Beware the Recaster(s)

[LipSmack]

and the sculptor isnt? the sculptor is profitting off of something someone else did and not paying any fees or royalties... so good one

 

[karamazov80]

I dunno if anybody can really complain unless they have a license. time and effort or not

But they can and do complain. . .many believe justifiably so.

 

[pixletwin]

Yeah the world is drastically different no matter where you go, like I said before I dont care about the laws all that much when it comes to these sculpted heads and whatnot, I just cant see how a recaster is any worse, the Artist really has no say what happens to his work once it heads out into the world.

Let me put this another way since you seem to be a bit color blind:

Sculptors profit off their time and their talents
Recaster profit off of other people's ignorance or false of entitlement.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[drdandalek]

Why not? One creates private art for private customers while the other plagiarizes that private art for their own gain.

That is spot on. These CUSTOM figures that we all buy and love are just that. These are produced on a small scale and sold almost primarily on the forum. Basically collectors and artists trading back and forth. People that do the recasts and sell on flea bay in the large numbers that they seem to be, are the ones that will bring a negative light from Hollywood and eventually trickle down to the forums. That is another reason why I don't and will not support these recasters. If people want to support the recasters and bring that negative light to the hobby we love. By all means go ahead and ruin the hobby.

 

[LipSmack]

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The point is, though, that the consensus among the collecting community is that the recasters are worse. Whether or not you agree doesn't change that.

and no matter how much the community whines about it it wont change because theres demand for it

 

[karamazov80]

and no matter how much the community whines about it it wont change because theres demand for it

Same with illegal sales of arms to children in Africa, crack cocaine in inner cities, etc.

 

[pixletwin]

and no matter how much the community whines about it it wont change because theres demand for it

Oh it will change really quick once the talent starts withdrawing their services.

 

[youbastards]

Same with illegal sales of arms to children in Africa, crack cocaine in inner cities, etc.

Big Gulps in NYC.

 

[ShadowX81]

The process original sculptors/owners employ does not make recasting necessary in any way. It creates a market for recasting, sure, but implying that it is "necessary" legitimizes it; that is to say, the demand by buyers who aren't able/willing to come up with alternatives necessitates the actions of recasters. Is illegal gun running or drug trafficking necessary, because there is a market for it?

First of all, lets not compare recasting of toy heads to drug running/arms dealing. Thats a completly seperate issue and its pretty obvious how they are different.

Secondly, yes recasting is neccessary in some sense. Let's take Trevor for example. By far the best artist on this board, yet none of his heads are available.

Where exactly are people supposed to get them then? Hiring you own sculpter is out, becuase not only is it alot more expensive and take more time, but becuase (lets be honest here) it isn't going to compare to Trevor's head anyway.

The whole "if you snooze you lose" mentality seems more entitled than basic laws of supply and demand. Its all well and great that you feel that recasters are the modern equivilant of Hitler, but name one head that you or Nam are hurting for that you choose not to get from a recaster. Its alot easier to stand on principal when it doesn't affect you.

Recasting is definatly wrong, however as long as people want heads that aren't around anymore its going to happen.

If Andy Warhol didn't produce enough prints to satisfy demand, would folks justify fakes to meet the remaining demand?

Actually yes, people sell reproduction of art all the time.

 

[LipSmack]

Let me put this another way since you seem to be a bit color blind:

Sculptors profit off their time and their talents
Recaster profit off of other people's ignorance or false of entitlement.

Seems pretty clear to me.

K the first sculpt is the "ART" that they put time and effort into, then the cast it and make money. so the first piece is the only thing I would consider "private" the rest are copies/Casts. recasters have to spend time and money recasting (molds, resin, paint, time ) so yes im very color blind

 

[karamazov80]

Hilarious you bring up Trevor, because the reason he left is BECAUSE of others recasting his work. And my examples were logical extensions of the argument that all violations of law/norm are equal. The nature of the examples themselves are irrelevant.

 

[thenammagazine]

and no matter how much the community whines about it it wont change because theres demand for it

How would you feel if you worked all week on a job that was going to pay you under the table and come check time, someone steps in front of you and takes the money? Their reasoning, "You weren't gonna report it. So I have a right to it."

 

[LipSmack]

Oh it will change really quick once the talent starts withdrawing their services.

and someone else will step up to do it....

 

[LipSmack]

How would you feel if you worked all week on a job that was going to pay you under the table and come check time, someone steps in front of you and takes the money? Their reasoning, "You weren't gonna report it. So I have a right to it."

that doesnt add up, recasters arent taking the money before the sculptor gets it, the sculptor already made their money

 

[thenammagazine]

that doesnt add up, recasters arent taking the money before the sculptor gets it, the sculptor already made their money

Sure it does. It's still their hard work someone else is getting paid for. You only discredit it because it's a perfect example of something you'd be wholly bent about, but agreeing would completely dissolve your argument.

 

[youbastards]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, what about the scenario where an artist is making an unlicensed character, and the owner of said character issues a Cease & Desist. Should the artist abide by that? If they choose to disregard the C&D and produce product on the side anyway, are they then violating a 'code of ethics'?

 

[pixletwin]

...so yes im very color blind

First time you've made sense this whole thread, Jive Turkey.

Sadly I am sure it's the last.

 

[LipSmack]

Sure it does. It's still their hard work someone else is getting paid for. You only discredit it because it's a perfect example of something you'd be wholly bent about, but agreeing would completely dissolve your argument.

I dont own a single custom scuplt or recast, and like Ive said before I dont care about these markets (I buy HT figs and do very little bashing) all im getting at is that a recaster is no worse than the original sculptor who is also making money off the avails of others (an actors performance is "Art" so they are copying someone slse art in a way too) and the sculptors sells his limited run, why would he care if it gets recast if he isnt going to produce more? whats done is done

 

[LipSmack]

First time you've made sense this whole thread, Jive Turkey.

Sadly I am sure it's the last.

well its one more time than you my friend,

 

[Godfather1408]

I suppose if the orginal owner had the rights too the person they were sculpting they could do something but because they don't it then becomes an arse :/