To protect our precious sculptor : Regarding TLJ sculpt matter

[ProgMatinee]

They're both equal morally, IMO.

The difference is that the licensed seller has legality backing him up if he wanted. The unlicensed seller has to use public opinion to lynch the recaster.

 

[thenammagazine]

I think it's derailing here. We're talking about HP recasting existing sculpts and not licensing and who made what. What does for example Trev's Marty sculpt not being made by a company have to do with HP recasting?

No, you're essentially derailing the topic by pulling in other artists and companies. The OP started this thread to protect a sculptor who, for all intents and purposes is illegally sculpting Tommy Lee Jones, from a recaster who is recasting the illegal sculpt with slight modifications. Likeness rights play a very important part in this issue. The TLJ sculpt is unlicensed and therefore, the sculptor has no rights over the sculpt if it's being recast. In a court of law, there wouldn't be a winner amongst essentially two thieves as one is not any better, nor worse, than the other. It's like calling the cops when someone steals your cocaine. Look how well that worked out for Boy George.

 

[karamazov80]

This stuff is very tricky and I'm not entirely sure where I draw that line between acceptable and unacceptable. Though I sympathize with Nam's argument, I also think it is bad form to steal another guy's custom and to profit from it. Even if both are equally wrong from a potential legal standpoint, that's not the issue the OP is bringing up. It is just about what is an acceptable form of behavior on this board as determined by the boardies, and legal/moral/whatever rights go into that equation. As do social mores within the customizer community. As does the fear from the custom collector's perspective, that companies like Headplay could have on the willingness/interest of great sculptors to create and sell great custom sculpts. If Trevor Grove's Mal sculpt got treated this way, and Grove decided not to sell his customs anymore on the board, I think many of us agree that that would suck.

But at the end of the day, both sides have some merit IMO, depending on your criteria for rightness and wrongness.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

I've argued the hypocrisy of the situation, but that doesn't mean I don't think recasting is shady. One should always attempt to get a sculpt from the original artist if at all possible. It just bugs me when people get on their soapboxes about this stuff, when this entire hobby is essentially about dealing under the table.

 

[SwedishHeat]

If Trevor Grove's Mal sculpt got treated this way, and Grove decided not to sell his customs anymore on the board, I think many of us agree that that would suck.

I'm just waiting for the Brothers Production 'Miami Killer'.

 

[thenammagazine]

I've argued the hypocrisy of the situation, but that doesn't mean I don't think recasting is shady. One should always attempt to get a sculpt from the original artist if at all possible. It just bugs me when people get on their soapboxes about this stuff, when this entire hobby is essentially about dealing under the table.

Exactly. A thief pointing fingers and calling another thief a thief is ironic, at best.

 

[Doctor Who]

No, you're essentially derailing the topic by pulling in other artists and companies. The OP started this thread to protect a sculptor who, for all intents and purposes is illegally sculpting Tommy Lee Jones, from a recaster who is recasting the illegal sculpt with slight modifications. Likeness rights play a very important part in this issue. The TLJ sculpt is unlicensed and therefore, the sculptor has no rights over the sculpt if it's being recast. In a court of law, there wouldn't be a winner amongst essentially two thieves as one is not any better, nor worse, than the other. It's like calling the cops when someone steals your cocaine. Look how well that worked out for Boy George.

There was another thread on that matter. Not my fault it died down.

 

[galactiboy]

At the end of the day each customer must decide what they feel comfortable purchasing/supporting.

As has been said none of these items are licensed, but at the same time I do think there is a difference between creating your own unique sculpture and selling it versus recasting someone else's work and selling it.

 

[thenammagazine]

I think the only difference between the two people in question here is that one is a forum local with more fanboys than the other. People are either blatantly fainting naivete or purposely ignoring the legalities of the situation.

At the end of the day each customer must decide what they feel comfortable purchasing/supporting.

As has been said none of these items are licensed, but at the same time I do think there is a difference between creating your own unique sculpture and selling it versus recasting someone else's work and selling it.

Subjective. What about the artists who worked their ***** off to come up with appliance designs, costume designs, etc, or the people who commissioned them at a high dollar to do so, and paid photographers to take the pics being used for reference? They're being stolen by the sculptors copying off of their hard work and money spent for profit without fair compensation.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I think the only difference between the two people in question here is that one is a forum local with more fanboys than the other. People are either blatantly fainting naivete or purposely ignoring the legalities of the situation.



Subjective. What about the artists who worked their ***** off to come up with appliance designs, costume designs, etc, or the people who commissioned them at a high dollar to do so? They're being stolen by the sculptors copying off of their hard work and money spent for profit without fair compensation.

Thats why I say its the wild west. Sure there are laws, but who's enforcing it? Everyone is left to their own opinions and decisions about buying unlicensed product. Buying something illegal is also typically illegal too right? So most of us are hypocrits if you consider that hypocracy.

 

[galactiboy]

Subjective. What about the artists who worked their ***** off to come up with appliance designs, costume designs, etc, or the people who commissioned them at a high dollar to do so? They're being stolen by the sculptors copying off of their hard work and money spent for profit without fair compensation.

It is, that is why I indicated my feeling... versus my fact

My comfort level is in giving money to the originator of the work, be it licensed or unlicensed. Many figures I've wanted in the past were not available so I pay for a head and maybe some accessories to make that happen. More recently I've bought full figures for a similar reason.

And I feel comfortable paying the artist who did the work. But I would not feel comfortable paying for a recast of Trevor's or Spenser's work.

As was said this is subjective; to that end I think it is important for all of us to be aware of what products are what and where the originate from so we can make informed decisions about what we buy/support and don't.

 

[thenammagazine]

Thats why I say its the wild west. Sure there are laws, but who's enforcing it? Everyone is left to their own opinions and decisions about buying unlicensed product. Buying something illegal is also typically illegal too right?

The law enforces it. Just a few years back, Arnold sued over a Governator doll made of him. The guy tried to play it off as a parody, like the bobbleheads, but it didn't work and he lost. So it's up to those who actually have the licenses and the property to protect. It's the thief jumping up on a soapbox and calling another thief a thief that I take exception to.

 

[karamazov80]

To Prog's point, there are shades of gray even in that department of buying customs. If you buy an unlicensed KO of the HT Wolverine without knowing, are you doing wrong by some standard or law? Do you have to factor motive into this? What about creating a figure with a certain likeness as parody, or claiming that a likeness is coincidental? In the eyes of the law, this is not always cut and dry. From a moral perspective, if there's no real profit being made, would it be more acceptable? Like GB says, subjectivity is inherent to all of this.

 

[CollectorNC]

I think the only difference between the two people in question here is that one is a forum local with more fanboys than the other. People are either blatantly fainting naivete or purposely ignoring the legalities of the situation.



Subjective. What about the artists who worked their ***** off to come up with appliance designs, costume designs, etc, or the people who commissioned them at a high dollar to do so, and paid photographers to take the pics being used for reference? They're being stolen by the sculptors copying off of their hard work and money spent for profit without fair compensation.

I'm kinda blown away with anyone that can't see this as black/white. I contemplated buying some custom figures at one time, but then I was like, wait a minute...these people haven't gone through any official channels that companies have gone through to get official licenses.

Should I assume from your comments on HT's that my Ghost Rider 1/6th is perhaps licensed for the character of GR, but not the Nicholas Cage head?

 

[ProgMatinee]

I guess to Nam's point, there is no law against jumping on a soapbox and being a hypocrit. The only reprocussion is you have other people jump on their soapboxes against you.

We're all just floating in a nebula of personal opinion and subjectivity and morals. And thats ok. There are bigger fish for the government anyway.

We're down to the somewhere between community policing itself through public opinion and chastising...or for people to just say "whatever" and mind their own business. In that respect its good these conversations come up from time to time to see where others are.

 

[karamazov80]

^^ Good posting

 

[ProgMatinee]

I'm kinda blown away with anyone that can't see this as black/white. I contemplated buying some custom figures at one time, but then I was like, wait a minute...these people haven't gone through any official channels that companies have gone through to get official licenses.

Out of curiousity, if given the chance to affordably and hassle free, buy an awesome but unlicensed product that you wanted, you would pass because of trademark law or your own morality? Interesting. I respect that, but I guess deep down I don't value that particular law to be stronger than my desire for the item.

What keeps me from buying customs is the price and the hassle and risk of being ripped off.

 

[Lee in MI]

You're only a hypocrite if you buy, produce, and manufacture these custom items for a profit and then turn around and condemn someone else for doing so...case in point.

It's not really a question of morality but more of legality and the thieft of intellectual property. Now personally, one might "feel" better about buying a sculpt that was produced by a particular sculptor but they have no right to produce an item from a license without permission for a profit no more than someone recasting Adam's Wayne head, for example, for a profit. The difference only lies in the fact that a particular sculptor can defend himself and has supporters to defend them here on the board but C. Bale, WBs & DC has no such defenders so it "feels" like a victimless crime.

Bottom line, it is a crime...considerably a minor one but as the profit margins for said items grows, that offense does so as well.

I, for one, do buy customs, modifications and such. I have not intentionally purchased any direct knock offs but I can't say that there's really a difference between the two.

I mean really, how many guys bought the Art:Saves figure? That was a knock off, right?!?! So I guess I have intentionally bought one!

I think Nam is accurate in his position from a legal point of view.
Just my $.02

 

[thenammagazine]

To Prog's point, there are shades of gray even in that department of buying customs. If you buy an unlicensed KO of the HT Wolverine without knowing, are you doing wrong by some standard or law? Do you have to factor motive into this? What about creating a figure with a certain likeness as parody, or claiming that a likeness is coincidental? In the eyes of the law, this is not always cut and dry. From a moral perspective, if there's no real profit being made, would it be more acceptable? Like GB says, subjectivity is inherent to all of this.

Legally, anybody can commission a single piece of an actor, character, etc., from an artist so long as it's a one-off piece. This doesn't mean a piece for the commissioner and a piece for the artist. Just a single piece period.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Interesting. So technically if the artist was commissioned a second time to make the same item he should start from scratch, or at least change the item so that its not a multiple?