Painters and recasters

[Doom Saber]

I don't know if they were canceled figures, so much as an attempt to get more sales for folks to kitbash supporting characters that didn't warrant their own figures. But you could be right about that. They definitely did the Prison Break guys again because the company/sculptors weren't happy with the stock sculpts in hindsight.

It is a sound theory since the TT figs they made once they got ultra realistic with the face sculpts where the Prison Break guys, Obama, Prince Harry, "Gambit", Jake Gyanhall, and IM 1 Rhodes.

The African slim TT was announced shortly after it was reported that the actor who played Jim Rhodes in IM 1. It was also rumored that the Gambit figure was cancelled because of how poorly the Wolverine movie did. Harry and Obama falls into public figures. Ht also made license figs with the PB guys and JG. My point is that they had the license of the properties these actors appeared. I think rather than letting the license for an actor's likeness get unused like the Enterbay Dragonball Bulma fig, HT used the likeness for their "generic" TT line.

 

[karamazov80]

And I'll add that Michael biehn (who my best friend drove away comic convention) said that he personally gets no say when it comes to licensed products from terminator and aliens because he signed them away, I don't know Weller's situation but there are actors who simply have no rights to their likenesses

That is odd, because Hot Toys clearly had a better Hicks sculpt, and released it with a military figure instead of the actual Hicks figure. It was even used on the box, though the actual sculpt included was different. Did he say he signed those rights away recently? The McFarlane figure or whatever had a pretty good Biehn likeness.

 

[LipSmack]

Clint Eastwood took the job to play Blondie. Is he not entitled to his likeness rights if Hot Toys gets the TG, TB, & TU license? If he played the Lone Ranger, would that suddenly make it alright to not bother considering him because the top of his head was covered? If Hot Toys was allowed to use Weller's likeness for Robo, why not just say so?

I don't know what the agreement was between Weller and the studio, maybe he doesn't own any rights to it at all, I just don't know. But HT is paying their fair share to the rightful owners, that I'm sure of

 

[LipSmack]

That is odd, because Hot Toys clearly had a better Hicks sculpt, and released it with a military figure instead of the actual Hicks figure. It was even used on the box, though the actual sculpt included was different. Did he say he signed those rights away recently? The McFarlane figure or whatever had a pretty good Biehn likeness.

No he was talking about how the studios screwed him and Linda out of a whole bunch of stuff including lioness rights, companies can use his likeness as those characters because he has no right to refuse, HT, McFarland and Neca negotiate that stuff with the holders of those rights, biehn gets 0 royaltiesfor any of it

 

[batfan08]

I don't know what the agreement was between Weller and the studio, maybe he doesn't own any rights to it at all, I just don't know. But HT is paying their fair share to the rightful owners, that I'm sure of

If that was the case, though, why wouldn't the studio allow Hot Toys to make an unmasked Murphy head? They've made two Robocops, neither of which have included anything to indicate that they have Weller's likeness rights, even though they've clearly used the bottom of his face in this release. At the end of the day, I see it like this: a toad is a toad, even if someone else says it's a zebra.

 

[ifrack]

The basic issue is the sculptors are creating a piece of art. Being ... anyone who copies those art pieces without the artist's permission is a forger. Regardless of license likeness issues. Sculptors are providing art pieces to those who enjoy 1/6 art. Hopefully the moderators can identify those individuals both recasting and providing original heads to recasters and take appropriate action.

 

[iMan]

The basic issue is the sculptors are creating a piece of art. Being ... anyone who copies those art pieces without the artist's permission is a forger. Regardless of license likeness issues. Sculptors are providing art pieces to those who enjoy 1/6 art. Hopefully the moderators can identify those individuals both recasting and providing original heads to recasters and take appropriate action.

So you're against recasting then?

 

[annihilate22]

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?

He was not Peter Weller in the movie he was Robocop; and everything Robocop is owned by the studio. That renders this argument invalid as there is not wrong about what HT is doing.

Clint Eastwood took the job to play Blondie. Is he not entitled to his likeness rights if Hot Toys gets the TG, TB, & TU license? If he played the Lone Ranger, would that suddenly make it alright to not bother considering him because the top of his head was covered? If Hot Toys was allowed to use Weller's likeness for Robo, why not just say so?

Same answer applies here too, unless Clint kept this very argument in hindsight 30 years back and refused to give away his likeness rights while signing the movie. For any merchandising, I'm pretty sure the owners of TGBU franchise can do as the please with the Merchandize they authorize to sell.

Whether they actually get down to selling such stuff is a different question but as far as the legal aspect goes there's no two ways about it - They own it, they can do as they please even if Clint disapproves of them doing so.

 

[thenammagazine]

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.

Apollo Creed doesn't need any of that. They didn't get Weather's likeness rights and that sculpt is there.

He was not Peter Weller in the movie he was Robocop; and everything Robocop is owned by the studio. That renders this argument invalid as there is not wrong about what HT is doing.

This isn't true. Weller's likeness rights weren't included in the contract, which is the point they're making. The studio doesn't own the rights to his likeness and Weller won't sell them. It's also why HT's first T800 didn't look like Arnie.

 

[galactiboy]

Well and we know that HT, Enterbay, Sideshow and a ton of other compaines produce "look alike" heads for their nude bodies or when a character doesn't have a likeness tied to a particular actor (the GI Joe line for instance).

I doubt anyone is getting a cut out of those sculpts, even though the are from legitimate companies and sometimes on a licensed item.

I guess one thing that may be semi-protective is that one could argue that a head (be it from a single artist, or company) just happens to look like an actor and if the hair also matches a role they played then oops... my bad

 

[Punishment1218]

And all this time I thought when an actor signed a contract to do a movie, they were giving te rights for the movie company to use their likeness in things such as marketing, toys, promotion, etc. So therefore, when the movie company sells the rights to a toy company to produce toys or whatever; the actor has no sayso. This is the purpose of buying a license from a movie to sell likenesses and stuff. Hmmmm......so a lot of points people are trying to justify and make sense are confusing I guess.

 

[thenammagazine]

And all this time I thought when an actor signed a contract to do a movie, they were giving te rights for the movie company to use their likeness in things such as marketing, toys, promotion, etc. So therefore, when the movie company sells the rights to a toy company to produce toys or whatever; the actor has no sayso. This is the purpose of buying a license from a movie to sell likenesses and stuff. Hmmmm......so a lot of points people are trying to justify and make sense are confusing I guess.

It a much more common practice now. But back then I think Lucas was the only one doing that.

 

[Mr Barlow]

It's usually seperate at this point . Say you wanted to do a liscenced Karloff Frankenstein monster..Anything, shirt,toy , mask. Technically you need a universal deal for the bolts, green skin, etc..then you also have to pay the Karloff family for the Boris face.. same I believe applies to a Hannibal figure, studio + Hopkins......

 

[Mr Barlow]

But as we know, a lot of company's also release things with out all rights liscenced. Hot toys knew they couldn't get away w that w avengers figures, like they had w others they've done.. Robocop IS Weller, if they used a generic face, it would look cheezy. I'm sure he could argue that that is a direct use of his attributes, but in court I doubt he would win any money

 

[batfan08]

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.

Well and we know that HT, Enterbay, Sideshow and a ton of other compaines produce "look alike" heads for their nude bodies or when a character doesn't have a likeness tied to a particular actor (the GI Joe line for instance).

I doubt anyone is getting a cut out of those sculpts, even though the are from legitimate companies and sometimes on a licensed item.

I guess one thing that may be semi-protective is that one could argue that a head (be it from a single artist, or company) just happens to look like an actor and if the hair also matches a role they played then oops... my bad

Going back to what Doom Saber said, you could always use the "Billy Sole" excuse. "We left the headsculpt unpainted, but the character it was portraying is one with black hair and brown eyes, unlike [so and so] in [so and so's movie]. Therefore, your argument is invalid."

 

[galactiboy]

Pretty much... although we have seen licenser's shut down threads for just a head a few times, so I don't think it always works... or no one seems to want to try and press the issue to see whether or not they get sued for everything they own

I do remember years ago my sister-in-law was granted permission by the estate of Elvis to use some footage of Elvis and graceland as well as "Blue Suede Shoes" in a short film she was doing. But part of the agreement was that she was to make no money from the film and if she made any money she agreed to give them 150% of it

 

[karamazov80]

I really wish they would have used an actual John Hurt sculpt for Kane, and put dirt and grime all over on his face. Sadly, what we got isn't even a good Freddy Mercury.

 

[galactiboy]

I've never used the Kane sculpt... just went with the damaged mask and facehugger head; which incidently, I seem to recall was a recast by HT of the Palisades mini-bust.

 

[karamazov80]

I've never used the Kane sculpt... just went with the damaged mask and facehugger head;

Same here. But the other head is pretty much useless. I guess one saving grace is that you can barely see those heads at all considering how low they sit vis-a-vis the visor.

which incidently, I seem to recall was a recast by HT of the Palisades mini-bust.

Damn.

 

[batfan08]

He was not Peter Weller in the movie he was Robocop; and everything Robocop is owned by the studio. That renders this argument invalid as there is not wrong about what HT is doing.



Same answer applies here too, unless Clint kept this very argument in hindsight 30 years back and refused to give away his likeness rights while signing the movie. For any merchandising, I'm pretty sure the owners of TGBU franchise can do as the please with the Merchandize they authorize to sell.

Whether they actually get down to selling such stuff is a different question but as far as the legal aspect goes there's no two ways about it - They own it, they can do as they please even if Clint disapproves of them doing so.

Wait, so Robocop exists and is a separate entity from Peter Weller!?!?! Someone call the Weekly World News, post haste! That's just it, though; like Nam said, not everything is owned by the studio; namely, Weller's face. Since HT is using Weller's face without his permission, regardless of what character it's on, they would be wrong, would they not? I just find it hilarious that people who are so stagnantly opposed to custom sculpts using others' likenesses without their permission are okay with Hot Toys doing the same thing, I'm dumbfounded by it, actually

As for the Clint thing, Clint has always had tight control over his likeness, why else do you think there aren't any Dirty Harry T-shirts or Blondie licensed figures? So, let's say that MGM and Fox decided to let Hot Toys have the "TG, TB, & TU" license (sans Eastwood's likeness rights). Hot Toys made a Blondie licensed figure, but they used Eastwood's likeness, even though he said "no," and the studio had no say in saying that Hot Toys could [use his likeness], so, is Hot Toys wrong?