Rainman's Fight Club sculpts recasted...

[turbo.VS.ozone]

Cool, how many songs does it hold?

 

[karamazov80]

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.

Just look at the Arnold bobblehead issue from awhile back. That had to be taken to court and argued, and a settlement was reached. Because it isn't always black and white when it comes to artistic interpretation. Was everything Andy Warhol did illegal?

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.

I'm just trying to explain why people hold different, legitimate perspectives. I'm sure I do have biases here, though I try to keep them in check. I'm sure that you have biases as well affecting your opinion (maybe you dislike many custom artists and collectors, or maybe you had experiences with someone ripping off your magazine, etc.), but I doubt that my biases affect my perspective anymore than anyone else's biases do.

 

[thenammagazine]

Cool, how many songs does it hold?

I don't know the exact number.

Now I know that's not true. Just look at the Arnold bobblehead issue from awhile back. That had to be taken to court and argued, and a settlement was reached. Because it isn't always black and white when it comes to artistic interpretation. Was everything Andy Warhol did illegal?

Apples and oranges. The bobblehead was fought under the parody clause and the fact that Arnold was a political figure (which there is an exemption for). However, despite that, Arnold won and settled out of court because in California, actors maintain a right to their likenesses and it's more strictly enforced here.

I'm just trying to explain why people hold different, legitimate perspectives. I'm sure I do have biases here, though I try to keep them in check. I'm sure that you have biases as well affecting your opinion (maybe you dislike many custom artists and collectors, or maybe you had experiences with someone ripping off your magazine, etc.), but I doubt that my biases affect my perspective anymore than anyone else's biases do.

Nope. My opinion is actually similar yours and to the others. I think it's fine to make a small run of heads/figures so long as there's no claim by the property owner. If there is, and they hit an artist with a C&D, at that point, the artist needs to take their ball, refund all monies and go home. Along the same lines, I don't support recasters. I do think it's taking an easy way out and in a sense profiteering off of someone else's hard work.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUT I'm not trolling around posting "SCUMBAG THIEF!" every time I see one, and defending illegal sculpts against recasting. Doing so is oxymoronic. In the end, theft is theft and both people are not only breaking the law, but profiting off of something they didn't pay for. It's entirely hypocritical and one is no better, no worse, no more or less illegal than the other.

 

[Entropy]

profiting from something new based on an IP you don't own is certainly one area of discussion.

profiting from someone's else's work recast or reprinted, IP rights aside, is a different issue. The distinction may be slight, but I think there is a difference between those discussions.

 

[karamazov80]

There is no objectively legal right and wrong regarding artistic interpretation (which is different than illegally selling copies of DVDs or CDs) because laws have to be interpreted on a case by case basis. Arnold claimed that he had a right to make money off that that because the statue had guns and ammo. A court had to decide if that was true or not by their interpretation of the issue and the law. They could have ruled either way, depending on the proclivities of the judge and the effectiveness of the attorneys.

And to make a quick logical connection here:

-you say that you don't support recasters because they are thieves who profit from someone else's work
-you say that theft is theft, whether you recast or sculpt
-therefore, you do not support any custom sculptors

Correct? If not, then there seems to be hypocrisy in your argument. A thief is a thief, after all.

 

[thenammagazine]

-you say that you don't support recasters because they are thieves who profit from someone else's work
-you say that theft is theft, whether you recast or sculpt
-therefore, you do not support any custom sculptors

Correct? If not, then there seems to be hypocrisy in your argument. A thief is a thief, after all.

I don't support recasters in general (I'm sure you've seen my reports regarding recasts of Sideshow/HT heads). There's no hypocrisy there. Nice try though.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Recasting is a topic unto itself - it's pretty ridiculous to say, "well we allow anything in the moral grey area so we should allow everything that's a blatant rip-off or vice versa."

As much as the the attention seekers would like to stir up stuff, just to stir it up - there are differences. Feedback from the artists and the licensor companies are always taken into account too.

 

[toyadventurer]

"Feedback from the artists and the licensor companies are always taken into account too."

That makes perfect sense. Case closed.

 

[thenammagazine]

odellwyoung34:

[ame]https://youtu.be/z1E4vl1eQp0[/ame]

 

[turbo.VS.ozone]

Lol, Damn! You truly have got a target on people's backs! Your name suits you well!

 

[thenammagazine]

Lol, Damn! You truly have got a target on people's backs! Your name suits you well!

How is that not relevant to the discussion? Isn't that exactly what we're talking about?

 

[turbo.VS.ozone]

The guy said that their for his personal use, what's it to you what he does with them!
That's a YouTube video, he's not promoting that here. Who cares what he does.

 

[thenammagazine]

The guy said that their for his personal use, what's it to you what he does with them!

Personal use =/= passing them out to friends and family.

 

[Ironman1188]

Its up for sale on ebay now.

Tyler:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-Pai...ltDomain_0&hash=item1e6dadba38#ht_1422wt_1059

Norton:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-Pai...ltDomain_0&hash=item3f16ff9146#ht_1353wt_1158

Is Davincisiman or carterkei114 Headplay?

They're resin and neckless.

I have not seen any Headplay resin heads before.

One thing we can do here is not support HeadPlay in any way. I haven't banned their accounts yet, but the headsculpt thread has been hidden.

We will not allow them to be solicited here any more.

Have they sold, or said they were selling, or even taken preorders for these?
For all we know, some 3rd party could have bought Rainman's sculpts, recast them and offered them for sale to Headplay who in turn, changed what they may have felt needed improving. Has anyone tried contacting Headplay before deleting posts, censoring what they can post or consider banning them?

People have been recasting Sideshow Clonetrooper stuff and selling them. Hide those threads too.

It seems that is looked at differently.

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.

Yeah, that bull____ wouldn't stand up in court so I don't see why it should stand up here. Honestly either except both as part of the hobby (good or bad), or deal with both as forms of theft. It's essentially a thief calling a thief a thief.

This argument will never hold here while there are those who will remain loyal to a member or friend without being able to look at an entire picture objectively.

 

[ryanbayliss]

I think it was a little harsh to not let Headplay at least have their say in this matter.
Like Ironman1188 says "Is Davincisiman or carterkei114 Headplay?".
Do we know it is Headplay selling these? All we know they have done is post images of these heads on their Facebook page. Or am I wrong?

 

[Entropy]

Does no one remember Headplay ripping off Viva's Tommy Lee Jones sculpt awhile back? Look up each and compare for yourself. Kato said that incident is why Viva didn't release his Tyler sculpt.

 

[Ironman1188]

Does no one remember Headplay ripping off Viva's Tommy Lee Jones sculpt awhile back? Look up each and compare for yourself. Kato said that incident is why Viva didn't release his Tyler sculpt.

And, again, did anyone ever speak to Headplay on this?
The present argument is pretty much guilt by association. It appears NOTHING was done by Headplay other than post pics. If that be the case, EVERY thread by EVERY member with pics attached should be deleted.
And, if one thinks that a sculpt, or a body or whatever from whomever is a recast - don't buy it!
We're not talking about a person like Chris Howes who takes your money up front and doesn't deliver. This is a company who is going to make what they think will sell. You want to hurt them? Don't buy from them.
Attacking them, or anyone, without at least providing the opportunity of an explanation is wrong.
As of yet I have seen that Dave deleted their thread, but I haven't seen any posts saying that they were contacted and what their response was.

 

[karamazov80]

If someone wants to send the guy(s) a PM, pointing them to this thread, please do so. However, based on their responses to the Tommy Lee Jones sculpt issue, I think we can all anticipate what will be said.

 

[aesthetics]

And i bet all you guys never downloaded a music album or a game from the internetz that you dont own either? i mean whats the difference, if its out there it is going to be copied, duplicated and pirated, who gives a flying f ...

 

[Lejuan]

And i bet all you guys never downloaded a music album or a game from the internetz that you dont own either? i mean whats the difference, if its out there it is going to be copied, duplicated and pirated, who gives a flying f ...

Dave gives a flying f..k because he administers this board. At the end of the day, he is making a distinction between the alleged recasting and profiting from another artist's creative work, and the unlicensed likenesses that crop up in various SSF threads.