The Big Debate - "Originals vs Recasts (Knock-Offs)"

[Taibhse]

I'm still certain the logic of - 'I'm against all bootlegs.. unless they are better than the licensed figure, or there is no licensed figure available' ..doesn't really stand up to moral scrutiny.

 

[Pixelpiper]

Sorry, my bad - I just kept seeing Soundwave pictures when I searched. So then Quakewave is an example of an original work based on an unlicensed character.

 

[koolkollectibleskhai]

I'm still certain the logic of - 'I'm against all bootlegs.. unless they are better than the licensed figure, or there is no licensed figure available' ..doesn't really stand up to moral scrutiny.

So the big retailers that stock those items also have low moral standards? That's the grey area where I'm not sure why certain customs/3rd party figures are widely available, while others are distributed under secrecy due to potential copyright issues......

 

[Taibhse]

So the big retailers that stock those items also have low moral standards? That's the grey area where I'm not sure why certain customs/3rd party figures are widely available, while others are distributed under secrecy due to potential copyright issues......

In most cases I am aware of, as soon as a 'big retailer' receives a 'Cease and Desist' order, the products vanish.. so yes, they are riding the raggedy edge of morality/legality.. and it seems unlikely they are unaware of that fact.

 

[koolkollectibleskhai]

In most cases I am aware of, as soon as a 'big retailer' receives a 'Cease and Desist' order, the products vanish.. so yes, they are riding the raggedy edge of morality.. and it seems unlikely they are unaware of that fact.

I highly doubt they are unaware of that fact! These are specialised TF retailers that know full well it's not an official Takara product. That's why I'm thinking there must be something unique about the TF situation that allows it to go on.

Either way, to me a custom sculpt uniquely created by that person that they sell is no different to fanart done by amazing artists that present their work at comic conventions! I've seen so many artists that show their wares at comic conventions, and they certainly dont own any official license for the source material depicted in that artwork! And yet they seem to be freely able to sell that artwork, since it is their own unique creation (not a copy of someone else's).

 

[GeneralZodLives]

Tick-tock, tick-tock

 

[koolkollectibleskhai]

Unrelated to the purpose of why I started this thread, but it looks like many of you are calling out for a lock because I linked the URL to my article on my blog?

I'm just quoting the forum guidelines below:

Advertising.
(i) You are welcome to link your site in your signature as long as it doesn’t conflict with any rule in the Community Guidelines or Terms of Use. However, this forum is not intended solely as a venue for you to promote your brand/site/product.

Yes, I have linked my details in my signature, which was done when I first joined.


(ii) If you would like to become a paid sponsor/advertiser on our sites please contact us via email; [email protected].

That is not my intent.


(iii) Any content promoting a site that is in conflict with the purpose of forum or is a direct competitor of the forum may be removed.

I dont see how my blog is in conflict of this forum, or is a competitor of this forum. My site is a blog, not a forum for people to create and discuss many threads etc.


(iv) Posting, emailing, private messaging, uploading, or otherwise transmitting any content containing affiliate account information is prohibited.

I'm not doing any of the above.


(v) Please note, any content transmitted to our sites associated with one of our affiliates may automatically or manually have our affiliate account information appended to it. Removal of this appended information is also prohibited.

Not doing any of the above either.


So with that, can someone explain to me why this thread should be locked? I'm asking for comments in this forum right here, which is what I've been trying to discuss?

 

[**16k**]

Yep, some debates are forbidden here! freedom of speech on this subject is at your own risks!

...I've learned it's sometimes better to just think and do what you want and let the others think and do what they want. Whatever your opinion anyway is pointless because there are ayatollahs in both camp that resort to name calling( troll is a must! when they can't counter the other's argument!

Let it go man, it's pointless!

 

[Taibhse]

Unrelated to the purpose of why I started this thread, but it looks like many of you are calling out for a lock because I linked the URL to my article on my blog?

I'm just quoting the forum guidelines below:

Advertising.
(i) You are welcome to link your site in your signature as long as it doesn’t conflict with any rule in the Community Guidelines or Terms of Use. However, this forum is not intended solely as a venue for you to promote your brand/site/product.

Yes, I have linked my details in my signature, which was done when I first joined.


........So with that, can someone explain to me why this thread should be locked? I'm asking for comments in this forum right here, which is what I've been trying to discuss?

The link in your signature, was not the criticism I was making ..I was referring specifically to starting a thread promoting an article on your blog (with a link front and center).. and therefore your blog, on a popular forum.. you are piggybacking your forum on Sideshow Freaks, when you start threads promoting your own blog articles.. this is often regarded as poor internet etiquette.. and is in breach of -

"This forum is not intended solely as a venue for you to promote your brand/site/product."

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

 

[karamazov80]

I don't see any problem with the OP posting a link to his blog here.

Most probably think it will be locked just because we've attempted to have this debate many times, and it always ended in tears (at least for the mods who had to spend their time and energy cleaning up threads/infracting people, etc.). My feeling on it is that there is a distinction between unlicensed, original creations (such as custom sculpts/figures), and creating a "counterfeit" product from the original work that someone else originally created. The former is OK in my mind, while the former isn't. Sideshow itself has used the likenesses for celebrities in their GI Joe sculpts without, presumably, paying royalties for their use. Hot Toys has certainly done the same, and in their early days even had totally unlicensed figures produced, including a Neo from Matrix. So, I don't think anyone is all that innocent in this area, and at a certain point it's splitting hairs as to what is "acceptable" and isn't in that domain. Having said that, I respect the opinion of folks who think anything done that infringes on the intellectual property rights of someone else is unacceptable, and as such won't support the customs on the forum, or Hot Toys old nude Truetypes, or Sideshow's Joes, or whatever.

But taking a custom sculpt someone worked hard on, recasting it, and offering it up for sale without the artist's express permission is really low IMO. It hurts the artists who make this hobby worthwhile for many of us, including guys who work officially for Sideshow in some capacity and do this kind of work on the side as a hobby like Trevor Grove. And considering the guys who start out as custom artists often go on to work for the big boys in an official capacity (Arnie Kim, Kojun, Kato, Rainman's tailor), and help to influence these companies in terms of what they are able to put out, it's in the greater interest of all collectors that these guys be allowed to express themselves in such a way IMO.

 

[Taibhse]

I don't see any problem with the OP posting a link to his blog here.

Most probably think it will be locked just because we've attempted to have this debate many times, and it always ended in tears (at least for the mods who had to spend their time and energy cleaning up threads/infracting people, etc.). My feeling on it is that there is a distinction between unlicensed, original creations (such as custom sculpts/figures), and creating a "counterfeit" product from the original work that someone else originally created. The former is OK in my mind, while the latter isn't. Sideshow itself has used the likenesses for celebrities in their GI Joe sculpts without, presumably, paying royalties for their use. Hot Toys has certainly done the same, and in their early days even had totally unlicensed figures produced, including a Neo from Matrix. So, I don't think anyone is all that innocent in this area, and at a certain point it's splitting hairs as to what is "acceptable" and isn't in that domain. Having said that, I respect the opinion of folks who think anything done that infringes on the intellectual property rights of someone else is unacceptable, and as such won't support the customs on the forum, or Hot Toys old nude Truetypes, or Sideshow's Joes, or whatever.

But taking a custom sculpt someone worked hard on, recasting it, and offering it up for sale without the artist's express permission is really low IMO. It hurts the artists who make this hobby worthwhile for many of us, including guys who work officially for Sideshow in some capacity and do this kind of work on the side as a hobby like Trevor Grove. And considering the guys who start out as custom artists often go on to work for the big boys in an official capacity (Arnie Kim, Kojun, Kato, Rainman's tailor), and help to influence these companies in terms of what they are able to put out, it's in the greater interest of all collectors that these guys be allowed to express themselves in such a way IMO.

*fixed*

I was just sticking with the Freaks' rule book.. since otherwise there is the risk of a significant number of threads starting to appear, re-directing peeps to other sites where an OP has posted an article, containing opinions they could have posted in their OP on this forum ..imho, it's pretty much an all or nothing rule, except for references or reviews.. but, your call.

 

[koolkollectibleskhai]

I don't see any problem with the OP posting a link to his blog here.

Most probably think it will be locked just because we've attempted to have this debate many times, and it always ended in tears (at least for the mods who had to spend their time and energy cleaning up threads/infracting people, etc.). My feeling on it is that there is a distinction between unlicensed, original creations (such as custom sculpts/figures), and creating a "counterfeit" product from the original work that someone else originally created. The former is OK in my mind, while the former isn't. Sideshow itself has used the likenesses for celebrities in their GI Joe sculpts without, presumably, paying royalties for their use. Hot Toys has certainly done the same, and in their early days even had totally unlicensed figures produced, including a Neo from Matrix. So, I don't think anyone is all that innocent in this area, and at a certain point it's splitting hairs as to what is "acceptable" and isn't in that domain. Having said that, I respect the opinion of folks who think anything done that infringes on the intellectual property rights of someone else is unacceptable, and as such won't support the customs on the forum, or Hot Toys old nude Truetypes, or Sideshow's Joes, or whatever.

But taking a custom sculpt someone worked hard on, recasting it, and offering it up for sale without the artist's express permission is really low IMO. It hurts the artists who make this hobby worthwhile for many of us, including guys who work officially for Sideshow in some capacity and do this kind of work on the side as a hobby like Trevor Grove. And considering the guys who start out as custom artists often go on to work for the big boys in an official capacity (Arnie Kim, Kojun, Kato, Rainman's tailor), and help to influence these companies in terms of what they are able to put out, it's in the greater interest of all collectors that these guys be allowed to express themselves in such a way IMO.

Now that's the sort of response and discussion I was looking for!! I think I agree with most of what you said, since I don't really distinguish between officially licensed figures and custom figures either - both are unique designs created by artists/designers from scratch. They do not copy or replicate someone else's work, and that's why I admire them (despite not buying one myself yet).

 

[koolkollectibleskhai]

Perhaps it all comes down to what people think is the definition of the term "knock-off". To some, anything that is not officially licensed is a knock-off, but to me a knock-off is a copy/replica of something not created by the original artist.

 

[Pixelpiper]

Now that's the sort of response and discussion I was looking for!! I think I agree with most of what you said, since I don't really distinguish between officially licensed figures and custom figures either - both are unique designs created by artists/designers from scratch. They do not copy or replicate someone else's work, and that's why I admire them (despite not buying one myself yet).

I'm also cool with that for the most part, so long as it's not infringing on and affecting the sales of another line of like-product or items. This isn't the direction I thought you were going in, especially since the word "recast" was being thrown around.

This subject, although potentially one of licensed (or licensable) IP, is on a completely different page than "photocopying" which is what a recast is. Though I'd also put a "from scratch" knock-off or facsimile (aka counterfeit) on this same page.

 

[SAB]

Perhaps it all comes down to what people think is the definition of the term "knock-off". To some, anything that is not officially licensed is a knock-off, but to me a knock-off is a copy/replica of something not created by the original artist.

I think that is everyone's definition of a knock off.

 

[Taibhse]

Hmmm.. so, if I am following this correctly, it is ok not to pay an actor for their likeness, it is also ok not to pay a Film Studio and/or Marvel, DC, or whoever, for the intellectual property rights of the characters, peeps like.. despite those being the reasons there is a revenue stream and client base to sell these custom figures to, in the first place.
.. but it is an abomination to take a cast from another sculptor's unlicensed work.. because that is a 'knock-off'


I think that tends to create a logicality problem.. is it not a rather blatant case of extremely subjective and selective, self-interest at work?

 

[Pixelpiper]

.. but it is an abomination to take a cast from another sculptor's unlicensed work.. because that is a 'knock-off'

I don't think anyone put it like you have. For the above, licensed or unlicensed is irrelevant, a copy is copyright infringement regardless.

Creating a figure in a tuxedo and giving him some guns doesn't automatically make him James Bond.

 

[Taibhse]

I don't think anyone put it like you have. For the above, licensed or unlicensed is irrelevant, a copy is copyright infringement regardless.

Creating a figure in a tuxedo and giving him some guns doesn't automatically make him James Bond.

I take the point you are making.. although it is mightily convenient if the figure also 'happens' to look like Daniel Craig.. lets face it, you would have a much smaller market for a Tuxedo and guns custom figure, if it did not happen to look like a famous actor in a famous role.. I'm fairly certain you would not be able to sell it for $1000, for example.


it just seems to me, most of the opprobrium against 'knock-offs' only makes some logical sense, if 'counterfeit' customs are being marketed as the 'original' customs and are of a lower quality for the same or higher price... if the 'counterfeit' custom head sculpt is sold specifically as a recast, an intellectual property argument cannot apply to an unlicensed custom product, that is already ignoring someone else's intellectual property.. that would be hypocrisy, no?

 

[Pixelpiper]

Not really. One can make an original sculpture of an actor that doesn't have an association to a particular role for example. That's a copyrighted work whether or not one or more editions are sold or simply given away. Copying that work is still an infringement of the copyright.