To protect our precious sculptor : Regarding TLJ sculpt matter

[ProgMatinee]

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.

Man you really read that way more extremist than I did. I think Star Puff's point when taken moderately is right on. MANY laws (obviously not all) are clearly developed by lobbyists and interest groups...otherwise why would they (lobbyists) exist? To acknowledge that is hardly calling for anarchy.

 

[Star Puffs]

When you're done tree-hugging...

I will still be hugging trees when me rotting corpse is fertilising them.

Something else to consider. 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.

Wha? So now I am encouraging "anarchy" because a) I appreciate a distinction between the law and ethics and b) I do not feel powerful monied interests should be able to dictate the law in a democracy?

No laws = no equal rights.

Did it no occur to you that all of the inequality I would have faced historically as a woman in civilised societies has been enforced as a matter of law? It has been a long time since women were oppressed in literate cultures purely by a might-makes-right anarchical ethos. Even under the Taliban, for example, they clearly use a codified laws as the platform from which to launch their brutal repression. SO the the law can just as easily equal no rights.

***

So 'Nam answer me this, is MarfMaster's signature just a celebration of a "thief" with five brilliant examples of "stealing"?

 

[dchung]

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.



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.

You're damn right it's biased. It comes from years of personal investment in the hobby. As for hypocritical, it's not. Read my post again. I'm not speaking to the legality of it, but rather the ethics of it. I am NOT myself guilty of what I do not condone. If I were, THAT would by hypocritical. But I'm not, so it isn't.

"A thief is a thief" is an oversimplification, especially when you consider issues other than legality. A guy "stealing" a bomb from a would-be terrorist is not the same as a guy carjacking someone for a joyride. The real world is more complex than just black/white. Intention, purpose, method, result... all matter. I seek carefully to avoid infringing on someone's rightful income stream. The recaster I describe does not. The difference isn't in the legality, but in the ethics.

" 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."
Really? What "food" from someone's mouth has the sculptor stolen? I made it very clear that the sculptor sculpts only works which would not otherwise exist, and that there is NO infringing upon anyone else's income stream... The same can NOT be said of the recaster I describe.

 

[toylion]

Did Rainman get permission to do Clint Eastwood, Dexter, Willy Wonka or any of the other Sculpts he has made?

 

[dchung]

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 most intelligent posts I've ever read on this board.

 

[dchung]

Great post Dan, and you made an important distinction (which may have already been made, didn't read the entire thread); ethics vs law.

Thanks, Dane. We all know that looking at the legal aspects doesn't get us out of this quagmire. But considering even the simplest ethical considerations makes the matter quite clear. At least for me. Cheers.

 

[Laney74]

In the end it is ethics vs legality

Unfortunately their are also plenty of laws in place around moral rights, so either way we are all basically screwed... now who can I get to do an Al Bundy custom

 

[thenammagazine]

In the end it is ethics vs legality

Unfortunately their are also plenty of laws in place around moral rights, so either way we are all basically screwed... now who can I get to do an Al Bundy custom

It's not ethics vs. legality. It's flawed morals. If you think it is, then those ethics are flawed. A thief isn't suddenly better than another thief because they put a bit more work into the theft. In this case ethics should align with legality as both the artist and recaster are stealing. dchung's suckass comparison of a terrorist and a carjacker was laughably inaccurate at best. The proper comparison would be a terrorist stealing a bomb from another terrorist who made one. Painting one's self in a positive light because they're guilty of a crime to demonize someone who's guilty of the same crime is entirely and absolutely hypocritical at it's very foundation. It's not somehow different because they put a few days into producing something from a license they basically stole.

I don't want this to spin out of hand into an "I hate customizers" deal. I don't. My point is about the whole hypocrisy going on here with people who both sculpt unlicensed sculpts and/or buy unlicensed sculpts from artists dragging Headplay down because they're speculating that HP is recasting ILLEGAL sculpts.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Hypocrisy has to be a like for like comparison, a do as I say not as I do thing. The two activities may be on a same plane to someone ethically or morally...but they aren't exactly the same. So its not "hypocrisy" as such.

If I say I don't buy a cat and I buy a dog, that's not hypocrisy. If I say don't buy dogs and buy a dog. That is hypocrisy.

Here some are saying making unlicensed items are ok to them but recasting one is not. These are two different things, so I would use a different term than hypocrisy.

 

[toylion]

Hypocrisy has to be a like for like comparison, a do as I say not as I do thing. The two activities may be on a same plane to someone ethically or morally...but they aren't exactly the same. So its not "hypocrisy" as such.

If I say I don't buy a cat and I buy a dog, that's not hypocrisy. If I say don't buy dogs and buy a dog. That is hypocrisy.

Here some are saying making unlicensed items are ok to them but recasting one is not. These are two different things, so I would use a different term than hypocrisy.

 

[Star Puffs]

This is one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read on this board.

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

I actually intended to compliment your own post. I am shocked that people are so callous to the fact that the original artists like you create their sculpts with great effort and skill and that a recaster does nothing even remotely comparable.

You also illustrate how it is simply not practical for any small-scale artist to licence a major property even if they try. A reasonable rule of thumb would probably be that anyone not selling the doll on a wholesale-retail basis is not going to do a volume of business that represents a material concern for the licence holder.

 

[toyadventurer]

I see some of the usual characters have shown up again. That must mean there is a pissing contest going on.

 

[dano669]

Its funny to me how the person who started this thread and the person he is defending are probably the biggest money makers and producers of unauthorized figures and apparel.

You cant cry foul when one unauthorized artist produces something and then another unauthorized artist bootlegs your bootlegs.

That is straight up hypocrisy.

Both Kato and rainman know their stuff is unauthorized.
They charge a pretty penny and pay no licensing fees of any kind, which is stealing from the artist and the company that owns the rights no matter how you look at it.

Then cry foul when some steals their stolen work

good on ya guys.

I'm glad I cant afford your prices

 

[dano669]

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.

I actually intended to compliment your own post. I am shocked that people are so callous to the fact that the original artists like you create their sculpts with great effort and skill and that a recaster does nothing even remotely comparable.

You also illustrate how it is simply not practical for any small-scale artist to licence a major property even if they try. A reasonable rule of thumb would probably be that anyone not selling the doll on a wholesale-retail basis is not going to do a volume of business that represents a material concern for the licence holder.

If they want to produce authorized stuff why not get a job with the company's that can afford the rights.

Why, because then they wouldn't be able to bag their insane profits.

If they want to make toys why not come up with something that is theirs and original.

Yes they are artists, but so are the people who created the characters they're using.

What about their artistic rights.

This is why we have copyright laws so you cant just take what someone else created or use a persons likeness.

People say why aren't the companies doing anything to stop them.

Because they're in China and China has no copyright laws.
that's why

 

[Cheungkinmen]

Its funny to me how the person who started this thread and the person he is defending are probably the biggest money makers and producers of unauthorized figures and apparel.

You cant cry foul when one unauthorized artist produces something and then another unauthorized artist bootlegs your bootlegs.

That is straight up hypocrisy.

Both Kato and rainman know their stuff is unauthorized.
They charge a pretty penny and pay no licensing fees of any kind, which is stealing from the artist and the company that owns the rights no matter how you look at it.

Then cry foul when some steals their stolen work

good on ya guys.

I'm glad I cant afford your prices

Technically Kato asked Rainman about this, so he offered his "insight".

 

[ProgMatinee]

I do think its funny that people making a ton of cash here complain about losing a little money but they have benefited from this website and probably never sent a kick back to the owner. If this was ebay he would have made a killing on fees from all these sales.

 

[dano669]

the fact also is that the people that command these ungodly prices are from countries where EVERTHING is bootlegged and it hard to go after them legally.

 

[Kato.E]

I do think its funny that people making a ton of cash here complain about losing a little money but they have benefited from this website and probably never sent a kick back to the owner. If this was ebay he would have made a killing on fees from all these sales.

I would like to clarify that I don't losing any little money and nobody ripped off my sculpt as I am not a sculptor actually.

I won't hate Benz or Ferrari even thought I cannot afford to buy one.

 

[Kato.E]

It is funny to say a tailor need to be authorized to make a cloth!

I hv ever made G-1 jacket for sideshow , Do you think Sideshow has asked for the US Army pls?

Its funny to me how the person who started this thread and the person he is defending are probably the biggest money makers and producers of unauthorized figures and apparel.

You cant cry foul when one unauthorized artist produces something and then another unauthorized artist bootlegs your bootlegs.

That is straight up hypocrisy.

Both Kato and rainman know their stuff is unauthorized.
They charge a pretty penny and pay no licensing fees of any kind, which is stealing from the artist and the company that owns the rights no matter how you look at it.

Then cry foul when some steals their stolen work

good on ya guys.

I'm glad I cant afford your prices

 

[Star Puffs]

People say why aren't the companies doing anything to stop them.

Because they're in China and China has no copyright laws.
that's why

I am not sure if you could have made a more laughable assertion.

Other than Head Play, Ada Chan is the only China-based artist that comes to mind. I'm know there are a few others, but almost every other head sculpt artist on these boards is in a developed nation with copyright laws. In fact the majority of heads offered here come from the US and UK. There is no practical barriers if the licence or likeness holders of most properties in question wish to file suit in an anglophone jurisdiction.