creating an original piece of sculpted art. You're not reproducing the film and selling it without paying royalties. You're making an original piece of art. If I sculpt a guy who happens to look like Christopher Reeve and put him in shorts and a cape, I'm not infringing on anything until I add the trademarked "S" shield to his shirt. And since there's nothing even remotely similar on the primary or secondary market I can't possibly be "stealing" from the IP owner since they've chosen not to exploit this aspect of their IP.

 

[DVDVampire]

One is stealing, the other is not stealing in any sense of the word.

Someone who recasts is putting no artistic expression into the work, they are not making it their own in any way, shape or form. Their sole intention is to mislead buyers into thinking they are getting a legitimate item for cheap.

So I assume the recasting of studio props, casts, busts falls into this category?

 

[Blackthornone]

One is stealing, the other is not stealing in any sense of the word.

Someone who recasts is putting no artistic expression into the work, they are not making it their own in any way, shape or form. Their sole intention is to mislead buyers into thinking they are getting a legitimate item for cheap.

There is no theft of Intellectual Property when creating an original piece of sculpted art. You're not reproducing the film and selling it without paying royalties. You're making an original piece of art. If I sculpt a guy who happens to look like Christopher Reeve and put him in shorts and a cape, I'm not infringing on anything until I add the trademarked "S" shield to his shirt. And since there's nothing even remotely similar on the primary or secondary market I can't possibly be "stealing" from the IP owner since they've chosen not to exploit this aspect of their IP.

I heard from the owner of a comic book store that you can make an original artwork of anything but not make copies.

 

[BadMoon]

It is the policy of this forum to assist any way possible to uncover unauthorized recasts of commercial items. Any encouragement of recasters is heavily discouraged.

I didn't know we swore in when we became members sherrif.

We work for Mr. Dave as regulators. We regulate any
stealing of his property. We're damn good at it too.

 

[DVDVampire]

There is no theft of Intellectual Property when creating an original piece of sculpted art. You're not reproducing the film and selling it without paying royalties. You're making an original piece of art. If I sculpt a guy who happens to look like Christopher Reeve and put him in shorts and a cape, I'm not infringing on anything until I add the trademarked "S" shield to his shirt. And since there's nothing even remotely similar on the primary or secondary market I can't possibly be "stealing" from the IP owner since they've chosen not to exploit this aspect of their IP.

Once you begin to mass produce the "original piece of art", then it becomes questionable.

 

[customizerwannabe]

One is stealing, the other is not stealing in any sense of the word.

Someone who recasts is putting no artistic expression into the work, they are not making it their own in any way, shape or form. Their sole intention is to mislead buyers into thinking they are getting a legitimate item for cheap.

There is no theft of Intellectual Property when creating an original piece of sculpted art. You're not reproducing the film and selling it without paying royalties. You're making an original piece of art. If I sculpt a guy who happens to look like Christopher Reeve and put him in shorts and a cape, I'm not infringing on anything until I add the trademarked "S" shield to his shirt. And since there's nothing even remotely similar on the primary or secondary market I can't possibly be "stealing" from the IP owner since they've chosen not to exploit this aspect of their IP.

That's not quite true Dave. I've seen a seller on ebay who made and sold a couple 1/6 heads of Kirk and Spock get shutdown by Paramount. They were very well sculpted. I tried to buy one and he said he got a cease and desist order from Paramount. I think there is a law against selling original works that are unlicensed. Especially if the property is not yet public domain. Same reason that in TV shows people are blurred who don't give permission. A person's image is not to be considered free for the taking.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

That's not quite true Dave. I've seen a seller on ebay who made and sold a couple 1/6 heads of Kirk and Spock get shutdown by Paramount. They were very well sculpted. I tried to buy one and he said he got a cease and desist order from Paramount. I think there is a law against selling original works that are unlicensed. Especially if the property is not yet public domain. Same reason that in TV shows people are blurred who don't give permission. A person's image is not to be considered free for the taking.

 

[Mesa]

No, I would not be so forgiving in that case. However, Sideshow has a license to make Marvel characters, and they decide to do a limited number of a piece that they think will cover their costs and be profitable for them. When they sell out of that piece, they've already made all the money they want to make off of a piece, so after that, recasts really can't hurt their business, UNLESS they were going to make more. If people want more pieces still, then there clearly just aren't anywhere near enough to go around, and that makes a lot of unhappy people. I say make people happy by producing more, and you know, if the original manufacturer doesn't, someone else will. Basically I think Sideshow makes too few of things sometimes. It's kind of sad, and really disappointing to learn of a really great collectible you'd like to have, and whoops, it sold out in less than ten minutes on the website! This proves they make WAY too few of a few things, which makes a LOT of disappointed people, and for what? So the precious few that bought them can make a bigger profit when they resell them? To me, collectibles are a lot more about the love of the characters and of what they represent THAN THE RESALE ie THE greatly INCREASED PROFIT MOTIVE FOR RESELLER. Don't misunderstand me, the items should always retain their value, and appreciate maybe 25% 100% in ten years, but to have prices skyrocket to triple or more in months is a bit much, and only serves to underscore how too few were produced. Couldn't there be more of a happy medium between enough being made to make people happy and the resale value?

If someone wants to buy second rate knock offs of an under produced item because they really want it, I find it difficult to fault them for that. Because I have some skill in art because I started when I was 4 years old, and practiced every day till I was 19 or so, if I really wanted a thing, I'd probably make it myself. However, I understand how it is to want something that you CAN'T make for yourself, and so because of that, I have empathy for someone who wanted a great piece of ART, not because of the monetary value, but because of their appreciation for the ART itself, or because of their great love of the character. This of course, is provided that the recasting happens AFTER the limited production run. What I don't tolerate is when people recast at the same time that the original company makes a thing, in order to undercut them.

How long have you been collecting this stuff? Because some of your comments seem to be coming from a newbie perspective; several of your recent posts I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with.

Most of us like the fact that these are limited collectibles and not many want to see them mass produced so everyone and their dog can have one. Collect GG if that's your game. That practice can kill a line quickly, it takes the collectibility out of the game.

SS sells out quickly because it's good product. Either accept that and be there at the newsletter release so you can get yours, or decide you have better stuff to do and miss the oportunity. Either way, choice is yours. But don't suggest SS flood the market and cheapen the line by increasing edition size to 5000+ pieces so there are no hurt feelings.

If you are an artist as you state, you're telling me you wouldn't have a problem with someone copying your works and selling them at a profit as long as it was after you decided to stop your initial printing? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Darklord Dave]

That's not quite true Dave. I've seen a seller on ebay who made and sold a couple 1/6 heads of Kirk and Spock get shutdown by Paramount. They were very well sculpted. I tried to buy one and he said he got a cease and desist order from Paramount. I think there is a law against selling original works that are unlicensed. Especially if the property is not yet public domain. Same reason that in TV shows people are blurred who don't give permission. A person's image is not to be considered free for the taking.

True, you need likeness rights for stuff like that. But if he'd fought the C&D in court he would have had a good chance of winning unless he specifically called them "Shatner as Kirk" and "Nimoy as Spock" in any sales material.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

True, you need likeness rights for stuff like that. But if he'd fought the C&D in court he would have had a good chance of winning unless he specifically called them "Shatner as Kirk" and "Nimoy as Spock" in any sales material.

Even so, that's only technically not "stealing." It's still shady.

 

[DVDVampire]

True, you need likeness rights for stuff like that. But if he'd fought the C&D in court he would have had a good chance of winning unless he specifically called them "Shatner as Kirk" and "Nimoy as Spock" in any sales material.

...even if he won, he would still be out on the court costs (which aren't cheap).

If the Nimoy likeness was exact and he labeled it "Homeless Man with Pointy Ears", some would still argue copyright infringement on "Leonard Nimoy's likeness".

 

[metaphorge]

That's not quite true Dave. I've seen a seller on ebay who made and sold a couple 1/6 heads of Kirk and Spock get shutdown by Paramount. They were very well sculpted. I tried to buy one and he said he got a cease and desist order from Paramount. I think there is a law against selling original works that are unlicensed. Especially if the property is not yet public domain. Same reason that in TV shows people are blurred who don't give permission. A person's image is not to be considered free for the taking.

Just because a huge corporation sends someone a C&D does not mean that infringement occurred... that would be up for courts to decide. Innocent until proven guilty.

Most of the time people who receive C&D notices decide not to fight them because they don't have anywhere near as much money to pay lawyers as the people who sent out the C&D notice. There's a LOT of abuse of takedown notices by IP holders. In the end, it comes down to who has the most money, not who is in the right. This is getting out of the realm of action figures, but often C&D notices are used as a form of censorship (take a look at how Scientology has used them to try to silence critics).

(I work for the EFF, and documenting abuses of claims of IP infringement is my job, though usually what I deal with involves the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and fair use, which is quite different than what we're talking about here.)

If the case you reference went to court it could well be found that infringement occurred, but we really need to remember that just because an IP owner says they are being infringed does not by any stretch mean that they are....

I also think it's kind of disengenuous for us to be splitting legal hairs when talking about these issues. I think there's a pretty clear-cut difference between hobbyists who want and make toys they can't purchase at any price because a license holder is too stupid to allow their manufacture and those who want to make a quick buck by making cheap copies of existing collectibles. We're not dense enough to pretend we don't know the difference.
In large part it's common sense. How likely is a particular item to actually cost the copyright holder money? That has a lot to do wih whether something morally is "theft" or not in my book....

 

[occulum]

lets put dibs on when this thread gets locked.
Dont think ive ever seen a recast thread not end up locked.

Its an argument that just runs in circles forever until a mod finally puts it out of its misery ...