The Big Debate - "Originals vs Recasts (Knock-Offs)"

[Pixelpiper]

When the thread started and people posted funny comments alluding to it being locked, it's because of this and a number of other reasons. Some people don't understand or don't care about the various rights granted by copyright, likeness rights, fair use or any number of different intellectual property rights, let alone laws that govern them in different parts of the world or country. Some folks will go out and try to figure out how a particular subject falls into place legally and others won't. Misconstruing what someone is writing adds further complication to a potentially muddy thread where multiple subjects are being commingled already. Invariably this leads to heated tempers which may or may not manifest in the thread or someone advocating something that's already spelled out as against the rules of the forum.

At the end of the day, the board's rules are currently fairly clear on what's accepted here and what's not, so there's generally no point in trying to discuss or debate something that's not allowed and that isn't going to change in the rules anyway.

 

[siquisiri]

No, it's not that simple. In the case of copyright infringement it may be visibly more clear-cut. In terms of likeness rights, there may or may not be a law, there may or may not be an exclusion to such a law, the laws are all different in different places, there may be no law being broken, etc. BTW, also "the law" is not a single thing, so "breaking 'the law'" is one of those clichéd phrases that really has no bearing on a discussion unless it's about one very specific law - and even then, it's up to a court to decide if the law has been broken and the offending party found guilty.

I produce and sell goods and services that fall under intellectual property for a living and like to know a bit about these things in case I find the need to take someone to court. There's not one law, not one set of like-laws that covers everything I do, let alone the very different subject matters being discussed here. So instead of just replying with another one-liner, how about going out and actually reading up on the laws in your area? And then maybe other areas if you're interested in. Seems like no one wants to do any kind of research any more.

Yeah, you're wrong - I don't know how many times that needs to be said.

You keep trying to frame the conversation by your own assumptions instead of what people are actually saying. So for starters you've jumped into a conversation and completely misunderstood the subject, misrepresenting what others believe and are writing. Then instead of taking the time to actually read everything again carefully and ask for clarification about what you don't understand, you're pointing fingers. Lastly, in terms of legality, you don't have any of the basics covered and also don't want to take any time to research and find out what the differences are for everything that's being discussed.

When the thread started and people posted funny comments alluding to it being locked, it's because of this and a number of other reasons. Some people don't understand or don't care about the various rights granted by copyright, likeness rights, fair use or any number of different intellectual property rights, let alone laws that govern them in different parts of the world or country. Some folks will go out and try to figure out how a particular subject falls into place legally and others won't. Misconstruing what someone is writing adds further complication to a potentially muddy thread where multiple subjects are being commingled already. Invariably this leads to heated tempers which may or may not manifest in the thread or someone advocating something that's already spelled out as against the rules of the forum.

At the end of the day, the board's rules are currently fairly clear on what's accepted here and what's not, so there's generally no point in trying to discuss or debate something that's not allowed and that isn't going to change in the rules anyway.

LMAOOO a tad passionate no? Your obviously well versed in the matter, but there really is no need for your smart-ss commentary. And by the way, the only person on this thread that ive seen with a "heated temper" is you.

 

[Mr Walker]

..'commercial' copyright/intellectual property doesn't matter, but rugged, artistic, anarcho-individualist's copyright/intellectual property is sacrosanct?

I guess the distinction is a little too subtle for you....

 

[Pixelpiper]

passionate no?

I'm passionate about the subject because I'm a creator. An artist, designer and engineer. And I'm also involved in sales and marketing and have been for a very long time. I also think that most people deserve a well thought and well written reply and try not to brush anyone off. I don't need to be heated to give you a respectful and rational answer. You're being quite disrespectful in your reply however, which only leaves me wondering why you decided to participate in the thread at all.

 

[siquisiri]

I'm passionate about the subject because I'm a creator. An artist, designer and engineer. And I'm also involved in sales and marketing and have been for a very long time. I also think that most people deserve a well thought and well written reply and try not to brush anyone off. I don't need to be heated to give you a respectful and rational answer. You're being quite disrespectful in your reply however, which only leaves me wondering why you decided to participate in the thread at all.

You have been far from respectful and seem to thrive on letting everyone know your resume at every opportunity you have as if that experience gives you some kind of in depth perspective that no else can obtain.
In reading the other posts, many seem to have the same perspective that i do. If that bothers you, tough. live with it. We dont all have to agree with each other on this board, but dont expect fellow member to keep their mouths shut with your condescending comments.


Boardies and mods,
sorry to waste your time with this back and forth.

 

[Taibhse]

I guess the distinction is a little too subtle for you....

That's because the 'subtle distinction' only exists in the imagination of the unlicensed artist, earning money off someone else's likeness, intellectual and/or copyright.
I should point out, I am in no way denigrating the artistic quality of some of the work involved, or the creative talent being harnessed.. but it is nevertheless, unlicensed.

As I indicated before, those artists could be making very artistically accurate, custom figures or statues of their Sister's pet guinea pig in a tutu.. but they are not.. and the reason they are not, is filthy lucre.. not artistic integrity.. not a brave campaign for liberty and freedom of expression.. just money, with minimised overheads.
Which is precisely what the Knock-off vendors are doing as well..they have simply added the unlicensed artist, to the Actor, the Studio and the Publisher, as another creative expense, being cut out of the loop... and creating externalities to cut costs and maximise profit, is very definitely as you described it: "Capitalism in its purest form at work".

Which doesn't mean I approve of knock-offs and re-casts.. since cheap and nasty re-casts are currently destroying the market for a quality, licensed 1:1 Judge Dredd helmet prop.. and that is bad!


I would simply like to see unlicensed artists have the stones to admit the truth, rather than creating imaginative justifications for inventing an unlicensed 'copyright' that does not exist.
$1000 a figure, is an awful lot of incentive to decide artistic 'copyright' is applicable and acceptable, but knock-offs are not.. which is exactly the same criticism the Actor, Studio and Publisher direct at unlicensed artists, funnily enough.. but with rather more substantive legal justification.

If the artist's 'creative copyright' should be respected.. then so should the Actor's, the Studio's and the Publisher's.. there is NO difference.. no matter how impressive the feats of intellectual gymnastics to pretend that there is.. unlicensed artists can't have their cake and eat it.. being an 'artist' does not trump, every other legal consideration.. nor does the smoke and mirrors of terming a product original work.. because its unlicensed 'original' work, which is why it vanishes, when a 'Cease and Desist' order is aimed at retailers, stocking 'original' but unlicensed work.. since retailers don't have the luxury of inventing a legal position.

.. but, it is impossible to get a man to understand something, if protecting his self-interest depends on him not understanding.. to paraphrase Upton Sinclair.

 

[Pixelpiper]

I would simply like to see unlicensed artists have the stones to admit the truth, rather than creating imaginative justifications for inventing an unlicensed 'copyright' that does not exist.

I think we're talking about two different things here and maybe that's where some confusion comes in. Copyright and likeness rights are two very different things. Making from scratch (not re-casting) a copy of some other artistic work is still copyright infringement to be sure - selling it still perpetuating that infringement. This is where you're bang-on with the Judge Dredd example. An exact replica of the movie costume is both a copyright and licensing issue.

However, when I've mentioned likeness rights, I mean specifically a person's likeness - their face/image. No one owns a copyright on a real (living or dead) person's face. The right to make and sell works of any particular likeness varies greatly from state to state (in the US) and country to country (elsewhere). This includes exceptions for artistic endeavors and other fair uses. Now depending on how far one goes, it's obviously possible to lump together a likeness as well as copyrighted material into the same product - at that point both issues would apply, though still separate.

I don't care what someone believes nor how they point their moral compass, I just ask that they give the facts a fair chance. I'm by no means an expert and would never try to pass myself off as one. I know what I learn and in addition to a passion for the creative process I have an equal passion to educate myself.

 

[Pixelpiper]

In reading the other posts, many seem to have the same perspective that i do. If that bothers you, tough. live with it.

I don't have any issue with different perspectives. I only asked that you give others the same courtesy they give you. That's to go out and learn the facts for yourself and make an effort toward a meaningful and thoughtful contribution. It doesn't take much time to type a reply, but I've still made a conscious effort to be respectful and provide you with more than a one-line brush-off. Your contributions seem acidic and intended only to rile and disrupt. It would have been preferable to have posted an animated gif or something else equally funny. I intended to abandon this thread early on, but gave it, and the OP the benefit of the doubt and to my surprise also saw some great contributions by other members. In this case I put some effort in, while at the same time hoping that the thread would not get derailed in the direction of lock-dom.

Oh, I also don't care if someone was born yesterday and just started posting today.

 

[Taibhse]

The point I am trying to get across is, that if an artist creates an 'original likeness' that is immediately withdrawn from sale, when the Corporate lawyers turn up.. the debate over 'copyright' is probably moot, no?

It just seems to me, that unlicensed artists make a much better point when they criticise re-casters for over-charging/turning out shoddy goods.. rather than outrage over a 'copyright', that vanishes in the face of a Corporate legal team.

 

[Pixelpiper]

I don't personally have a problem with small run customs we see here on the forum.

They're not the artists I have in mind exclusively when the subject of recasting come around. Don't forget about such knockoffs of Hot Toys or Sideshow sculpts to name only two.

There's a large expanse of grey area wrt to customs depending on the subject matter and the work. There's not so much when talking about a photocopy (recast in case of sculpture).

 

[Taibhse]

I don't personally have a problem with small run customs we see here on the forum.

They're not the artists I have in mind exclusively when the subject of recasting come around. Don't forget about such knockoffs of Hot Toys or Sideshow sculpts to name only two.

Sometimes these issues can get quite convoluted.. for example the Dredd film's production company, sold off a large number of major props from the film, including Lawmaster motorcycles, uniforms and helmets.. and it looks as though (in some cases) the Helmet re-casts might have been taken at some point, from those original props.. however it is very difficult to know for certain, and there is definitely a race to the bottom as far as quality goes, some Sellers are clearly taking casts of recasts, of recasts.

If someone takes a cast of an original prop that they have bought and paid for.. its a re-cast, but taken from an original prop.. it's also 'unlicensed' because the Film's producers will normally have sold the prop, with no license to sell replicas commercially.. however in the hands of a talented individual with the right materials, that is going to be one heck of a custom item.

 

[SAB]

I think we can all agree that no unlicensed knock off producer can match Sideshow in sheer quantity of googly eyes produced.

 

[siquisiri]

I think we can all agree that no unlicensed knock off producer can match Sideshow in sheer quantity of googly eyes produced.

LMAOOOOO!!!!!!! post of the day!!

 

[Mr Walker]

I would simply like to see unlicensed artists have the stones to admit the truth, rather than creating imaginative justifications for inventing an unlicensed 'copyright' that does not exist.

If the artist's 'creative copyright' should be respected.. then so should the Actor's, the Studio's and the Publisher's.. there is NO difference.. no matter how impressive the feats of intellectual gymnastics to pretend that there is.. unlicensed artists can't have their cake and eat it.. being an 'artist' does not trump, every other legal consideration.. nor does the smoke and mirrors of terming a product original work.. because its unlicensed 'original' work, which is why it vanishes, when a 'Cease and Desist' order is aimed at retailers, stocking 'original' but unlicensed work.. since retailers don't have the luxury of inventing a legal position.

I don't know why you're responding to me with this, given that I never claimed that unlicensed bootleggers have any form of copyright....

 

[devilof76]

I guess the distinction is a little too subtle for you....

That's a fact.

 

[Taibhse]

I don't know why you're responding to me with this, given that I never claimed that unlicensed bootleggers have any form of copyright....

I always enjoy watching you sprint up and down the touchline, with the goalposts.. have at it!

That's a fact.

..thanks for your cogent input.. good holiday weekend?

 

[DiFabio]

Shouldn't that be Before the lock, I'm in?

 

[Pixelpiper]

Shouldn't that be Before the lock, I'm in?

"Before the lock, in I am" you mean.

 

[Taibhse]

"In I am, before the lock".. or.. "In I am, the lock before" ..or.. "the lock before, in I am"

 

[siquisiri]

"In I am, before the lock".. or.. "In I am, the lock before" ..or.. "the lock before, in I am"