Rainman's Fight Club sculpts recasted...

[toylion]

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

And there lies the rub, what's ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.

 

[siquisiri]

Theyre both wrong. One for recasting, the other for producing a figure without a license. Although i have to admit, one would have to wait til infinity for HT or EB to produce figs that RM, Velvet M, and Serang have produced.

 

[breakersrevenge]

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?

I know your not the op, then why was this thread created?

I agree... Rainman holds the 'artistic licence' as he created it but he has no leg to stand on, same goes for Feng, Kai, Serang and the rest of the scuplting community.

 

[Platty]

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.

Agreed 100%

 

[thenammagazine]

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.

This is the perfect post to describe this situation. You don't like what Headplay's doing, don't purchase their products and in turn, you don't support them recasting.

 

[karamazov80]

If folks want to get into some kind of philosophical debate over what is "right" or "ethical" vs. what isn't, then I can't help you guys, as I'm no philosopher. But putting ethics aside, I can reiterate that there is a different set of interests and concerns when you are talking about the legality and right to sell a sculpt using someone else's likeness without permission vs. the acceptability of copying someone else's art, whether it be licensed or unlicensed. And there are different ramifications here. In both cases, custom artists many of us know and respect could be driven from doing that work that we enjoy. But legal pursuit is a lot less likely than someone recasting someone else's work for profit, and thus less likely to affect a given artist. And actors/companies that are potentially affected by this probably don't give a ____ in most cases anyway, and some actually get a kick out of what others have done (such as the Firefly actors that have received custom figures of themselves with Grove sculpts). When recasting happens, the sculptors usually know about it and really dislike it. So, there is greater injury as I see it, and a greater potential for someone getting upset about the whole thing when recasting takes place, with the real losers potentially being the collecting community.

So, putting the ethics aside, one issue will more clearly have a negative impact on the collecting community than the other, and will very likely have a more negative impact on the one whose "property" is being coopted. Does that make it less unethical? I guess if I put my amateur philosopher hat on then the issue where no one really cares has less of an ethical dimension than the one where folks do care, but I am in no better or worse position to answer that question than I suspect does anyone else here.

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

OK. So just to get you on the record, in your opinion, anyone who sculpts and sells something with the likeness of an existing actor or character without paying for the right to do so is a thief. Correct?

 

[thenammagazine]

OK. So just to get you on the record, in your opinion, anyone who sculpts and sells something with the likeness of an existing actor or character without paying for the right to do so is a thief. Correct?

I see what you're trying to do. And we've talked about it over IM. Technically, and legally, yes. But my point here is that the accusations toward Headplay by Rainman and/or his customers is entirely hypocritical.

 

[intothevoid]

This is the perfect post to describe this situation. You don't like what Headplay's doing, don't purchase their products and in turn, you don't support them recasting.

Yeah, I agree

There are too many shades of grey to pretend like anything is black or white.

Don't like it, boycott them. You can't stop them.

 

[karamazov80]

I see what you're trying to do. And we've talked about it over IM. Technically, and legally, yes. But my point here is that the accusations toward Headplay by Rainman and/or his customers is entirely hypocritical.

In your mind there is hypocrisy because you think of the two as being ethically equivalent. But this is a subjective concept. It is not logically inconsistent to say that one is acceptable and another isn't unless you hold a certain series of assumptions.

 

[cokebabies]

We just need a template for recasting threads, so people can save effort on the "this is stealing!" "no it's a grey area!" posts.

 

[thenammagazine]

In your mind there is hypocrisy because you think of the two as being ethically equivalent. But this is a subjective concept. It is not logically inconsistent to say that one is acceptable and another isn't unless you hold a certain series of assumptions.

It's not a subjective concept. Both are stealing. It's a thief calling a thief a thief. That's by the very definition of the law.

 

[amarcord]

Are legal-likeness rights necessary with private commissions?

 

[thenammagazine]

Are legal-likeness rights necessary with private commissions?

A single one-off commission like Rainman's David, no. Group commissions like Wonka, Doc Holiday, etc, yes.

 

[karamazov80]

It's not a subjective concept. Both are stealing. It's a thief calling a thief a thief. That's by the very definition of the law.

But I thought we already established that this goes beyond legal consideration, and is an ethical dispute. But if it is, in fact, a legal issue, then I suspect that none of us has any real clue as to the legality of these issues unless they are an intellectual property lawyer. It will probably depend on the specific piece of art, how closely it matches and/or is represented as being that of an existing character/person, what kind of evidence the prosecuting party can present to this effect, a demonstration of injury, and various other legal factors.

 

[thenammagazine]

But I thought we already established that this goes beyond legal consideration, and is an ethical dispute. But if it is, in fact, a legal issue, then I suspect that none of us has any real clue as to the legality of these issues unless they are an intellectual property lawyer. It will probably depend on the specific piece of art, how closely it matches and/or is represented as being that of an existing character/person, what kind of evidence the prosecuting party can present to this effect, a demonstration of injury, and various other legal factors.

The law wouldn't be in place if it were "ethical" do do things without authorization/permission. That aside, you're "chatting" with someone who's been involved in the legal process regarding defense of intellectual properties so I've got a bit more knowledge on the subject than, say, a customizer's fanboy might.

 

[BB&WSF]

Don't have the knowledge of legal stuff, but I believe Headplay is more like a parasite than a thief, imo.

 

[karamazov80]

That may be the case, but that doesn't make you an expert on this specific issue. Unless you've had those discussions in relation to custom collectible sculpts being sold to 50 people or so? I can only imagine that the complexities of that area of law are such that understanding how it functions in one domain has little to do with how it functions elsewhere.

As for laws not being in place if things were "ethical," that's a larger issue that I don't agree at all about. There is no objective ethical standard. There are only ethics as agreed upon by a group of people (or even only determined by an individual for him/herself), and those standards are going to vary across communities, families, nations, etc. Some of which are codified in law (albeit imperfectly), some are not.

 

[thenammagazine]

That may be the case, but that doesn't make you an expert on this specific issue. Unless you've had those discussions in relation to custom collectible sculpts being sold to 50 people or so? I can only imagine that the complexities of that area of law are such that understanding how it functions in one domain has little to do with how it functions elsewhere.

As far as the law is concerned, an intellectual property is an intellectual property, be it likeness rights, movie rights, music rights or say, magazine rights. It's all handled in relatively identical means. It's only the amount of money and the severity of the violation that differ when figuring what's owed from damages/loss of revenue from the violations.

As for laws not being in place if things were "ethical," that's a larger issue that I don't agree at all about. There is no objective ethical standard. There are only ethics as agreed upon by a group of people (or even only determined by an individual for him/herself), and those standards are going to vary across communities, families, nations, etc. Some of which are codified in law (albeit imperfectly), some are not.

This is only applicable to your bias standpoint because your personal "ethics" disagree with those ethics that got the laws made in the first place because you have a vested interest in defending someone who's already broken the law.

 

[turbo.VS.ozone]

@thenammagazine:

Just out of curiosity do you own an iPod?

 

[thenammagazine]

@thenammagazine:

Just out of curiosity do you own an iPod?

Bought for me as an X-mas gift, why?