To protect our precious sculptor : Regarding TLJ sculpt matter

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Well, man, I work in the legal field, so I value the legality of things. It's like all the people that download music or movies and then justify it by saying CD and movie prices are too high for the value you get or some justify it as "sampling" it to see if they want to buy it. One thing I've learned is many people find all kinds of ways to justify questionable or wrong behavior in all areas. I'm not trying to preach or play judge/jury on others. I'm just saying to me it's simple...you either have the blessing/license of a company to produce a product or you don't. Nam got me concerned about HT's with some of his comments, so being still new on here, I was curious. But no, I would not buy as I wouldn't give into my desires for an item if there was something potentially illegal about it...
 
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?

Essentially yes, but it'd have to be different. If he made the same item, it would no longer be a one-off, now would it? :lol
 
Well, man, I work in the legal field, so I value the legality of things. It's like all the people that download music or movies and then justify it by saying CD and movie prices are too high for the value you get or some justify it as "sampling" it to see if they want to buy it. One thing I've learned is many people find all kinds of ways to justify questionable or wrong behavior in all areas. I'm not trying to preach or play judge/jury on others. I'm just saying to me it's simple...you either have the blessing/license of a company to produce a product or you don't. Nam got me concerned about HT's with some of his comments, so being still new on here, I was curious. But no, I would not buy as I wouldn't give into my desires for an item if there was something potentially illegal about it...

For me, each law that I follow or choose not to follow I have made a conscious choice on that law and follow it not because someone told me it was a law, but because myself I value that belief...and/or I am scared as piss to break it and get thrown in jail.

I think if all people in society only follow all laws for the sole purpose of following all laws, well that really opens society up for bad stuff.

Not saying that this particular law is that heavy :lol, but just kinda scary thinking about "I follow the law because its a law." :monkey1
 
judge_dredd_19875.jpg
 
Essentially yes, but it'd have to be different. If he made the same item, it would no longer be a one-off, now would it? :lol

Yeah but "make the same item" twice is an oxymoron, quantumphysically its impossible :lol. To what extent I guess does "reproduction" break the law? Automated reproduction? Casting items? What if he from scratch sculpted something and it happened to look the same as the last. Is that "reproduction" or an independant item?
 
In 1966, the Louis Marx co. (makers of Best of the West) sought to produce a James West (The Wild Wild West, CBS televison) figure with the likeness of its star Robert Conrad. They sculpted a "Conrad" head and a body molded in the costume that he wore as James West. However they were unable to get the licensing. What did they do ?
They put the head on a cavalry uniformed moded plastic body and called the figure "Captain Maddox", Then they put a "Sir Stewart-The Silver Knight" head on the molded James West costumed body and called it Sam Cobra- Villian.
Over the years after the 1/6 toy industry died, the Conrad head has probably been recast more times then any other 1/6 head. I've seen it sold as Conrad, Ive seen it with beards, mustaches, bald heads and even as Nick Fury S.H.I.E.L.D. and Sgt Rock.
Of course most of this occured after Marx stopped producing it's Capt Maddox figs.
Never seems to have been much of a problem, but how many thieves can you count in this story ?
 
Yeah but "make the same item" twice is an oxymoron, quantumphysically its impossible :lol. To what extent I guess does "reproduction" break the law? Automated reproduction? Casting items? What if he from scratch sculpted something and it happened to look the same as the last. Is that "reproduction" or an independant item?

Reproduction essentially implies reproducing an item already made. I'd imagine if you could stand them side by side and they weren't significantly different, if the lawyer was ____, said artist would be in trouble.
 
For me, each law that I follow or choose not to follow I have made a conscious choice on that law and follow it not because someone told me it was a law, but because myself I value that belief...and/or I am scared as piss to break it and get thrown in jail.

I think if all people in society only follow all laws for the sole purpose of following all laws, well that really opens society up for bad stuff.

Not saying that this particular law is that heavy :lol, but just kinda scary thinking about "I follow the law because its a law." :monkey1

Laws are kinda there to prevent the bad stuff.
 
Laws are kinda there to prevent the bad stuff.

Obviously. I'm sure you knew what I meant though. Laws are normally created because society deems them necessary. Once you get to the point where society deems a specific law necessary for no other reason than some congregation of politicos, religious zealots, vocal minorities, groups with agendas, or worse an individual with enough power, deems it necessary (and has a voter bloc pass it) then the "bad stuff" that will come down is a lot worse than what that law was intended to prevent.

Do you trust everyone who proposed a law and says its to keep "bad stuff" from happening to you?

And on the other extreme, would something be right simply because there was no law against it?
 
Obviously. I'm sure you knew what I meant though. Laws are normally created because society deems them necessary. Once you get to the point where society deems a specific law necessary for no other reason than some congregation of politicos or worse an individual with enough power deems it necessary, then the "bad stuff" that will come down is a lot worse than what that law was intended to prevent.

Do you trust everyone who proposed a law and says its to keep "bad stuff" from happening to you?

No man, but I don't question laws that make sense.
 
No man, but I don't question laws that make sense.

Everyone has a different opinion...and that's the point of democracy and from there, that's the point of individual risk when making a conscious decision to go against the majority.
 
Nam got me concerned about HT's with some of his comments, so being still new on here, I was curious. But no, I would not buy as I wouldn't give into my desires for an item if there was something potentially illegal about it...

Just in case it wasn't answered, the Nick Cage head on GR is licensed. Although back in the day HT did start out releasing unlicensed figures as part of their "Famous Type" series.. decent figures for the time, but definitely bootleg.

Currently their TrueType bodies that are sold individually will have "look alike" head sculpts; I think this is what Nam was referring to.

And this is a common practice among 1/6 companies, they will release nudes or even non-film characters (like a WWII soldier) with a famous actors likeness.
 
It doesn't matter if you commission 1 or 1000, if it's not done with consent from the likenesses owner, you could be on shaky ground.
I personally buy customs, so I'm not trying to Be a hypocrit. Just presenting legal fact into this discussion.

Only human beings, and not corporations or other organizations, have rights of publicity and privacy interests that can be invaded by misappropriation of name or likeness. Thus, only individuals can sue for unlawful use of name or likeness, unless a human being has transferred his or her rights to an organization. Note that companies may sue you for trademark infringement and unfair competition if you exploit their brand names for commercial purposes. See the Trademark section for details.

In some states, celebrities cannot sue for misappropriation of name and likeness (on the theory that they have no privacy interest to protect), and non-celebrities may not sue for violation of the right of publicity (on the theory that their personalities have no commercial value). The growing trend, however, is to permit both celebrities and non-celebrities two sue for both misappropriation and violation of the right of publicity, as long as they can establish the relevant kind of harm.

You cannot invade the privacy of a dead person, so you generally cannot be sued for misappropriation of the name or likeness of a dead person, unless the misappropriation took place before the person in question died. However, in many states the right of publicity survives after death, so you could be sued for violating the publicity rights of a dead person. This is most likely to come up with dead celebrities.

Elements of a Claim for Unlawful Use of Name or Likeness

A plaintiff must establish three elements to hold someone liable for unlawful use of name or likeness:

1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.

2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.

3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.
 
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.

Well I am blown away that people are such slavishly defenders of laws ripe with corruption. Copyright infringement was for a long time a civil infraction only, with monetary damages linked to demonstrable harm. In the last two decades powerful monied interests like Disney began to use massive lobbying effort to extend copyright to unprecedented lengths and even more shockingly to make it a criminal offence.

It is a classic case of democracy for sale to business interests and yet it is the libertarians types that get the most ardent in their defence of the law, calling people thieves, etc. As usual it shows libertarians to be hypocrites that revile civic government, but in my experience meekly demure to religious, police-military and/or corporate power. The U.S. has in turn pressured most other developed nations into compliance of course.

I have no problem with a civil system that requires a likeness or licence holder to actually make a claim, meaning they feel harmed enough to make the effort. Most people are reasonable and even an A-list star is unlikely to get in a stink about a small-scale artist. In fact many stars seem to be pleased or impressed when people show of their custom figures to them at conventions. The cast of Firefly comes to mind as a specific example I have seen.
 
This is one of the few threads I've come across on SSF that makes me feel smarter for having read it.
 
As a customizer who's wrestled with the legal, and ethical, aspects of customizing, I'd like to chime in here.

Legally, any of us who have sold/bought unlicensed items is on shaky ground. The process can involve cease and desist letters, but usually, we're making so little money, it makes little sense for the property owners to put their legal team on prosecuting, or even, as I've learned, on legally selling the licenses in the first place! I've written letters and left messages seeking to legally acquire a license, only to not hear any response or be told negotiating with me was not worth their time.

At which point, I was forced to navigate the spirit of the law, if not the law itself. The spirit of the law, of course, is to protect the owner of the license so that I would not be making money that they were entitled to, and were themselves, trying to make. Every bootlegged song, for example, is a bit of money that would otherwise have gone into the rightful music owner's pockets.

But when I contact Universal to inquire about acquiring the license to make/sell 1/6 scale Russell Crowe Gladiator figures, and don't hear anything back, or am told that I'm too small for them to concern themselves with... then it can be argued that my making/selling that figure is not taking money from their income stream as they have chosen not to produce them. In fact, it could even be argued that my activity was stimulating interest in their property, potentially even inducing people to order it on PPV or buying it on DVD again, once they bought my figure... (I've gone back to watch certain horror movies, for example, that I hadn't seen before, because I'd seen some awesome custom figures of characters from those films.) Therefore, I've made/sold Gladiator figures, Marty McFly figures, and others, because there is NO mass-produced/licenses figure available for purchase. I do not make any characters that are already made/licensed/sold in 1:6 form. It's my own personal ethic. It's clearly not a law, but it makes sense to me. I no longer sell my Chris Reeve Superman b/c HT has laid legal claim to that realm and I respect it. And until someone licenses Gladiator or Braveheart, I just might help those who want one acquire one by making them...

Now, if someone else wants to find their niche in this "gray" area, they're welcome to. In fact, I actually really like seeing other artists' renditions of characters I've already made. We're on the same questionable legal ground, and ethically, we've stepped on no ones' toes, nor on each other's.

But if someone sells knock-offs of MY SCULPT, casting them poorly, and selling them at a lower price point to undercut me, I consider that a breach of ethics. (It's also a breach of law of course, but heck, what I was already doing was already a breach, and we all know that already.)
Where I was very careful not to encroach on anyone's income stream (legal or not), they did not exercise the same respect.

I do NOT think it is hypocritical to acknowledge the illegality of it all, yet cry foul when a fellow artist is being ripped off. If you want to make money selling a bootleg sculpt, then sculpt one yourself and sell it and put yourself on equal footing. But to sell recasts of someone else's hard work... that's just not cool.
 
Great post Dan, and you made an important distinction (which may have already been made, didn't read the entire thread); ethics vs law.
 
These companies also have been known to actually hire people who refine their chops in the custom industry.

That's true. Kojun was a customizer and isn't Harue HT's main tailor or something? He use to take commissions back in the day before HT and he use to make unlicensed stuff like those RE1 Alice outfits. I know of other customizers that sold unlicensed products that got into a company like Toybiz.

Hell, people who do more drastic things than customs get hired for jobs. That one dude who managed to hack the PS3 and really pissed off Sony ended up being hired by Sony.
 
Well I am blown away that people are such slavishly defenders of laws ripe with corruption. Copyright infringement was for a long time a civil infraction only, with monetary damages linked to demonstrable harm. In the last two decades powerful monied interests like Disney began to use massive lobbying effort to extend copyright to unprecedented lengths and even more shockingly to make it a criminal offence.

It is a classic case of democracy for sale to business interests and yet it is the libertarians types that get the most ardent in their defence of the law, calling people thieves, etc. As usual it shows libertarians to be hypocrites that revile civic government, but in my experience meekly demure to religious, police-military and/or corporate power. The U.S. has in turn pressured most other developed nations into compliance of course.

I have no problem with a civil system that requires a likeness or licence holder to actually make a claim, meaning they feel harmed enough to make the effort. Most people are reasonable and even an A-list star is unlikely to get in a stink about a small-scale artist. In fact many stars seem to be pleased or impressed when people show of their custom figures to them at conventions. The cast of Firefly comes to mind as a specific example I have seen.

When you're done tree-hugging, and making bull____ generalizations about law, look at the bottom line. If you were making money off your face or paying someone to make money off of theirs, how would you feel if someone dipped into your pockets?

Something else to consider. No laws = no equal rights. You'd have no place at the computer discussing your opinion with men, you wouldn't be allowed to own property, much less, even vote. You'd have no right to seek justice for rape, etc. Your husband or father would have to do so because you'd basically be their property. So ponder that the next time you encourage anarchy.

I do NOT think it is hypocritical to acknowledge the illegality of it all, yet cry foul when a fellow artist is being ripped off. If you want to make money selling a bootleg sculpt, then sculpt one yourself and sell it and put yourself on equal footing. But to sell recasts of someone else's hard work... that's just not cool.

That POV is biased and entirely hypocritical. Just because there's a bit of craftsmanship involved by the artist doesn't absolve him of the fact that he's also, basically a thief. A thief is a thief. The sculptor is a thief, essentially stealing food out of the mouths of the people whose likeness/rights he/she is infringing upon. The recaster would just be simply stealing the food from the thief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top