Not Cool.

[tinister]

Hey, guys -

Sorry I didn't catch this thread earlier. A few people on OSW brought this to my attention also.


Here's my 2 cents on the issue:

Firstly - I don't think that is a recast of the head. I believe Andy (the painter) bought a head from me and likely painted it and sold it to ironcross. I don't have a beef with Andy selling the HS to ironcross - or ironcross selling the figure made with the head. I think it's kinda cool.

I'd be a bit miffed if I see ironcross selling multiple copies of the HS, however. LOL. But that's all I can do is get pissed - can't do anything else about it since it's not a licensed product.

I don't really do HS to make money. I actually get a little tired of taking orders, shipping, etc.. I only make enough money to pay for the materials and maybe the materials for the next piece.

So it's all good. Thanks for the support.

Tin

 

[2000man]

Remember, the law sides with the person that holds the trademark, patent, or copyright. Unfortunately moral arguments don't hold up in a court of law.

This is not in a court of law, this is the court of public opinion where moral arguments do matter. You can be moral wrong and it still matters even if you cannot get a court to punish you

 

[Gruff Old Bear]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Glad to see some of the sentiments posted. To empathize with the unauthorized sculptor does take a bit of effort, since both he and the recaster are on the same side of the copyright law. I think we all realize that this is how talent starts out, honing their abilities before a small "test audience." Generic sculpts, or sculpts of your friends, just won't make anyone out there say, "Gee, what a dead-on likeness." Artists need to impress somehow, in order to draw a following...one that he or she hopes will include potential employers who hold licenses. To do this, they sculpt imagery from movies (actors), because that's what captures interest. When they mold and cast in order to sell small quantities to help cover their costs, they are indeed stepping across a line into marketing without a license.

Dekadentdave raises one commonly held misperception I'd like to address: the idea that the studios don't go after small-time infringements like those by neophyte sculptors because it's not worth the effort. Actually, the reason they don't go after the small-time infringements is always the same reason: they don't know about it. We've become so aware of the sculpts out there that we forget not everybody reads the collecting forums on the 'net.

In the matter of trademarks, the courts have held that a trademark, service mark, or copyright of intellectual property must be vigorously enforced by the holder or they lose the right to claim it. If they ignore an infringement as "too small to bother with," they aren't being vigorous. This is why Disney goes after every unauthorized use of Mickey, even when it makes them look like the bully -- remember when they made a pre-school paint over its amateur mural featuring Disney characters?

Also, closing down someone like Tinister doesn't cost much -- a fraction of an hour of a lawyer's time to draft and mail a cease-and-desist letter. Since the person who receives the letter knows perfectly well they're "practicing" with somebody else's intellectual property, they know they won't win in court. Unless they're crazy, they cease and dismiss seconds after reading the letter.

This is why selling unauthorized sculpts on eBay is unwise -- it draws attention. License holders peruse eBay for copyright infringement all the time (or more precisely, their lawyers do). And I didn't mention it, but I've seen Tin's own auctions of this head on eBay. Which means, Tin, that even though we support you, you're courting trouble. Word to the wise. Stick to the back channels. Stay off the radar. Keep the editions small and let interest in your next offering build up within the community of customizers and collectors, who are the customers of those companies who have licenses from the rights holders. Good luck!

Blah, blah, blah...Gruff is at it again. Can't he ever shut up?

 

[abstractharmony]

Any licensor - Lucasfilm included - only go after people who are blatantly making or trying to make a profit from their intellectual property.

Even Uncle George doesn't have a beef with custom headsculpts.

 

[Gruff Old Bear]

Right. Because when it's done blatantly, they find out about it. As long as it's just one sculpt, it's an artwork and a kind of compliment. When it's marketed, it becomes a product. When it's marketed blatantly, it's a product they learn about and must shut down or risk losing their trademark rights.

 

[metaphorge]

Side point that's worth mentioning: there's a bit of confusion going on here between likeness rights and copyright/trademark. The studios don't own Daniel Craig or Harrison Ford's faces... Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, respectively, do.

I also think it's fair to say that there's a pretty big difference between the legal and the ethical questions present in this set of issues, in much the same way that there's a sharp difference between making a mixtape for your girlfriend and bootlegging a CD and selling it on the streetcorner. I only give much of a crap about the ethical issues, which is why it's not cool to recast someone else's sculpt and sell a bunch of copies.

The legal issues will always be won by who has more money for lawyers, and have little to do with what's right or wrong anymore....

 

[Bonehead15]

I'd be a bit miffed if I see ironcross selling multiple copies of the HS, however. LOL. But that's all I can do is get pissed - can't do anything else about it since it's not a licensed product.


Tin

I agree. That's different. Recasting isn't right IMO.

If someone buys a custom head and kitbashes it and makes a figure out of it, that person has every right to sell the figure. Even if the seller bought the head and painted it, the seller still has that right to just sell the head.


I don't give a [poop] about copyrights and trademarks. That has nothing to do with this auction. If you buy something it becomes yours. It's your property. You can do whatever you want to it. If you want to resell that's fine. It's your right.

If you disagree then I guess you've never sold anything you've ever own your whole life.

 

[kodiak8658]

This is not in a court of law, this is the court of public opinion where moral arguments do matter. You can be moral wrong and it still matters even if you cannot get a court to punish you

I was responding in relation to who had the right to sell the product after the original artist was commissioned and delivered the finished product to the buyer, not about the forum moral court.

 

[tinister]

Re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

And I didn't mention it, but I've seen Tin's own auctions of this head on eBay. Which means, Tin, that even though we support you, you're courting trouble. Word to the wise. Stick to the back channels. Stay off the radar. Keep the editions small and let interest in your next offering build up within the community of customizers and collectors, who are the customers of those companies who have licenses from the rights holders. Good luck!

Hey, Gruff - I've actually never sold any of my works on eBay. I've seen versions of them sold by others, but I personally haven't.

But advice taken

 

[die]

This subject pops up all the time & usually never really does any good.

Before I go into "rant mode", let me say that tinister really has an awesome attitude and that's refreshing to see.......

I think one of the biggest problems in these types of debates is that there are way too many people out there who essentially want to play "Moral Police" to others and expect others to follow the same guidelines that they do. I think we all must come up with our own ideas over what is right & what is wrong and follow our own set of standards.

There are lots of things to consider when coming up with your own set of standards involving recasting.....

-Is it ok to recast a headsculpt you buy & sell copies?

-If you commission a sculpt, does that mean you can sell copies of that headsculpt?

-Is it ok to recast a headsculpt & sell copies of it as long as you first paint each copy you sell?

-Is it ok to resculpt areas of a headsculpt from a big name company & mass produce them?

-Is it ok to mass produce headsculpts of a trademarked character & mass produce them with no license agreement?

-Is it ok to make a killing off of overcharging for shipping of the headsculpts?



What I’ve noticed is that a lot of people will participate in certain areas and be totally against other areas and expect others to follow their own personal standards as if they were law. A name I hear a lot is “Lonnie” AKA the guy who sells the Frontline heads (tk570 on ebay). I have bought heads directly from him & he provides 2 things with his heads: #1 All the heads I bought are clean casts & excellent quality and #2 he ships quick and takes care with packaging. Good product & good customer service. In his auctions, he mentions that recasts of his heads that others sell on ebay are low quality recasts, which is true & which is why he informs people that it would be better to buy from the source.

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that I don’t go out of my way to defend some of Frontline’s marketing tactics because I think it really feeds the recasting craze. For instance, those “special” headsculpts that are only offered once or twice per year get under a lot of people’s skin. I’ve seen some of the headsculpts go for over $200 a piece before, clearly this makes for a serious supply & demand issue. Sure, you can get a Harrison Ford as Indy for $10, but a Milla Jovovich from Resident Evil will be $200 if you can fight off snipers once or twice a year. I think with Frontline, the clients with the big money who commission is the focus these days anyways, I highly doubt that they really worry about the recasters as much as people think they do. I said all of that to say this: I can see why the recasts can be so appealing.

Any licensor - Lucasfilm included - only go after people who are blatantly making or trying to make a profit from their intellectual property.

Even Uncle George doesn't have a beef with custom headsculpts.

Back in the day on ebay, tons of custom figures associated with Star Wars or WWF/WWE were getting yanked off ebay left & right. That's why people started putting the whole "this figure is not associated with Lucasfilm and is just a fan tribute" speech into their auction descriptions. Yes, Sideshow & Hasbro want to sell figures...Yes, they do pay licensing fees to sell those figures and Yes, if your little operation starts taking enough attention away from thier product, they'll be sending you a nice little warning.

Like I said before, it is all about your own personal standards. I have never recasted a head before, never even tried but I have bought alot of resin heads over the years for projects. I just don't try to tell everybody else what is right & what is wrong when it comes to this issue as I feel it's up to everybody to come up with their own ethics.

 

[dekadentdave]

FYI - Lonnie sells his headsculpts through his catalog. For legal purposes they are not labeled with the names of their trademarked characters or actors. Some of them I don't even recognize. You can order them directly through him anytime. He puts them on ebay every so often and people go nuts bidding up far and above what it would cost to order from him directly. Is it wrong for him to profit from ebayer ignorance? This would be a question of moral ambiguity but anything I have ever sold on ebay I have no moral problem if someone wants to pay me hundreds or thousands of dollars for something that is worth substantially less. In a public auction, the highest bidder wins and they put up the highest bid they are willing to pay for something that they want. Now, could Lonnie get shut down for copyright infringement? Possibly but it's probably not worth the amount of time and money to go the distance in a legal court of law. At the very least, ebay could shut his auctions down. Considering the amount of unlicenced and bootleg customs I see on ebay, I really don't think the ebay police will find it worth the hassel until a big corporation like Pukasfilm comes along and threatens them with legal action to shut them down.

 

[sunohc]

this is why selling only headsculpts on eBay is risky for artists and so whenever i hear some people complain and ask why those amazing asian artist don't sell only the heads, it's because of things like this.
why doesn't louie offer up that recent craig head?
because of things like this.
i recently had a notorious recaster buy a head from me, but I refunded the money and decided not to send him the head.
this kind of ebay risk discourages me from ever selling only heads, and just doing commissioned peices is where i'm leaning

 

[die]

FYI - Lonnie sells his headsculpts through his catalog. For legal purposes they are not labeled with the names of their trademarked characters or actors. Some of them I don't even recognize. You can order them directly through him anytime. He puts them on ebay every so often and people go nuts bidding up far and above what it would cost to order from him directly. Is it wrong for him to profit from ebayer ignorance? This would be a question of moral ambiguity but anything I have ever sold on ebay I have no moral problem if someone wants to pay me hundreds or thousands of dollars for something that is worth substantially less. In a public auction, the highest bidder wins and they put up the highest bid they are willing to pay for something that they want. Now, could Lonnie get shut down for copyright infringement? Possibly but it's probably not worth the amount of time and money to go the distance in a legal court of law. At the very least, ebay could shut his auctions down. Considering the amount of unlicenced and bootleg customs I see on ebay, I really don't think the ebay police will find it worth the hassel until a big corporation like Pukasfilm comes along and threatens them with legal action to shut them down.

You misunderstood my post. I was talking about those "special" heads that he only offers in auctions either once or twice a year, not the ones that are always available through Frontlines website . I wasn't saying he was "wrong", I was saying that I understand how that can encourage recasting of those heads since he creates the rarity of them. I only used Lonnie as an example because his name always gets mentioned in these discussions, I'm not trying to single him out as a bad guy or anything. I'm a huge fan of the Frontline sculpts & have bought many directly from them.

this is why selling only headsculpts on eBay is risky for artists and so whenever i hear some people complain and ask why those amazing asian artist don't sell only the heads, it's because of things like this.
why doesn't louie offer up that recent craig head?
because of things like this.
i recently had a notorious recaster buy a head from me, but I refunded the money and decided not to send him the head.
this kind of ebay risk discourages me from ever selling only heads, and just doing commissioned peices is where i'm leaning

I understand what you're saying Daniel and like I said in the recent discussion on this topic over at OSW, you will never stop recasters from recasting sculpts by not offering the heads themselves to the public. For instance, Louie does have that Craig sculpt up for auction right now, it's on a full custom figure. If a recaster wanted to, he'd just win the auction for that figure & recast the head. Only selling full figures will not stop recasters.

Arnie Kim only sells to very specific people for extremely high prices, yet his headsculpts have popped up on ebay(The same with Kojun) and Vansei supposedly had a nervous breakdown when a friend tried to resell one of his Anakins on Ebay. It happens on all levels.

If you can make alot of money off of something, you can bet that somebody else is going to try to get in on the action. You could go to the dollar store and find knock-off Ninja Turtles figures called "Adolescent Mutated Tae Kwon Do Tortoises" or something .There's been tons of the He-Man knockoffs or Transformers knock-offs out there. To me it's not any different from that online store that was offering knockoff headsculpts with names like Dog Jones instead of just calling him "Indiana" to avoid copyright infringement.
Then they will complain if somebody recasts their head even though what they were doing could be viewed as questionable activity too.

Like I said...This subject pops up all the time & usually never really does any good.

 

[sunohc]

no kidding, you're 100% right , this subject does pop up ALL the time! lol
but every one has there own opinion and sculptorsr aren't 100% doing the right thing either sculpting of someone else's likeness, but in the end, everyone's out there for him or herself and I find myself selfish at times but to tell you the truth, selling separate sculpts on eBay is much more tiring and efoort-needed task than just doing commissions.
\I personally hate ebay but use it so often, it's funny.

 

[Masao]

"-I think we all realize that selling unlicensed sculpts is a form of theft

-An original sculpt or private work of art is one thing but making sculpts of unlicensed likenesses or characters you are entering the arena of public domain and fair use and bordering on copyright infringment

-If a songwriter submits a song to a record company without a copyright, he can kiss it goodbye.

-This is not in a court of law, this is the court of public opinion where moral arguments do matter. You can be moral wrong and it still matters even if you cannot get a court to punish you

-In the matter of trademarks, the courts have held that a trademark, service mark, or copyright of intellectual property must be vigorously enforced by the holder or they lose the right to claim it. If they ignore an infringement as "too small to bother with," they aren't being vigorous. This is why Disney goes after every unauthorized use of Mickey, even when it makes them look like the bully -- remember when they made a pre-school paint over its amateur mural featuring Disney characters?

Also, closing down someone like Tinister doesn't cost much -- a fraction of an hour of a lawyer's time to draft and mail a cease-and-desist letter. Since the person who receives the letter knows perfectly well they're "practicing" with somebody else's intellectual property, they know they won't win in court. Unless they're crazy, they cease and dismiss seconds after reading the letter."



You guys really like to play fast and loose with a lot of mythology.

First off, I suggest you consult an attorney for legal advice and not eachother.

Secondly, if you have been paying attention, you know for a fact that some of your conclusions are simply untrue.

Example: Sideshow had the licenses for both Twilight Zone and Get Smart yet were prohibited from producing 99 and Agnes Moorehead from "The Invaders". Obviously rights vary from situation to situation and cannot be lumped together or judged without specific knowlege.

Example: a member of this board was sent a C&D by a major studio for violating IP rights. Instead of rolling over and playing dead, the board member contacted the actual owner of the property. The real owner threatened to sue. Afterward, the big studio backed down immediately. Not all claims are legitimate.

Example: Tabloids continue to write story after story about celebrities without being put out of business because of unauthorized name use or IP violations. Court cases have upheld that, short of libel, stories and images of celebrities in public are public property. Fair use is not infringment.

Example: A certain company which has diligently upheld its "rights" has violated the purpose and general limits of law (i.e. public good) to hold on to its expired trademarks, by attacking people who are not technically guilty of violations for violating "IP rights". Law seems to mean nothing without the big guns or money to back it up...or pervert it.

But don't believe me. Like I said, consult an attorney for legal advice and current law.

BTW, if you sell something, you don't think you retain ownership do you? The right to prevent resale implies ownership. Some companies believe they can get away with this. To me, this is fraud, but it may not be the case in current law.

Recasting is a whole other matter.

On moral grounds, no one should be able to steal actual property because he claims to have thought of the item first. "Intellecutal Property" seems to mean "I think I can claim it is mine, therefore I can steal your work." While this is obviously wrong, no one is willing to to fight it. Let's not forget that those making the biggest stink are the ones who have been proven in open court to be the biggest thieves. RIAA for example, is made up of the recording industry which has been sued repeatedly for the same IP violations they are enforcing.

Edgar Allen Poe would be disgusted that the laws he championed to protect individual artists against large corporations is now being perverted by large corporations to violate individual artists.

True morality can't be perverted, but laws to enforce morals can.

 

[die]

I personally hate ebay but use it so often, it's funny.

You said it right there, my friend!

That's exactly how I feel too.