Painters and recasters

[LipSmack]

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

I respect Dave alot, I love this place but I don't agree with him on this subject. So what? I know things are gunna be by his book on here, I'm not trying to change that but I'm sure he's ok with discussion and debate. I haven't attacked anyone nor do I support recasters cause I don't even support sculptors (financially, it's just not my thing) I'm more about the principles of hating on one group without acknowledging the flaws in the other

 

[karamazov80]

I think you bring up a fair point Batfan. Legal? 100%. But clearly Weller didn't sign away the use of his likeness, yet part of his likeness is being used. Is that wrong on some level? Arguably.

 

[LipSmack]

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).

Because he doesn't have likeness rights when it comes to robot cop and it's not even his face, it's a character,..you're not making an argument.

 

[tbay]

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

He clearly didnt read or understand Dave's post as Dave acknowledged his argument (you also acknowledged his argument in previous posts) but explained that recasting is a worse offense. Not sure why he still needs to pound home an argument that absolutely everyone understands...

 

[csi]

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

does that mean anyone with a differing opinion cannot share it? He made his opinion and the stance of the board clear and I will concede that makes anyone else's opinion basically moot, but I did not read where he said they were no longer allowed to express it.

He clearly didnt read or understand Dave's post as Dave acknowledged his argument (you also acknowledged his argument in previous posts) but explained that recasting is a worse offense. Not sure why he still needs to pound home an argument that absolutely everyone understands...

probably the same reason everyone else feels to need to argue back.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

I respect Dave alot, I love this place but I don't agree with him on this subject. So what? I know things are gunna be by his book on here, I'm not trying to change that but I'm sure he's ok with discussion and debate. I haven't attacked anyone nor do I support recasters cause I don't even support sculptors (financially, it's just not my thing) I'm more about the principles of hating on one group without acknowledging the flaws in the other

. .

 

[karamazov80]

does that mean anyone with a differing opinion cannot share it? He made his opinion and the stance of the board clear and I will concede that makes anyone else's opinion basically moot, but I did not read where he said they were no longer allowed to express it.

Correct. If you disagree with Dave then you should just shut your hole. . .seriously though, you might have missed my previous post here:

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.

If you interpret this as "no one with a differing opinion can share it," then there's nothing I can say that will change that I'm afraid.

 

[SwedishHeat]

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).

So, whose lips would you have them sculpt?? Honestly, that part of the face is so hard to determine who it is. It's negligible anyways. Kinda like how they made Kane end up looking like Freddie Mercury. If you change Robocop's mouth to look like something generic and it ends up looking like someone else's mouth, then THAT person sues. . . how do you move forward?? Do you just not do Robocop at all?? That seems kinda silly.

We've seen before how nit-picky people are. If HT changed the mouth to make everything perfectly legal and people complained that it didn't look like Weller, and they said "Sorry, we're not allowed to use his likeness", nobody cares about that. Honestly, there's less than 10 people that legitimately care about likeness rights in the world. You've seen how many people post about it in these threads, hardly anybody comes down that hard on things. Everybody here just wants toys, they couldn't give a crap less who gets paid for it. I'm all for likeness rights, but even I know when to draw the line, just for the sake of being reasonable.

 

[karamazov80]

JOhnny is the man.

 

[Doom Saber]

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

So is Odell a recaster or someone who happened to have a lot of names? I don't like the thought that I unknowingly bought a recast head from a recaster since I don't support the practice.

 

[Cheungkinmen]

JOhnny is the man.

 

[LipSmack]

JOhnny is the man.

Well he certainly likes his smiley faces

 

[batfan08]

Because he doesn't have likeness rights when it comes to robot cop and it's not even his face, it's a character,..you're not making an argument.

I think I've made a pretty compelling argument. Maybe I should try to articulate it visually?

Peter Weller as Robocop:

Hot Toys "generic" Robocop:

They bear a striking resemblance, don't you think? Robocop is a character, yes, but, if you think that isn't Weller's likeness, you're fooling yourself. Hot Toys are clearly using your logic, though, but that still doesn't make it right. I guess I just don't understand how you can find this acceptable when you're so against the same practices with custom work. That being said, before you reply, I have a question for you. Lets say that, hypothetically speaking, the four faces Hot Toys released were generic representations of a "hero" figure. Now, let's say that a custom sculptor offered these four faceplates as "Robocop replacements with the likeness of Peter Weller," would you be against that?

 

[LipSmack]

It's a chin, not a head sculpts of Weller nor a portrait

 

[batfan08]

So, whose lips would you have them sculpt?? Honestly, that part of the face is so hard to determine who it is. It's negligible anyways. Kinda like how they made Kane end up looking like Freddie Mercury. If you change Robocop's mouth to look like something generic and it ends up looking like someone else's mouth, then THAT person sues. . . how do you move forward?? Do you just not do Robocop at all?? That seems kinda silly.

We've seen before how nit-picky people are. If HT changed the mouth to make everything perfectly legal and people complained that it didn't look like Weller, and they said "Sorry, we're not allowed to use his likeness", nobody cares about that. Honestly, there's less than 10 people that legitimately care about likeness rights in the world. You've seen how many people post about it in these threads, hardly anybody comes down that hard on things. Everybody here just wants toys, they couldn't give a crap less who gets paid for it. I'm all for likeness rights, but even I know when to draw the line, just for the sake of being reasonable.

That's just it, though. I'm glad that he looks the way he does, but I just don't understand how someone who says that "it's always wrong to use someone's face without their permission" can say that he's okay with it in this case?

 

[SwedishHeat]

So is Odell a recaster or someone who happened to have a lot of names?

Both. I know he recasted Adam's Bale head, he probably did the Dexter head too.

He was banned a few months ago for recasting, and I know he's come back once under a different name, I don't remember what it was, and was banned. . . and Maybach music was banned recently, I don't know if that was him too. I just assume any noob who is banned all of a sudden was Odell.

 

[batfan08]

It's a chin, not a head sculpts of Weller nor a portrait

You didn't answer my last question.

 

[csi]

Correct. If you disagree with Dave then you should just shut your hole. . .seriously though, you might have missed my previous post here:


If you interpret this as "no one with a differing opinion can share it," then there's nothing I can say that will change that I'm afraid.

first of all, I would assume if Dave had a problem with people sharing their opinion after he made his statement he would have locked the thread. Second, I have no idea why you brought up your previous post, I said nothing that disagreed with it. I don't disagree there is no point in saying the same thing over and over again, however I do agree that Dave sharing his opinion doesn't mean other's can't share theirs. Unless of course he explicitly stated such as it is his playground and he can run it as he wishes.

 

[karamazov80]

Well, you don't understand my point then. I've tried to answer you the only way I am capable.

 

[Doom Saber]

I think I've made a pretty compelling argument. Maybe I should try to articulate it visually?

Peter Weller as Robocop:

Hot Toys "generic" Robocop:

They bear a striking resemblance, don't you think? Robocop is a character, yes, but, if you think that isn't Weller's likeness, you're fooling yourself. Hot Toys are clearly using your logic, though, but that still doesn't make it right. I guess I just don't understand how you can find this acceptable when you're so against the same practices with custom work. That being said, before you reply, I have a question for you. Lets say that, hypothetically speaking, the four faces Hot Toys released were generic representations of a "hero" figure. Now, let's say that a custom sculptor offered these four faceplates as "Robocop replacements with the likeness of Peter Weller," would you be against that?

I think a better debate would be the HT Predator Billy figure. With a minimal repaint for the hair and alcohol to remove the face paint, one can get a good likeness of the actor who portrayed the character in the movie. Why else would they opted to give the fig Blonde hair and a cameo face - both of which the actor didn't wear in Predator.