Recasting - what can I do ????

[Tan Djarka]

Wow.

I think there's a lot of sense in what Tan Djarka is saying, if only anybody would listen.

It doesn't seem to me that he supports recasting at all, nor that he's saying that two wrongs make a right. It seems to me, rather, that he's saying that complaining about re-casting is the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you. I don't support recasting. I just wonder how anyone can expect their alleged rights as an artisan to be respected when they ignore the very legal rights of the studios and licensees.

 

[skygunbro]

Here is a novel idea stop buying props from us thieving slime ball prop makers,then all the sleep your losing over me sculpting something using dvd screen grabs of someones character will go away.
See this is where the irritation comes from...collectors and costumers want and need props for their hobby,prop makers provide the hole left for items not produced by licensed companies or items that are produced but not accurate or up to the hobbyist standards. That's where we come in, we fill the void.
That's why it blows my mind. The people who look to us to create stuff that doesn't exist or does, but was done poorly wont step up and give us a little moral support when items we create are recasted by some lazy sloth.
All IP aside I think what most here are trying to say is its a community thing and a respect thing for the artists and your fellow hobbyist.
Most prop makers don't claim anything but time,materials and the artistic ability that went into the piece, which we have every right to,but are we saying that now that we sculpted a certain thing it now belongs to us in an IP sense....... no
Anyway I'm done I need to get back in my shop and make some more future recasts.
Maybe the recasters should support us prop makers because without us they would have nothing to do.:lol

 

[micdavis]

its a community thing and a respect thing for the artists and your fellow hobbyist.

Yet totally discounting any respect for the IP owners and original sculptors and builders.

Can't have it both ways. You can't ask for respect if you're not willing to give it.

 

[TheSt.LouisKid]

So if you pick something up off eBay or elsewhere or copy a licensed item you're good to go as far as selling the item here is concerned.

I honestly have not seen all threads for such examples. I merely speak of my experiences here where I found 2 of my fellow RPF members were selling recasts of my work. I posted proof and they acted and I appreciate it.

And defstartrooper, I thank you and your group for your efforts on your board. I hope everyone will make to point to check in reguarly to see the latest news and recaster names over there so you don't buy a crap a casting.

 

[skygunbro]

Yet totally discounting any respect for the IP owners and original sculptors and builders.

Can't have it both ways. You can't ask for respect if you're not willing to give it.

Wow I just re read my posting and no where did I say I didn't have respect for the IP owners and original sculptors/builders.So Stop putting words in my mouth and trying to bait me into a argument.
I make all my own stuff from scratch I don't take existing items and reproduce them so not having respect to original sculptors/builders really doesn't pertain to me.I always give credit to where i got the reference from and who's character/design it was that i may have used to create my interpretation.
So Epic Fail there.....did I touch a nerve maybe? Im bored with this, and if you want to fight go stick your head up a certain orifice and fight for air.
And you totally discount any respect for prop makers by a statement like that.You cant have it both ways either.
Hey why dont you go make something yourself and shut that toothy stink ditch under your nose.Childish yeah but I really dont care.I love keyboard commandos ...anytime any place my friend.
How many fan made props do you have in your collection?...exactly so kindly STFU

You look down your nose at us but funny thing is i can almost bet that if a close friend of yours spent hours and hours sculpting a prop and someone recasted it you'd be on here all up in arms about it.Funny how the tide turns when the shoe is on the other foot huh.

 

[micdavis]

All IP aside....

Sounds pretty disrespectful to me. Like completely, as in "All".

 

[skygunbro]

Sounds pretty disrespectful to me. Like completely, as in "All".

Twist what I said out of context all you want to suit your needs.All IP aside merely meant for a moment lets talk about something else.....if you took that any other way that's your problem.Next time Ill spell everything out in building blocks and post a picture for the "special" people.(BTW that was called sarcasm just in case there was any confusion.)
Anyway I'm done go argue with yourself ,go flame someone else I wont reply. I have better things to do,because Im not a shut in.

 

[mrbungle]

the freaking IP card.

ok
recasting is like sleeping with another guys wife, sure he does not OWN the woman, but that does not make it right for your ass to sleep with her.

do you see what i am getting at? sure i don't own the rights to the helmet i just sculpted , but it is not right for scumbag recasters to just make a mold of it and start selling them too. if you want to sell helmets, learn to sculpt.

 

[micdavis]

Did it ever occur to you that the original sculptor of what you're copying might look at you as an un-original "scumbag" who is trading off the works of others?

Why is okay to simply disregard the IP right?

Because it's how people rationalize the illegal processes they are engaged in so they can make back their investment in time and material, an possibly the cost of acquiring an original item.

Again, I don't think it's right to recast, but complaining about is just stupid if it's not YOUR design in the first place.

Worse yet if you don't realize the word is recast not recasted, well it's hard to take your complaint seriously.

 

[defstartrooper]

I honestly have not seen all threads for such examples. I merely speak of my experiences here where I found 2 of my fellow RPF members were selling recasts of my work. I posted proof and they acted and I appreciate it.

And defstartrooper, I thank you and your group for your efforts on your board. I hope everyone will make to point to check in reguarly to see the latest news and recaster names over there so you don't buy a crap a casting.

Check this thread where i tried to get clarification on the rules and suggest they be ammended after i saw a member offer recasts openly.
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=61734
Basically unless someone copies an RPF members work the staff will do nothing even though the person selling copies says they didn't make the original or know who did, they just bought it off eBay.

 

[mrbungle]

Did it ever occur to you that the original sculptor of what you're copying might look at you as an un-original "scumbag" who is trading off the works of others?

Why is okay to simply disregard the IP right?

Because it's how people rationalize the illegal processes they are engaged in so they can make back their investment in time and material, an possibly the cost of acquiring an original item.

Again, I don't think it's right to recast, but complaining about is just stupid if it's not YOUR design in the first place.

Worse yet if you don't realize the word is recast not recasted, well it's hard to take your complaint seriously.

well the stuff i do was never sculpted by ilm. it was a CGI in a movie before i made these CGI images into a real costume.

you say you don't agree with recasting but here you are making an agruement for recasting becuase i don't own the rights to something i sculpted.

you are talking out of two sides of your mouth.

 

[CGClone]

Man this is like the 3042nd thread Ive seen on this matter and people still demand high quality props made by artisans and not rubber dumpers.

Its also the same amount of times Ive seen the like of micdavis and taj try and twist the common sense grammar in the posts.

Talk about stuff getting old.

 

[exoray]

becuase i don't own the rights to something i sculpted.

This is where most people fail in understanding the law...

You do in fact own 100% of the rights to anything you sculpt yourself, BUT if the item in question infringes upon anothers rights you might have a hard time seeking redress in the courts due to Unclean Hands...

I will link to here for a detailed description of the issue

http://www.answers.com/topic/unclean-hands

In short the courts will not generally enforce your legal rights if they feel you broke a law first, it doesn't negate your rights it simply means the court won't allow you to seek damages in many cases if this clause it asserted by the defense... But there are cases where you might very well be able to pursue legal action, say you sculpted something and the Studio obtained a copy of your model and went into full scale production with it, in a case like this you could have a good legal challenge enforcing your rights to the model... In a case like this it could be argued that the Studios hands are more dirty then yours and thus the case should be allowed to proceed...

Like fair use, unclean hands is an asserted defense (not automatic) for violating someones rights, it's not an ace in hole get out of jail card, it's simply a defense that can put forward and if the court agrees it removes liability...

 

[Tan Djarka]

This is where most people fail in understanding the law...

You do in fact own 100% of the rights to anything you sculpt yourself... say you sculpted something and the Studio obtained a copy of your model and went into full scale production with it, in a case like this you could have a good legal challenge enforcing your rights to the model...

I understand that you can claim rights to the sculpture itself (the studio can't legally confiscate it), but I don't believe that gives you free reign to reproduce and sell it (even to recover your expenditures).

Edit: As we learned in the "Robby the Robot" C&D situation, the rights holders not only have the right to restrict the sale of your product, but also the right to restrict it's public display and the chronicling of it's creation. So techically, you can make it, but you can't sell it, you can't display it publicly, and you can't even tell anyone how you made it, should the rights holder or any of their agents object.

In the example cited (the quoted example, not mine), I'd guess the studio would have to compensate you in the same manner as a licensee or on-staff artists charged with creating marketable product, and possibly damages, though that's not a given.

 

[exoray]

but I don't believe that gives you free reign to reproduce and sell it (even to recover your expenditures).

Correct it does not, as those rights are still held by the studio, your rights exist only in that single work of art you created yourself...

In the example cited, I'd guess the studio would have to compensate you in the same manner as a licensee or on-staff artists charged with creating marketable product, and possibly damages, though that's not a given.

Yes, if someone 'legally' wanted to use your work they are required to pay compensation or get rights from you, but the only ones that would have any 'legal' right would be the Studios themselves, the owners of the rightful IP you initially infringed upon...

The point I was making is even if your work infringes upon someone else's IP you still secure ownership rights to that specific sculpture you did, even if it's a copy...

So when a recaster, recast an artists' work technically they are in fact committing an act of theft against the artist, even if the artist infringed upon anothers rights when creating it... The recaster is not only stealing from the Studio but also from the artist, and technically could be sued by either... Although if the unlicensed artist sued, there is a high probability that the case would be dismissed because of the unclean hands clause, but it's not a given crazier things happen in court...

Right back to the two wrongs don't make a right...

 

[duck]

The point I was making is even if your work infringes upon someone else's IP you still secure ownership rights to that specific sculpture you did, even if it's a copy...

Um, not really... actually, not at all. Your scenario only works if you are talking about the one original sculpt of the stolen IP item (ie: you sculpt a Stormtrooper bucket lets say). All rights and ownership go right out the window when you yourself copy that (ie: cast your sculpt, make copies of said TK bucket, and distribute them, either through sales or just giving them away). You have now made a copy of something that, while you made, is the IP of LFL. That is the entire crux of this aspect of this discussion.

So when a recaster, recast an artists' work technically they are in fact committing an act of theft against the artist,

Not unless they broke into that artist's home and recast his sculpt. And the only way a recaster could get his hands on the artist's sculpt, in any realistic and plausible scenario, is if the artists made copies of his sculpt and distributed them. The recaster stole nothing from the artists if he purchased or acquired a copy the artist made, because the artist is out nothing in terms of actual materials (which he is compensated for by selling it) or rights (which he does not in fact own, outside of the original sculpt in his possession for his own use). He does not own the rights for reproduction of his own sculpt because he has no IP ownership. It's pretty simple.

You could argue that the artist is out time, research and labor, but again, that's negated by the fact that he doesn't own the reproduction rights to the item he is sculpting (and let's be honest, 99.9% of all artists who sculpt and cast their item or recast off a studio prop is selling copies at a price that allows them to recoup any expenses, factors in labor and still give them a profit). So unless a recaster steals the physical sculpt and recasts that, the artist has zero, repeat ZERO legal standing. The artist is exposing himself to problems the minute he makes and distributes copies of his personal use sculpt.

even if the artist infringed upon anothers rights when creating it... The recaster is not only stealing from the Studio but also from the artist, and technically could be sued by either... Although if the unlicensed artist sued, there is a high probability that the case would be dismissed because of the unclean hands clause, but it's not a given crazier things happen in court...

That's absurd and you just contradicted yourself. You either have a poor grasp of Clean Hands or you are being disingenuous. The recaster could not be sued by the artist who stole the IP in the first place (unless it was recast from his personal use prop without his consent or knowledge). Well, let me take that back... of COURSE he could be sued, but as you said, it would be thrown out under the Clean Hands clause, and not a "high probability" but a 100% probability. The artist can't sue the recaster if HE DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHTS.

How hard is that to understand? You would be better off sticking to the line of discussion about the perceived rights and wrongs and code of ethics prescribed to by this little community than trying to keep tossing actual legal issues into this, because none of us has any to things we have all stolen. The better argument would be the simple one: Dude, don't recast, you're screwing the guy who did the work, that's not cool.

Right back to the two wrongs don't make a right...

One could also say "One wrong doesn't give you rights".

 

[exoray]

Um, not really... actually, not at all. Your scenario only works if you are talking about the one original sculpt of the stolen IP item (ie: you sculpt a Stormtrooper bucket lets say). All rights and ownership go right out the window when you yourself copy that (ie: cast your sculpt, make copies of said TK bucket, and distribute them, either through sales or just giving them away). You have now made a copy of something that, while you made, is the IP of LFL. That is the entire crux of this aspect of this discussion.

Read what I said...

you still secure ownership rights to that specific sculpture you did

I said nothing about making copies and distributing them or having the rights to do that... The orginal copy shares IP rights, the artist that sculpted has rights as does the orginal IP owner, but the original IP owners right superceed the artist...

Not unless they broke into that artist's home and recast his sculpt. And the only way a recaster could get his hands on the artist's sculpt, in any realistic and plausible scenario, is if the artists made copies of his sculpt and distributed them. The recaster stole nothing from the artists if he purchased or acquired a copy the artist made, because the artist is out nothing in terms of actual materials (which he is compensated for by selling it) or rights (which he does not in fact own, outside of the original sculpt in his possession for his own use). He does not own the rights for reproduction of his own sculpt because he has no IP ownership. It's pretty simple.

It must not be that simple because you obviously don't understand it, yes the artist has rights to his sculpt even if it infringes upon anothers rights... But his rights of enforcement are possibly limited due to the fact of the unclean hands... You missed the simple part of law that the artist creation is NOT an infringment until a court of law rules so, so until and only after a court of law rules it an infringment does the artist loose any rights and has total control of his creation...

You could argue that the artist is out time, research and labor, but again, that's negated by the fact that he doesn't own the reproduction rights to the item he is sculpting

Sure he does, but legally it would take him and the studio both agreeing on a release of rights to reproduce as they both have an interest in said sculpt...

(and let's be honest, 99.9% of all artists who sculpt and cast their item or recast off a studio prop is selling copies at a price that allows them to recoup any expenses, factors in labor and still give them a profit). So unless a recaster steals the physical sculpt and recasts that, the artist has zero, repeat ZERO legal standing.

Wrong under US copyright law the minute a work of art is created the artist is granted ownership rights, but if his rights are found to violate anothers rights (this can be done only in a court of law) does he possibly loose the enforcement of those rights...

The artist is exposing himself to problems the minute he makes and distributes copies of his personal use sculpt.

Maybe...

That's absurd and you just contradicted yourself. You either have a poor grasp of Clean Hands or you are being disingenuous. The recaster could not be sued by the artist who stole the IP in the first place (unless it was recast from his personal use prop without his consent or knowledge). Well, let me take that back... of COURSE he could be sued, but as you said, it would be thrown out under the Clean Hands clause, and not a "high probability" but a 100% probability.

Sorry there is no 100% probability in any defense, the clean hands doctrine is not a 100% guarantee the case is dropped (far from it in fact) it's simply a defense that can be asserted... The court can decide to drop the case, or limit relief based on the unclean hands, or ignore it all together it's not an all or nothing principle... Again unclean hands is not a specific written out law, it's a flexible principle applied by courts in full or partially, it's up to the court on a case to case basis to decide it's effect on the case... It's you that does not understand what it implies as a whole... And it's you that isn't grasping the concept of our legal system, in that it's not illegal until a court rules it illegal, and you don't have unclean hands until a court rules you do...

Also one only has to look at the recent lawsuit in regards to Shepard Fairey vs The Associated Press, both sides have claimed unclean hands yet the case continues, it's hardly as simple as you make it out...

There is also lots more case law based around "unclean hands" it's hardly an ace in the hole 100% win in the hole, in fact many times the courts have decided who had dirtier hands and allowed the case to move forward based on that... It's simply not black and white...

The artist can't sue the recaster if HE DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHTS.

Sure he can...

How hard is that to understand?

Obviously harder then you are making it out to be...

 

[duck]

Read what I said...



I said nothing about making copies and distributing them or having the rights to do that... The orginal copy shares IP rights, the artist that sculpted has rights as does the orginal IP owner, but the original IP owners right superceed the artist...

Then why are you bring this into a recasting debate? You wanna make a perfect reproduction of a TK helmet for yourself, go nuts. The second you make copies and distribute them, you violate the rights of the IP owner and you can be sued and most likely will loose. You have the rights to your one physical piece if you created it. Any cast or copy from that point forward is in violation. You know that, I know that. Why are you trying to make a point about the first physical sculpt the artists when that has no bearing on the reproduction issue?

And I disagree with your assertion about "shared IP rights". there is no shared anything. LFL owns any and all IP rights. the artist may own their actual sculpt, but nothing more. And anyone who tries the "Yeah, it's an exact copy of a LFL Stormtrooper, but it's my take on a Stormtrooper, so I share rights" is gonna loose in court, I can guarantee you.

It must not be that simple because you obviously don't understand it, yes the artist has rights to his sculpt even if it infringes upon anothers rights... But his rights of enforcement are possibly limited due to the fact of the unclean hands... You missed the simple part of law that the artist creation is NOT an infringment until a court of law rules so, so until and only after a court of law rules it an infringment does the artist loose any rights and has total control of his creation...

Provide case law, not Wikipedia, sir. How is it ever legally possible to establish rights to something you have no rights over? You are arguing that UNTIL the court decides you ripped someone off, you didn't rip them off (and I'm talking about the scenario where the artist sculpts something and makes copies, because your scenario of just making it for personal use really isn't what we are talking about on this thread). That might be true in the purest sense of the law, but in our scenario, we know Artist A copied something that he does not own IP rights to. So arguing that he has some sort of rights until it is proven in court that he doesn't is like arguing he's not a thief unless he gets caught.

Sure he does, but legally it would take him and the studio both agreeing on a release of rights to reproduce as they both have an interest in said sculpt...

Yeah, I suppose..... and have you ever heard of a scenario where an artist was illegally and illegitimately making copies of an item he didn't own the rights to making an agreement with the rights owner to use his sculpts? Because I've never heard of one.

Wrong under US copyright law the minute a work of art is created the artist is granted ownership rights, but if his rights are found to violate anothers rights (this can be done only in a court of law) does he possibly loose the enforcement of those rights...

Again, no kidding. And the second he makes and distributes copies of that work, when LFL sues him, he will loose whatever rights he wants to argue he has. You make it sound like there's a 50/50 chance he "might" loose those rights.... I got news for you, he WILL loose those rights. Because he never HAD those rights to begin with, and now it has been decided in court.

Sorry there is no 100% probability in any defense, the clean hands doctrine is not a 100% guarantee the case is dropped (far from it in fact) it's simply a defense that can be asserted... The court can decide to drop the case, or limit relief based on the unclean hands, or ignore it all together it's not an all or nothing principle... Again unclean hands is not a specific written out law, it's a flexible principle applied by courts in full or partially, it's up to the court on a case to case basis to decide it's effect on the case... It's you that does not understand what it implies as a whole... And it's you that isn't grasping the concept of our legal system, in that it's not illegal until a court rules it illegal, and you don't have unclean hands until a court rules you do...

Which sounds like what you're saying is that all boils down to "I'm not a thief until I get caught". Which is fine, technically, it's legally true, but I think you are being fast and loose with Clean Hands to imply that no wrong doing is being done and rights are granted to the artist who makes copies of something they don't own IP to unless he is busted in court, and let's face it, he would be if LFL goes after him in earnest.

Also one only has to look at the recent lawsuit in regards to Shepard Fairey vs The Associated Press, both sides have claimed unclean hands yet the case continues, it's hardly as simple as you make it out...

Kinda true. Rights to a photograph and reproduction rights of a AP photo are somewhat different than registered trademarks and/or copywritten material. Plus, you can't make the analogy between Fairey's work and reproing Stormtrooper armor. Fairey created an original piece of art that is referencing a photo he believed to be used under Fair Use and he didn't try and recreate the exact photo so that no one could tell the difference. Sculpter A is trying to replicate the original as closely as possible. He is trying to make it as indistinguishable as possible. There is no artistic interpretation, unless he was doing some alternate take on it, like a Samurai Stormtrooper or something. Then there is legal debate if that is fair use, or possibly parody, etc.

There is also lots more case law based around "unclean hands" it's hardly an ace in the hole 100% win in the hole, in fact many times the courts have decided who had dirtier hands and allowed the case to move forward based on that... It's simply not black and white...

I gotta ask, what is the point you are trying to make here? If the case is LFL versus Artist A, there is no "who has more unclean hands". Artist A has unclean hands. Do you honestly think IN THIS CASE Artist A stands a chance in court against LFL? Do you think he'd honestly have a leg to stand on about "his rights" as an artist when he is trying to perfectly replicate a property he doesn't own the rights to?


If the case is Artist A wants to sue Recaster B, I find it extremely implausible that any court would allow that case to continue because Recaster be has "dirtier hands" or some such jibberish. Because what could Artist A possibly be suing for (assuming Recaster B didn't steal Artist A's sculpt that was only for the artist's personal use and not something he himself copied and distributed)? Damages? Lost income? Personal distress? Lost sales? Damage to reputation? I can't think of a possible scenario where a guy who makes copies of LFL stuff can sue someone else for copying him, so why would you even bring that into the discussion? Can you cite any case law that shows a court allows a case to go on because one party has "unleaner hands" than the other. It's like the drug dealer suing another drug dealer for ripping him off. I just don't get it.

Obviously harder then you are making it out to be...

If you say so. I still posit that you are trying to say that until they nail your a$$ in court, you can go on your merry way and claim rights to something you don't have rights to.

Oh, and I'd like to add one more thing. Anyone who is making replicas of something they don't own IP to that is an item that LFL has licensed to someone else, you are also stealing from them. And LFL has the right to not only C&D your behind, but LFL and/or Rubies (in the case of a TK let's say) can sue you for damages, because even if you give away 100 TK buckets for free, you are devaluing the products and services of the license holder.

that is yet another monkey wrench in this whole debate.

By the way, thanks for keeping this discussion civil. I think it is possible to disagree and still keep our heads about things.

 

[rollerboi]

Edit: As we learned in the "Robby the Robot" C&D situation, the rights holders not only have the right to restrict the sale of your product, but also the right to restrict it's public display and the chronicling of it's creation. So techically, you can make it, but you can't sell it, you can't display it publicly, and you can't even tell anyone how you made it, should the rights holder or any of their agents object.

Just as a point of clarification, the Robby C&D situation was not a legal one. It was a pompous, douchebaggery attempt to silence us through fear and intimidation. It did not come from the legal department of any studio, just the warped mind of Fred Barton. Don't think this holds any weight; nobody can stop us from discussing how to make something.

Just because the moderators chose at that time to squelch the whole thing does not mean he had any legal standing to make such demands. Just meant we didn't want to deal with his crazy-ass crap. As I understand it, anyways.

 

[exoray]

Just as a point of clarification, the Robby C&D situation was not a legal one. It was a pompous, douchebaggery attempt to silence us through fear and intimidation. It did not come from the legal department of any studio, just the warped mind of Fred Barton. Don't think this holds any weight; nobody can stop us from discussing how to make something.

Just because the moderators chose at that time to squelch the whole thing does not mean he had any legal standing to make such demands. Just meant we didn't want to deal with his crazy-ass crap. As I understand it, anyways.

Yep, only a court can make the final call and issue an injunction... Until that time letters like a C&D are only friendly notices to alert you that someone is annoyed with your actions and might take it to the next level if you don't do what they ask... Not saying legit C&D should be ignored but anyone can send out a C&D and anyone can request you do this or that even if it's well beyond the legal scope or even beyond their legal rights, it doesn't make it the law and it doesn't mean a court will enforce the request if taken that far...