Headplay recast Rainman's monkey sculpt again!

[karamazov80]

Likewise people twist what's morally right to justify getting customs while condemning others for something that's morally no different. Hence where the hypocrisy comes into play.

No. That is not hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy if you accept that they are not morally different to start out with. Even if it is rationalization, that doesn't make it hypocrisy unless you condemn a specific thing and then later do it. Such as, for example, saying that all custom artists are dirty thieves, then going on to praise certain custom artists.

 

[thenammagazine]

No. That is not hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy if you accept that they are not morally different to start out with. Even if it is rationalization, that doesn't make it hypocrisy unless you condemn a specific thing and then later do it. Such as, for example, saying that all custom artists are dirty thieves, then going on to praise certain custom artists.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference in stealing a likeness for personal profit and stealing the likeness of an unlicensed head to recast for personal profit. Thinking otherwise is hypocritical as you're justifying one theft and condemning another.

 

[Ironman1188]

Dave, this thread is bordering on defamation. No evidence has been provided to support the 10 pages of circular dialog. Just because someone puts a name to an auction does not provide proof of anything. By hiding Headplay's threads, this forum cut communications with them, why would they come back to defend themselves. This is one big kangaroo court.

 

[Jimmy C]

THings is that we're still not sure if it's headplay.
There is the name in the title but are we sure it's them?

Just befriend them on FB, all of this info is posted on Headplays official page, then you will have no more doubts (unless of course, someone else is using their name on facebook).

I dunno I just tried a search on Facebook (w/o friends request) I see a lot of "headplay" variation names e.g. Headplayworkshop, Headplay Ceo_______, Head Play, Headplayname . I don't see these heads on any of them.

Has any of the usual retailers been offered these by HP ?

I have no reason to defend HP. I don't even like most of their work...
but I think this is a witch hunt. This board is notorious for jumping on the bandwagon based on little evidence.

 

[peterparkernypd]

There was a time here on SSF when you couldn't say ANYTHING negative towards Chris Howes without getting pages of backlash from people defending him. I knew for a fact he was selling a sculpt here on the board that a friend of mine had comissioned Howes to sculpt. Howes not only violated the agreement with my friend, but he was already offering limited numbers of the sculpts to this board before he even sent my friend the final product.

There was also a time when plenty of people were buying the Sovereign Studios 89' Batman and Batman Returns figures (which were recasts of the old model kits) as well as Sideshow Anakin & Obi Wan recasts that Darren Carnall added some tweeks to. Some of the same people voicing complaints about recasters these days probably bought some of those products back in the day.


It all goes back to the point I was trying to make before, we should quit trying to play moral police and make our own choices based on our own standards. Me personally, I don't care. I own all kinds of different sculpts for tons of different reasons and the only person I have to justify it to is me.

Bottomline is if Hot Toys considers that DX Joker head or the Wolverine heads to be an issue, they'll pursue the companies.... if any of the sculptors of unlicensed sculpts feel ripped off, they'll either secure a license next time or just accept it as one of the perils of skipping a license to make truckloads of cash. Either way, I'm not upset or bothered by the recaster or the unlicensed sculptor, I say live and let live.

 

[Ironman1188]

One of the other odd things I thought throughout this thread is there, as of yet, has not been one post by rainman in here.

 

[agonistes86]

One of the other odd things I thought throughout this thread is there, as of yet, has not been one post by rainman in here.

https://sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110540

 

[MisterToyNYC]

One of the other odd things I thought throughout this thread is there, as of yet, has not been one post by rainman in here.

With all due respect, but some here have basically told him to stop whining and suck it up. What would be the point of him posting here now?

Eric

 

[Ironman1188]

With all due respect, but some here have basically told him to stop whining and suck it up. What would be the point of him posting here now?

Eric

Well, no offense intended, but it is a thread started about his sculpt.

And that reasoning wasn't satisfactory when used as to why Headplay wouldn't be posting here.

 

[peterparkernypd]

Rainman already had a lot of "lawyers" defend him... He doesn´t need to lose time doing it himself...

 

[dchung]

ENOUGH WITH THE "A THIEF IS A THIEF" NONSENSE...!

At Costco, they often offer free samples. Sometimes, these samples are laid out, toothpicks in them, and the attendant leaves. It is okay, even encouraged, to take these items for free. The rest of the food, you gotta pay for... the prices are marked. Pretty clear. You are not a thief for taking something from someone who is happy to give it to you.

But in sculpting heads, it's not so clear. Some celebrities don't want you to sculpt/sell their likeness at all, some without cutting them in on it, and others are flattered and love seeing themselves in 1/6 without any thought to charging the sculptor/seller. We have seen all three types. Trying to find out whether a celeb is one way or the other is often impossible. I've tried contacting agents, managers, studios, and due to my small scale, I usually don't get a "yes" or a "no". Whether permission is granted, implied, or denied in these no-response instances is unclear. Therefore, I proceed with the full understanding that I will respond/comply immediately should I ever get a "cease and desist", "request for remuneration", or "wow, I'm flattered/that's cool/rock on" letter. Truthfully, I've never received any feedback but that last one.

The laws, as far as I know, state that celebs are entitled to profits made from their likeness if they are so inclined to demand it. Those profits, however, would not exist if the sculptor hadn't made/sold heads. Working without a formal license does NOT automatically make you a thief. You haven't stolen anything. Again, the law says if they ask you to stop or to pay them, then you have to. If you refuse to, then yeah, you're a thief. [There is this issue of whether to press charges. The police always ask if you wish to press charges... you can decline. If the offending party goes on his merry way because you have chosen not to press charges, that does not make them a fugitive from the law, or a criminal, or whatever...]

Same is true with CD/DVD piracy. The studios/record companies have made it known that they do not appreciate bootleggers. However, some educational documentaries, small bands starting out, PSAs definitely WANT you to copy, distribute and disseminate their stuff. You are not a thief if you copy these works and distribute them.

ON THE OTHER HAND, when you willfully take, copy, sell the work of someone who has asked you not to, when you are ignoring their requests that you cease and desist, and continue to do so... all the while claiming/implying the work is your own, never attributing the work to the original artist... THEN YOU ARE A THIEF (AND LIAR).

Every time I see the "A THIEF IS A THIEF" argument, it irritates me that people refuse to distinguish the two, when the difference (as explained above) is night and day.

So enough with the ASSUMPTION that working without a formal license agreement automatically makes you a thief.

 

[karamazov80]

Rainman has posted elsewhere on the forum that this whole situation has made him pretty upset.

 

[Niltusk]

ENOUGH WITH THE "A THIEF IS A THIEF" NONSENSE...!

At Costco, they often offer free samples. Sometimes, these samples are laid out, toothpicks in them, and the attendant leaves. It is okay, even encouraged, to take these items for free. The rest of the food, you gotta pay for... the prices are marked. Pretty clear. You are not a thief for taking something from someone who is happy to give it to you.

But in sculpting heads, it's not so clear. Some celebrities don't want you to sculpt/sell their likeness at all, some without cutting them in on it, and others are flattered and love seeing themselves in 1/6 without any thought to charging the sculptor/seller. We have seen all three types. Trying to find out whether a celeb is one way or the other is often impossible. I've tried contacting agents, managers, studios, and due to my small scale, I usually don't get a "yes" or a "no". Whether permission is granted, implied, or denied in these no-response instances is unclear. Therefore, I proceed with the full understanding that I will respond/comply immediately should I ever get a "cease and desist", "request for remuneration", or "wow, I'm flattered/that's cool/rock on" letter. Truthfully, I've never received any feedback but that last one.

The laws, as far as I know, state that celebs are entitled to profits made from their likeness if they are so inclined to demand it. Those profits, however, would not exist if the sculptor hadn't made/sold heads. Working without a formal license does NOT automatically make you a thief. You haven't stolen anything. Again, the law says if they ask you to stop or to pay them, then you have to. If you refuse to, then yeah, you're a thief. [There is this issue of whether to press charges. The police always ask if you wish to press charges... you can decline. If the offending party goes on his merry way because you have chosen not to press charges, that does not make them a fugitive from the law, or a criminal, or whatever...]

Same is true with CD/DVD piracy. The studios/record companies have made it known that they do not appreciate bootleggers. However, some educational documentaries, small bands starting out, PSAs definitely WANT you to copy, distribute and disseminate their stuff. You are not a thief if you copy these works and distribute them.

ON THE OTHER HAND, when you willfully take, copy, sell the work of someone who has asked you not to, when you are ignoring their requests that you cease and desist, and continue to do so... all the while claiming/implying the work is your own, never attributing the work to the original artist... THEN YOU ARE A THIEF (AND LIAR).

Every time I see the "A THIEF IS A THIEF" argument, it irritates me that people refuse to distinguish the two, when the difference (as explained above) is night and day.

So enough with the ASSUMPTION that working without a formal license agreement automatically makes you a thief.

Ok, so you want people to call it "JUSTIFICATION" rather than "THIEF IS THIEF" ?
But in your mind, if someone is not charged with a crime then they didn't commit an illegal act? I'm sure Headplay is glad that you support his case.

 

[dchung]

Ok, so you want people to call it "JUSTIFICATION" rather than "THIEF IS THIEF" ?
But in your mind, if someone is not charged with a crime then they didn't commit an illegal act? I'm sure Headplay is glad that you support his case.

Your reading comprehension needs improvement. Headplay is a thief as Rainman has asked him to stop. A customizer who is creating heads of people who may actually appreciate it is not.

At Costco, taking samples, without paying, doesn't make you a thief.

TO BE CLEAR: sculpting a head is not an illegal act. Not honoring the wishes of the person whom you've sculpted is. Get it?

 

[dchung]

Rainman has posted elsewhere on the forum that this whole situation has made him pretty upset.

I'd be pretty upset too. People send him requests to make certain figures. He does, gets bootlegged, requests people to boycott the bootlegger's stuff... and then gets told he's a thief, just like the bootlegger, and to shut up.

 

[peterparkernypd]

I think you have a moral problem. Apparently, you decide what is "right" or "wrong" according to what benefits you.

You don´t see any problem in order a non licensed headsculpt, but you think is wrong if someone makes a recast...

Both things are wrong. Both things are illegal. The fact the first thief (image rights thief) asks the second to stop doesn´t make him right.

I purchase custom HS. So it would be EXTREMELY hypocrital at my side if I condem a recaster. And no, I never purchase a recast, and I don´t think I´ll will (as usually recasts are really bad), but I can´t see how purchase a unlicense HS and a recasted HS could be two different things.

 

[armysoldier74b]

This thread is making my Head Spin. Time to unsubscribe from this thread.
Bye bye

 

[MisterToyNYC]

Ugh! I can't take it anymore. I have to chime in. Everyone is forgetting part of what this hobby is about. Customizing! Within this hobby, when a sculptor (an artist with the ability to take a lump of clay and bring it to life) sculpts something, whether it's a generic headsculpt or that of an actual actor, that is the sculptor's work. When someone else takes that head and recasts it to sell it as is, that is the thief. That's what this is about. Period! It's not about likeness rights. It's about some taking someone else's hard work and profitting from it without the consent of the artist.

I can't imagine that this type of ridiculous conversation goes on in The Clubhouse. (Then again there are agitators everywhere.) I'm sure garage kit collectors know the difference. And I know it here as well. Some people just like to be agitators.

Look at it this way, if you hired Rainman to do a headsculpt that you intend to sell, paid him $800 and then a month or so later see your headsculpt being offered on eBay by someone else. Would you feel that it's ok? Yes, recasting is the downfall of offering heads online. There's really no way of avoiding it.

Rainman was just pointing out what was happening to some of his work. Giving everyone a heads-up. I think we can all agree that it is his work and talent that made that head and no one else should be able to profit from it without his consent.

Eric

 

[mojo customz]

yes , this is just not fair to rainman at all after paying so much to get the license to make the stuff he does and than to name it differently so no studio catch the item being made and than charging over a grand for that item,
how dare another person recast or remake that item ----
not fair at all----------------------------------------------------

 

[dchung]

I think you have a moral problem. Apparently, you decide what is "right" or "wrong" according to what benefits you.

You don´t see any problem in order a non licensed headsculpt, but you think is wrong if someone makes a recast...

Both things are wrong. Both things are illegal. The fact the first thief (image rights thief) asks the second to stop doesn´t make him right.

I purchase custom HS. So it would be EXTREMELY hypocrital at my side if I condem a recaster. And no, I never purchase a recast, and I don´t think I´ll will (as usually recasts are really bad), but I can´t see how purchase a unlicense HS and a recasted HS could be two different things.

I can sculpt a head of my mom. She would be flattered. It is not licensed and yet NOT illegal. I could make money off sellling copies of that head and it would still not be illegal. My mom might even be happy for me if I made a lot of money. Even if I didn't have a written agreement to do so, it is not illegal... The law, however, states that she is entitled to control her image rights, so IF she were to ask me to stop, and/or cut her in on profits, THEN in order to comply with the law, I would have to either stop or cut her in on profits. If I fail to comply with her wishes, THEN I am not in compliance with the law. Consent is crucial, but with figures, the law is a bit murky and evolving (there are first amendment issues, protections for art if it is "transformative", whether it serves public interest, varies from state to state, etc.) so the best anyone can do is seek permission and be willing to comply with known wishes.

A recaster who ignores requests to desist is NOT THE SAME.