Rainman's Fight Club sculpts recasted...

[MarfMaster]

Same ____ different day. BLAH BLAH BLAH, they're both grey areas, BLAH BLAH. One is clearly worse than the other from an ethical standpoint, especially in the context of the close-knit community of artists that has formed around the 1/6 hobby.

 

[thenammagazine]

Same ____ different day. BLAH BLAH BLAH, they're both grey areas, BLAH BLAH. One is clearly worse than the other from an ethical standpoint, especially in the context of the close-knit community of artists that has formed around the 1/6 hobby.

Disagree. Both are clearly equally unethical. The recaster is stealing from the sculptor who stole from the owner of the intellectual property. There's no gay area there unless it's a one-off, which is legal, and the only piece I've seen like that even fits that category has been Rainman's David.

 

[karamazov80]

I think it's entirely questionable to accuse recasters of "stealing" when likeness rights weren't paid to the individuals the likenesses were taken and profited from by the original sculptor. If you're going to bring up recasting and the lack of legitimacy of it, you might as well toss in the theft of intellectual property rights and personal likeness rights too.

Like I said before, it's an issue of community norms of behavior, not a legal issue. There are many great custom artists on this board who I support (some of which you may also support) who may not pay for licensing rights, and it would be a sad day if we tried to shut all of that down.

 

[Ryanfromindiana]

Regardless of the subject throwing a painting on a copying machine and calling the copies your own work is pretty crappy.

 

[thenammagazine]

Like I said before, it's an issue of community norms of behavior, not a legal issue. There are many great custom artists on this board who I support (some of which you may also support) who may not pay for licensing rights, and it would be a sad day if we tried to shut all of that down.

Hence why I just say except recasters as a necessary evil. Bringing both to light and putting one over the other as "more ethical" is shady and ignorant.

 

[karamazov80]

One is a legal issue, one is an issue of community norms. They aren't the same! Just because you want to apply the same ethical standards doesn't mean that everyone else does.

 

[MarfMaster]

Like I said before, it's an issue of community norms of behavior, not a legal issue. There are many great custom artists on this board who I support (some of which you may also support) who may not pay for licensing rights, and it would be a sad day if we tried to shut all of that down.

One is a legal issue, one is an issue of community norms. They aren't the same! Just because you want to apply the same ethical standards doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Thank you kara, this is my point exactly

 

[breakersrevenge]

Creating a from scratch unlicensed figure is not the same as recasting a head which is licensed or unlicensed._

Why the comparison

I think it's same mate... Both not paying royalties to the character or licence its based on.

Sculptor, be it Rainman, Feng, Serang etc, don't pay for rights to a character that they sculpt and sell, THEN the recaster recast their sculpt without (sculptor) permission... It's just a 'chain of events' that the only one loosing out is the person the sculpt is based on AND what does he/she get.... Sweet F A!

 

[breakersrevenge]

To be honest... As long as I have 'original' Rainman, Serang sculpts, I don't really care... As what can we do...

Enterbay could not do anything to the people in South America recasting thier Jack Bauer heads, so besides forum norm.. Nothing we can do.

 

[thenammagazine]

One is a legal issue, one is an issue of community norms. They aren't the same! Just because you want to apply the same ethical standards doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Either way you try to spin it, both are stealing. They are the same.

I think it's same mate... Both not paying royalties to the character or licence its based on.

Sculptor, be it Rainman, Feng, Serang etc, don't pay for rights to a character that they sculpt and sell, THEN the recaster recast their sculpt without (sculptor) permission... It's just a 'chain of events' that the only one loosing out is the person the sculpt is based on AND what does he/she get.... Sweet F A!

If these guys were writing checks and sending a portion of their earnings up the grapevine to the actors and studios who own the intellectual properties/likeness rights, it would be an entirely different story. And they ain't so it isn't.

 

[toylion]

I think it's same mate... Both not paying royalties to the character or licence its based on.

Sculptor, be it Rainman, Feng, Serang etc, don't pay for rights to a character that they sculpt and sell, THEN the recaster recast their sculpt without (sculptor) permission... It's just a 'chain of events' that the only one loosing out is the person the sculpt is based on AND what does he/she get.... Sweet F A!

I agree with Nam too. Some of you guys want to eat your cake and have it too. Reminds me of 'The Godfather' who rationalized Whores and gambling weren't as bad a crime as selling drugs. Both were illegal and punishable by law. Cloudly vision.

 

[meth head]

I think it's same mate... Both not paying royalties to the character or licence its based on.

Sculptor, be it Rainman, Feng, Serang etc, don't pay for rights to a character that they sculpt and sell, THEN the recaster recast their sculpt without (sculptor) permission... It's just a 'chain of events' that the only one loosing out is the person the sculpt is based on AND what does he/she get.... Sweet F A!

How is it the same? One is creating a one off piece of art and the other is a scumbag recasting it and playing it off as their own? We can argue all day long about whether it is right or wrong to make a figure that is not licensed but the bottom line is the scumbag is by far the recaster in all of this!

 

[thenammagazine]

Teddy, you're essentially saying it's okay to steal and profit off of it so long as you put work into it, but it's not okay to steal if you copy what was already stolen.

How is it the same? One is creating a one off piece of art from stolen likeness rights, essentially profiteering off of theft and the other is a scumbag recasting it and playing it off as their own? We can argue all day long about whether it is right or wrong to make a figure that is not licensed but the bottom line is the scumbag nature of it all is equally shared by both parties in all of this!

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[breakersrevenge]

It is the same as both parties are making money... And the character/subject gets zero.

You can't differentiate when there is money involved, one is as bad as the other!

The reason I posted in this thread is that's some of you think that Rainman is loosing out... Is he??


Yes, if it was me, I'd be pisshed that someone recast my work BUT remember... Rainman/his team have made thier money, now it's the turn of the recasters._

We as collectors by in large have what we want, _and dare I say it, recasters are filling the void for people who maybe less fortunate that ourselves to own an 'original'

It's an uncontrollable fulfilment society!!

 

[uscmhicks]

Honestly if I was to say how I feel bluntly it would be like this.

I don't mind artists making sculpts and figures of actors who have no chance of being made by companies already around or wouldn't allow it even if they tried.

I think there is a difference between that and entering a hobby recasting everybody's sculpts , pretending they're your own , putting no effort into anything and expecting people interested in this type of stuff to buy it.

Regardless of the money I think the recasting and stealing of sculpts just seems much more rude , greedy and unnecessary than an artist creating a sculpt or set of figures with his passion for sculpting and or this hobby and selling them to the community.

Yes , they're both illegal in the same sort of way but there is a difference between the two imo.

 

[meth head]

It is the same as both parties are making money... And the character/subject gets zero.

You can't differentiate when there is money involved, one is as bad as the other!

The reason I posted in this thread is that's some of you think that Rainman is loosing out... Is he??


Yes, if it was me, I'd be pisshed that someone recast my work BUT remember... Rainman/his team have made thier money, now it's the turn of the recasters._

We as collectors by in large have what we want, _and dare I say it, recasters are filling the void for people who maybe less fortunate that ourselves to own an 'original'

It's an uncontrollable fulfilment society!!

It's not the same

I can differentiate between an artist and a scumbag!

No I don't think he is loosing out, I never said that. Do you think Pitt is loosing out? That is the impression I am getting from you?

 

[SwedishHeat]

I can differentiate between an artist and a scumbag!

You'll need to divorce yourself from your emotional attachment to Rainman to discuss this rationally and logically.

The fact is Rainman realistically owes thousands of dolllars to film studios in licensing royalties for the various projects he's done. Whether the studios deserve, want or will miss that money does not even enter into the discussion. If we're talking about doing what's right. If Headplay should not recast heads, then Rainman should be paying royalties for his projects. Even if he doesn't have a contract, he should just send them a check for 10% of his profits once the project is done.

If we're talking about doing what's right. . .

 

[omega145]

There are a lot of valid points on both sides of the fence here. At the end of the day, no one is wrong. If you dont like Headplay producing them then dont buy. They are doing something wrong and illegal by selling something not licensed and copying someones work while customizers here are given free passes to sell other likeness without permission either.
While I dont agree 100% with what Headplay is doing, i'm kind of impartial on this subject and it wouldnt affect a future purchase from Headplay if they actually created something that I liked.

 

[MarfMaster]

That's the thing, half of us are having a legal discussion while the other half is trying to have an ethical discussion.

 

[uscmhicks]

That's the thing, half of us are having a legal discussion while the other half is trying to have an ethical discussion.

Exactly. Personally I don't care about the legalities and that's why I think there is a difference. Why do Headplay recast someone else's work and sell it as their own when they can sculpt anyway ?.
Because they're greedy and want more money unlike the artists here who only sell their own creations.