Without paying the actor for a license to use their likeness?.. seems to me that being indignant about 'copyright' under those circumstances is rather disingenuous, there is a reason the 'copyright' head sculpt is not of your old school's janitor, no?
The Big Debate - "Originals vs Recasts (Knock-Offs)"
- Thread starter koolkollectibleskhai
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Without paying the actor for a license to use their likeness?.. seems to me that being indignant about 'copyright' under those circumstances is rather disingenuous, there is a reason the 'copyright' head sculpt is not of your old school's janitor, no?
To me they are separate categories of description.
'knock off' refers to copying an already existing product.
Unlicensed products that are original creations of a known entity (be it film, NBA, etc...) I'd call 'unlicensed' or 'unofficial' ...but they're not knocking off a product already out there for sale.
I'm just talking definitions, not making a judgement on which is worse.
I do find it funny when people get uppity about knock offs of unlicensed products
To me they are separate categories of description.
'knock off' refers to copying an already existing product.
Unlicensed products that are original creations of a known entity (be it film, NBA, etc...) I'd call 'unlicensed' or 'unofficial' ...but they're not knocking off a product already out there for sale.
I'm just talking definitions, not making a judgement on which is worse.
I do find it funny when people get uppity about knock offs of unlicensed products
Agreed and this especially.
Agreed as well.
Depends. If it's a modification of something that is substantial, such as the BW head sculpts that were cut down to shape and then cast for the DX12 head, I always reckon that's OK. There's been a lot of altering/change to the product.
A straight recast of any item, wither licensed/bootleg should be frowned upon (it's profiting from someone elses work), and I am always a bit shocked by how easily and freely people on this forum will casually talk about buying recasts from ebay.
I have zero problems with bootleg runs of characters BTW. Capitalism in its purest form at work.
A straight recast of any item, wither licensed/bootleg should be frowned upon (it's profiting from someone elses work), and I am always a bit shocked by how easily and freely people on this forum will casually talk about buying recasts from ebay.
I have zero problems with bootleg runs of characters BTW. Capitalism in its purest form at work.
..'commercial' copyright/intellectual property doesn't matter, but rugged, artistic, anarcho-individualist's copyright/intellectual property is sacrosanct?
Pixelpiper
Super Freak
Here is where you're making a big assumption. Take a look at the various laws regarding likeness rights. They vary considerably state to state and country to country, but you will find that in many cases there are far reaching exceptions to protect artistic freedoms - and other exceptions that may protect certain kinds of creations specifically.
The concept of original works is where the murkiness part of the subject of this thread exists, but I till don't like the fact the word "recast" is used in its title and now it's apparent that conversation (not ours about likenesses) has crossed the line everyone assumed it would initially.
koolkollectibleskhai
Super Freak
Here's Part Two of my opinion on the recent debate around recasts/knock-offs. To close it out, I talk about third party companies and custom designers, and that grey area touched on by Pixelpiper above.
https://www.koolkollectibles.net/2014/09/the-big-debate-originals-vs-recasts_2.html
Hope you can all have a read, and let me know your own opinion on the big debate in this thread here
https://www.koolkollectibles.net/2014/09/the-big-debate-originals-vs-recasts_2.html
Hope you can all have a read, and let me know your own opinion on the big debate in this thread here
What i have always found odd, is that some will say copyright infringement and re-casting are a bad thing, yet they'll go buy one of the dozens of unofficial figures made by brothers production, kumik, art figures, DID,etc.. without a problem. And not to mention the hundreds of un-licensed sculpts that are sold on the boards by sculptors. Some will say that a rec-casting is stealing from the artist, and i can see where this makes some sense, but in the end its stealing from someone thats basically stealing.
Pixelpiper
Super Freak
They're completely different subjects, completely different laws, etc. It's sort of like comparing apples to Fords. Not even in the same family.
How so? If someone thats SUPPOSED to be making money is NOT, while someone else is profiting, its the same thing.
Pixelpiper
Super Freak
You're making flawed assumptions. Please consult the relevant laws if you need reference for a particular jurisdiction. I've already mentioned that they're different subjects, one is copyright the other isn't. That they're different laws, copyright law and likeness rights.
Are murder and drug possession and computer hacking and speeding and parking infractions the same thing? Forget severity, they're also completely different in subject matter and laws. They don't overlap at all.
Also keep in mind that some laws are national/federal, while others are more local, such as state or municipal, with potentially very different conditions/tests.
In the examples you gave, is the law being broken or not? Its simple no?
THere never was much of a debate. More like some people who insist on being *******s and those who call them out on it. 
LMAOOO.. to the heart of the matter! I agree., although I dont see the harm in having a conversation on the subject, its great to see others opinions. While i might see the production of unlicensed figures as hazy compared to licensed figs, I dont buy recasts of sculpts for one simple reason. It takes the money out of the pockets of artists.THere never was much of a debate. More like some people who insist on being *******s and those who call them out on it.
Last edited:
j97e1
Super Freak
I am not really clear on the difference between recasts and bootleg/customs of a licensed product.
For example - I assume Sideshow or Hot toys pay for the right to produce Star Wars figures. So - If someone recasts armor parts, copy soft goods patterns, etc, and makes a figure, that's not ok, but if someone sculpts custom armor or makes custom goods, and makes a Star Wars figure or statue to sell, without paying for the rights, that's ok?
For example - I assume Sideshow or Hot toys pay for the right to produce Star Wars figures. So - If someone recasts armor parts, copy soft goods patterns, etc, and makes a figure, that's not ok, but if someone sculpts custom armor or makes custom goods, and makes a Star Wars figure or statue to sell, without paying for the rights, that's ok?
I might be wrong, but It seems that some think that if its a licensed product and its "bootlegged" in any way its wrong.
If its a product that IS NOT licensed, then its OK (i.e. custom figs, sculpts, produced figs that have a "coincidental" appearance to movie characters/actors)
Legally, i suppose, there is a difference??
j97e1
Super Freak
I am not sure, that's why I'm asking about it. Not making an argument for or against bootlegs/customs/recasts.
Pixelpiper
Super Freak
No, it's not that simple. In the case of copyright infringement it may be visibly more clear-cut. In terms of likeness rights, there may or may not be a law, there may or may not be an exclusion to such a law, the laws are all different in different places, there may be no law being broken, etc. BTW, also "the law" is not a single thing, so "breaking 'the law'" is one of those clichéd phrases that really has no bearing on a discussion unless it's about one very specific law - and even then, it's up to a court to decide if the law has been broken and the offending party found guilty.
I produce and sell goods and services that fall under intellectual property for a living and like to know a bit about these things in case I find the need to take someone to court. There's not one law, not one set of like-laws that covers everything I do, let alone the very different subject matters being discussed here. So instead of just replying with another one-liner, how about going out and actually reading up on the laws in your area? And then maybe other areas if you're interested in. Seems like no one wants to do any kind of research any more.
Last edited:
Pixelpiper
Super Freak
Yeah, you're wrong - I don't know how many times that needs to be said.
You keep trying to frame the conversation by your own assumptions instead of what people are actually saying. So for starters you've jumped into a conversation and completely misunderstood the subject, misrepresenting what others believe and are writing. Then instead of taking the time to actually read everything again carefully and ask for clarification about what you don't understand, you're pointing fingers. Lastly, in terms of legality, you don't have any of the basics covered and also don't want to take any time to research and find out what the differences are for everything that's being discussed.
Similar threads
