Painters and recasters

[csi]

Very happy with this. It passes the 'reasonable person's' test.

agreed

 

[SwedishHeat]

Known alias - Brian Cunningham - don't send him stuff.

Who is this guy?

I've seen this name before. Is this his alias, or his real name?

It's a real name that buys stuff for a recaster.

 

[Doom Saber]

This thread isn't going to be a witch hunt against people who have purchased recasts ( though it is frowned upon). It is the people doing recasting that we are wanting to warn artists and buyers of. So far the two I know who fit this bill are Q (who has had people on this board buy for him - those the Admin know of have been banned...but there is probably more) and Odell - who has had several different names on this board.

Odell is a recaster!? Crap! I bought a Dexter head from him a couple months ago. I didn't know. Sorry.

 

[batfan08]

I don't want to stir the pot, but I'm genuinely curious about what people think, and, this, specifically, applies to those who are talking about how wrong sculptors are for using someone else's face. To those people, what do you think of the new Robocop from Hot Toys? It's a licensed product, yes. However, it's using Peter Weller's face (even if it is just the bottom half), and, clearly, he doesn't approve (otherwise, it would say "authentic likeness of Peter Weller as Robocop," would it not?). If you guys don't think this is appropriate, please delete it, but I am really curious about some of the responses I'll get.

 

[LipSmack]

I have cleaned up this thread, I want to leave it open. This is a discussion worth having as long as people don't get emotional about it.

I hesitate to make a list but aside from Odell Young, Q, and diver5 - I don't know of any other active recasters that have been on this forum.

Known alias - Brian Cunningham - don't send him stuff.




This kind of reasoning is rather naive and just a bit infuriating. I would imagine anyone equating these 2 completely different activities is either trolling, or trying to justify something they know is unethical. It is the FIRST place recasters always go to to try and justify what they are doing.

Just so you know the board's position (which is my personal moral standard):

Selling another person's creative endeavor without the original creator getting any compensation; is morally, ethically wrong on every level. This is what a recaster does.

I'm still of 2 minds about selling something that is based on a previous work but has been significantly altered or is used for a completely different purpose. We would need to address these on a case by case basis. But if the original work is from an individual artist and not a manufacturer - we will always side with the artist.

Creating a work of art based on someone else's intellectual property or likeness, while technically unlawful, is about a million times down the scale of "morally wrong" from stealing an artists work. Especially if there is no active license for a particular property. However any infringement of a license controlled by an friend of the forum will not be tolerated.

And all I'm saying is that sculptors (once they start selling multiples of their art) is the same thing as they are taking from someone else's art (an actor or directors creation: movie or show) without giving them any compensation... Is wrong on some level...

 

[LipSmack]

I don't want to stir the pot, but I'm genuinely curious about what people think, and, this, specifically, applies to those who are talking about how wrong sculptors are for using someone else's face. To those people, what do you think of the new Robocop from Hot Toys? It's a licensed product, yes. However, it's using Peter Weller's face (even if it is just the bottom half), and, clearly, he doesn't approve (otherwise, it would say "authentic likeness of Peter Weller as Robocop," would it not?). If you guys don't think this is appropriate, please delete it, but I am really curious about some of the responses I'll get.

I consider that robocop to be a character license... I don't consider selling pair of lips someone's likeness or portrait for a better term

 

[karamazov80]

And all I'm saying is that sculptors (once they start selling multiples of their art) is the same thing as they are taking from someone else's art (an actor or directors creation: movie or show) without giving them any compensation... Is wrong on some level...

Yes, you have made this argument quite clear.

 

[LipSmack]

Yes, you have made this argument quite clear.

And will continue too everytime I get quoted and challenged

 

[Ajkhunter]

And will continue too everytime I get quoted and challenged

Yes but by repeating your statement you aren't winning said "challenge"

 

[LipSmack]

Yes but by repeating your statement you aren't winning said "challenge"

Where did I say I won?

 

[Ajkhunter]

Where did I say I won?

You never did, where did I say you said you won? I said you WEREN'T winning!

 

[karamazov80]

If someone challenges your opinion, and you feel a need to respond, then it is helpful to respond with a novel refutation of the challenge, to provide an alternative argument, to offer some other perspective with which your previous argument may be better understood. To just say the precise same thing you said previously is not moving the conversation forward.

 

[batfan08]

I consider that robocop to be a character license... I don't consider selling pair of lips someone's likeness or portrait for a better term

That's just it, though. Regardless of what you consider it, those lips are clearly based on Weller's, even though he obviously doesn't want them to be. Just because they have the license, they are still using part of that man's face without his permission. Why the double standard?

 

[SwedishHeat]

I don't want to stir the pot, but I'm genuinely curious about what people think, and, this, specifically, applies to those who are talking about how wrong sculptors are for using someone else's face. To those people, what do you think of the new Robocop from Hot Toys? It's a licensed product, yes. However, it's using Peter Weller's face (even if it is just the bottom half), and, clearly, he doesn't approve (otherwise, it would say "authentic likeness of Peter Weller as Robocop," would it not?). If you guys don't think this is appropriate, please delete it, but I am really curious about some of the responses I'll get.

Well, since HT paid the studio for the license, I think they're in the clear. I don't think it's fair to say that Weller doesn't approve, I think he would approve if HT felt like paying for his likeness, but forking over another $10k to toss in a reveal head on Robocop, and taking a $300 figure to $350 probably isn't worth it.

Same thing as the old Edward Scissorhands, obviously HT has a huge banger for Johnny Depp, but apparently Depp's likeness isn't included in the ES license, so the head kinda looked like Depp but it wasn't. How are you going to make an Scissorhands figure without it looking like Depp? What's the point?

As long as you pay for the license, you're good. If the actor doesn't want to play ball, that's their problem. Guys like Crowe, Gibson, Ford, Eastwood, the 007 owners, etc. that don't want to play ball, then it's fair game. If they have an attitude like "I won't grant my likeness" then I think it's fair to do whatever. But if you choose not to get the license, when you can. . . if you choose not to go through proper channels, then you're liable.

 

[LipSmack]

That's just it, though. Regardless of what you consider it, those lips are clearly based on Weller's, even though he obviously doesn't want them to be. Just because they have the license, they are still using part of that man's face without his permission. Why the double standard?

Yeah but the studio owns the look of robot cop...

 

[LipSmack]

If someone challenges your opinion, and you feel a need to respond, then it is helpful to respond with a novel refutation of the challenge, to provide an alternative argument, to offer some other perspective with which your previous argument may be better understood. To just say the precise same thing you said previously is not moving the conversation forward.

And who else has moved their argument along?

 

[LipSmack]

You never did, where did I say you said you won? I said you WEREN'T winning!

Well i never claimed to be winning... Or that I set out to win, just bringing up. A point

 

[TurdFerguson]

Odell has been banned a few times after using different names as have people who bought heads for Q to recast.

While I knew about the Odell banning and I know that Q was somehow getting sculpts, I'm glad to know they were band for getting Q the sculpts.

 

[karamazov80]

Do you not understand the relevance and importance of Dave (site administrator) coming here and making his opinion clear to the board at large?

 

[batfan08]

Well, since HT paid the studio for the license, I think they're in the clear. I don't think it's fair to say that Weller doesn't approve, I think he would approve if HT felt like paying for his likeness, but forking over another $10k to toss in a reveal head on Robocop, and taking a $300 figure to $350 probably isn't worth it.

Same thing as the old Edward Scissorhands, obviously HT has a huge banger for Johnny Depp, but apparently Depp's likeness isn't included in the ES license, so the head kinda looked like Depp but it wasn't. How are you going to make an Scissorhands figure without it looking like Depp? What's the point?

As long as you pay for the license, you're good. If the actor doesn't want to play ball, that's their problem. Guys like Crowe, Gibson, Ford, Eastwood, the 007 owners, etc. that don't want to play ball, then it's fair game. If they have an attitude like "I won't grant my likeness" then I think it's fair to do whatever. But if you choose not to get the license, when you can. . . if you choose not to go through proper channels, then you're liable.

Yeah but the studio owns the look of robot cop...

That's my point, though. The studio owns Robocop, yes, but, regardless of the reasoning "why" HT didn't get Weller's approval, they're still using his face without his permission (unless, Peter Weller didn't play Robocop in two movies). I just don't get how you can say that it's immoral for a sculptor to use someone's face without their permission on a custom sculpt, but it's okay for a big company to (even though his likeness obviously isn't part of the license).