To protect our precious sculptor : Regarding TLJ sculpt matter

[thenammagazine]

Quick questions...do any of the artists/members on here who offer custom sculpts like Marty McFly, etc., have the rights to do so? Aren't they cutting out the copyright holders?

One is not above another as far as unlicensed products go. I don't recall pedestaling an artist here. What's your point?

That doesn't entirely work in the case of TLJ as he's registered and patented by the USPTO which put his likeness out as public domain on certain products. It's like Boris Karloff, he's been made public domain. Same as the movie White Zombie and a few others, so technically they can make sculpts, but the copyright of the sculpt lies with the sculptor, so it's still against the rules to make recasts.

The likeness might be in the public, but that's not to be used for profit. So again, the artist does not have the rights to anything unless Mr. Jones, or a film company who owns his likeness rights for a role, approves of it. The artist would have no grounds for a any legal action anyway since they're not in possession of the rights to challenge the recast. If you're arguing public domain, that allows for characters, not likenesses. This is why the new Universal toys completely lack any likeness to their original stars. The Karloff figures are a poor example. Karloff's estate sues over unauthorized figures with his likeness.

 

[Doctor Who]

The likeness might be in the public, but that's not to be used for profit. So again, the artist does not have the rights to anything unless Mr. Jones, or a film company who owns his likeness rights for a role, approves of it. The Karloff figures are a poor example. Karloff's estate sues over unauthorized figures with his likeness.

Ah, my mistake on Karloff. I've got it mixed up.

 

[thenammagazine]

Ah, my mistake on Karloff. I've got it mixed up.

Again, it's not just Karloff. California has a provision that allows actors to keep their likenesses and even allows rights to revert back to them from film companies after a prolonged period of time. As I pointed out, Universal is a perfect example. Those properties may at some point go public domain, but even owned by Universal, the likeness rights are no longer valid and must also be obtained to make, say, a Monster that looks like Karloff or a Dracula that looks like Lagosi. This is why the new Universal Monster figures lack the classic likenesses.

 

[CollectorNC]

I'm not trying to judge, just saying not everyone on here has bought custom stuff, particularly heads as I am not that artistic, nor have the time, to create my own stuff.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Its the wild west out there. I definately agree that the whole process of customs is a balance of morals.

Sculpting and producing unlicensed merchandise might not be appreciated by an actor or the company holding their rights as much as a sculptor might feel betrayed at having their sculpt stolen and copied...or it might not.

Customers might be willing to buy unlicensed heads from A but not willing to buy unlicensed heads from recaster B...or they might.

Lucky for both sides this place doesn't exactly operate from a perspective of who is right or wrong in the "court of law". But it does operate in the "court of public opinion". And everyone here has an opinion.

Everyone can judge individually and pick and choose what degree of grey they support, but just know the law ain't gonna do jack ____ except put both A and B out of business.

Personally, I don't encourage sculpt stealers, but I don't really feel too sorry about it either. It is what it is.

 

[CollectorNC]

One is not above another as far as unlicensed products go. I don't recall pedestaling an artist here. What's your point?

It wasn't a point, it was a question.

 

[Doctor Who]

If you count in Nam's way of seeing things, HP did two crimes. Stole both the likeness and someone else's art.

 

[ProgMatinee]

One thing I find sort of funny is how many customizers report their income to their respective governments for tax purposes?

 

[CollectorNC]

So Grove, Rainman, etc. are all basically offering things they have no right to offer. Interesting. And SSC's, HT and the other companies that spent millions on licenses don't do anything about it?

 

[c11098]

I do bot know the law in US but the civil system in USA can not be the only guideline for what makes thing lawful. Anyways claiming someone STEAL something is a serious offend, what I see here is:

X's work has possibly been stolen by a company for profit.

At this point I have no evidence that X has been using a public figure for profit, thus, saying X has stolen something demands justification. Furthermore, logic implies 2 fault does not make 1 right. Even of X has stolen something, X still has the right to report how he/she has been deprived, the wrong doing does not cancel out X's basic right.

Aside from all the rational talk, let's be empathetic. Being an artist is always uneasy, a lot of famous paintings once paint masterpieces for food. This is how things are. One can easily be a judge claiming how someone is a sinner, but it takes a bigger man to judge by context.

 

[ProgMatinee]

So Grove, Rainman, etc. are all basically offering things they have no right to offer. Interesting. And SSC's, HT and the other companies that spent millions on licenses don't do anything about it?

What can they do? Spend $100,000s in legal to nail a handful of people?

Also, its arguable that the customs industry is beneficial to them in terms of helps them sell base bodies, etc.

These companies also have been known to actually hire people who refine their chops in the custom industry.

 

[pixletwin]

I don't think Trev offering sculpts for what he charges is quite the same as some of these guys who do work and charge an arm and a leg for it. One guy is barely profiting from it and the others are raping their customers.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I do bot know the law in US but the civil system in USA can not be the only guideline for what makes thing lawful. Anyways claiming someone STEAL something is a serious offend, what I see here is:

X's work has possibly been stolen by a company for profit.

At this point I have no evidence that X has been using a public figure for profit, thus, saying X has stolen something demands justification. Furthermore, logic implies 2 fault does not make 1 right. Even of X has stolen something, X still has the right to report how he/she has been deprived, the wrong doing does not cancel out X's basic right.

Aside from all the rational talk, let's be empathetic. Being an artist is always uneasy, a lot of famous paintings once paint masterpieces for food. This is how things are. One can easily be a judge claiming how someone is a sinner, but it takes a bigger man to judge by context.

This a good post, thanks!

I'm not sure if I agree with all of it, but I do with some at least and it gives something to think about.

 

[CollectorNC]

I don't think Trev offering sculpts for what he charges is quite the same as some of these guys who do work and charge an arm and a leg for it. One guy is barely profiting from it and the others are raping their customers.

I like his Sideshow work as I have a few pieces. But from what others have been saying, you either got the rights or license to produce stuff or you don't...

 

[pixletwin]

I like his Sideshow work as I have a few pieces. But from what others have been saying, you either got the rights or license to produce stuff or you don't...

Well they are wrong. It all goes towards intent. Some dudes sculpt just for the love of the character and want to share it. But some of these guys think of themselves as a "company-of-one" who are here to profit. If a person has been around for a while it is pretty easy to discern which are which.

 

[CollectorNC]

Well they are wrong. It all goes towards intent. Some dudes sculpt just for the love of the character and want to share it. But some of these guys think of themselves as a "company-of-one" who are here to profit. If a person has been around for a while it's is pretty easy to discern which are which.

To me, there's not really a gray area...if I am understanding this correctly. If a dude sculpts for the love of a character, has no license to do so and charges for it, what does it make him?

 

[ProgMatinee]

I like his Sideshow work as I have a few pieces. But from what others have been saying, you either got the rights or license to produce stuff or you don't...

Well they are wrong. It all goes towards intent. Some dudes sculpt just for the love of the character and want to share it. But some of these guys think of themselves as a "company-of-one" who are here to profit. If a person has been around for a while it's is pretty easy to discern which are which.

This goes back to the difference between judging things from a legal perspective vs a moral, ethical, or (not sure how else to put it) opinionated perspecitve.

The law wouldn't really care how much someone was profitting by something. A drug dealer isn't off the hook if he sold it at cost...

But here in the forums, its all opinions. Everyone is right to have one and act according to it.

 

[yruh8n]

I don't think Trev offering sculpts for what he charges is quite the same as some of these guys who do work and charge an arm and a leg for it. One guy is barely profiting from it and the others are raping their customers.

He probably doesn't charge as much because he is making a high five or maybe even six figure income from Sideshow. Some artist who do customs are trying to suppliment their income or just to survive.

 

[SwedishHeat]

Ahhh, the rationalizing sure is fun, isn't it??

I just chuckle at the idea of "let's protect THIS guy who does illegal stuff, but not THAT guy who does illegal stuff, because THAT guy copied THIS guy's work".

Drawing the line at a moral imperative while ignoring the legalities of the situation seems rather silly to me.

 

[CollectorNC]

This goes back to the difference between judging things from a legal perspective or a moral one.

The law wouldn't really care how much someone was profitting by something. A drug dealer isn't off the hook if he sold it at cost...

But here in the forums, its all opinions. Everyone is right to have one and act according to it.

Really? So I can go out and start writing Star Wars books and sell them and the law isn't going to look at them as copyright infringement?