Shapeways and "recasting"

It seems your only response is "the rules should be more clear on this" since you've said it a dozen times in this thread alone. Don't copy other people's stuff, plain and simple.
 
In accordence to the RPF rules and general morality it seems as if this discussion is finished. Zenix has borrowed ideas from megatron and megatron has burrowed ides from Zenix. I am referring to Zenix's GL rings and YES he has created his own features. He did have reference photos but in his design he made creative decisions to make the ring very much his own. Looking at the DC direct and toys r us versions show the differences clearly. If we follow the dates of Zenix's GL ring posts, it's clear that Megatron changed his designs that match Zenix's ring.

I also agree that RPF policies should be adjusted to cover new digital techniques of creation.

My GL rings are nothing like Zenix rings..his are movie based.
The only rectangle top ring I made was almost 10yrs ago and am the only one I know that does Anodized Aluminum. I think you are confused.

And yes we need some new polices or what ever to cover new digital techniques of creation..
 
Last edited:
If taking details from reference pictures of creations of others is not allowed then the rules on the rpf should be more clear on this. I understand now the general feeling expressed by Montegar, but I'm juts saying, and I know that Megatron agrees, we should have a policy describing this for new members. I first modeled that key last summer, just a couple months after joining, and sure, since the member guidelines dont even mention digital recasting aside from paper props, it's unclear.


I have to ask...aside from proving that you rendered that design after Megatron posted the image of the turn around image in his interest thread thereby directly proving your source material for reference, what is the point to WHEN you rendered that design? It's rather well known how many years ago Megatron made his version of the McCoy key and it doesn't prove you didn't copy his key.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the rules are clear enough on taking details from another persons work. Whether you knowingly or unknowingly copied someones incorporated tells is besides the point because they ARE there meaning you copied the work another person made. Ignorance of the tells or the rules isn't a defense as you're all but admitting that you based the key you uploaded on his specific piece. How you copied it, whether it be program, or by hand recasting, you copied his tells and are guilty of a form of recasting.
 
As a fairly new member here I could see how someone could inadvertently copy a detail from someone else's work based on the idea that many members here have an amazing skill for finding reference that I would have no idea how to find as of yet. Before coming here the idea of using auction stills was completely foreign to me.

The gentlemanly thing to me in this situation would be for Zenix to modify his key as he stated he was more than willing to do, or stop offering the model for sale. Conversely though I can understand his outrage, the argument of Megatron that Shapeways somehow constitutes an invalid method of design seems to be a bit far fetched to me. Though hardly an expert I have done CAD modelling and I'd hardly call it a non-skill. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as a fairly recent member that if I work up a CAD file for a piece and accidentally include a detail that I thought was from some reference I had not previously seen that I might be reprimanded and labelled a copycat. All I'm saying is that it gives the community a harsh tone I had not encountered before here. I completely comprehend the need to crack down on re-casters with the swiftness to keep the community honest, but I would be deeply saddened to lose access to such an awesome forum for something as ambiguous as a small symbol on the back of a prop that can be easily altered once I was informed that it was a personal touch.
 
So this is pretty one sided... So no one sells copies of Tron disc as their own just because you add a light to it.. still belongs to Disney no one sells copies of Batman begins Grapple Guns you add a few bolts to it still belongs to WarnerBros.. can go on on ....bunch of greedy money hungry people here... let me ask this is the Idea have a patent on it.. next time go here How To Patent An Idea sure its not morally correct, But when is it crossing the line or in the gray area?? who makes the rules.. So give him 20% of the sells........... If I see a tattoo you did, I see it I go and take a picture of it to a shop and get that tattoo done is it wrong is it right ??

All of the newer people here who keep arguing against the Mods decision //// the RPF concept of "play nice" is common place. Rick


New / Old member I agree play nice... I still say it was between accuser and Mods to work out..



RPF Guideline:
trading of recast items

Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.

Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting.

If anyone believes their item has been recast by a member, they are encouraged to provide proof to the RPF Staff, with the understanding that the burden of proof lies solely with the accuser and that members will be considered innocent unless clearly proven otherwise by the aggrieved party.

Members may not shill on any part of the site. This includes posting items for sale or coordinating sales for other people or promoting sites, services or products for banned members or known recasters.





 
Last edited:
All of the newer people here who keep arguing against the Mods decision should do a couple of things to help enlighten themselves. First, go READ the Member Guidelines, found here: the RPF - FAQ: RPF Guidelines.

Next, try using the search function and type the word "recast" and hit enter. Then actually read some of the older threads and you will possibly understand why we frown on such things. If the Mods bottom line wasn't clear enough, it's a big no-no. Additionally, people who do, and support said actions, sometimes get black-listed just like on Ebay. There are many members here who have "Don't sell to/buy from" lists.

For many of us older members (joined the forum date, not age) the RPF concept of "play nice" is common place. For newer members our views MAY come off as elitist, snobbish, etc. Generally speaking though, that is not the intent. For a long time the RPF kept registrations closed and new members away. These types of attitudes and threads are exactly what some of the members believed would happen if we opened the doors. To help with these types of issues, newer members should really READ many of the older threads. Knowledge about the RPF's past, good and bad, is what I believe may help the newer members understand the "RPF concept."

Now, I'm getting off my soapbox and getting back to working on my R2.


Rick
 
So this is pretty one sided... So no one sells copies of Tron disc as their own just because you add a light to it.. still belongs to Disney no one sells copies of Batman begins Grapple Guns you add a few bolts to it still belongs to WarnerBros.. can go on on ....bunch of greedy money hungry people here... let me ask this is the Idea have a patent on it.. next time go here How To Patent An Idea sure its not morally correct, But when is it crossing the line or in the gray area?? who makes the rules.. So give him 20% of the sells........... If I see a tattoo you did, I see it I go and take a picture of it to a shop and get that tattoo done is it wrong is it right ??

The last bit is actually quite interesting. Just look at the legal issues the studio is having with the tattoo in the Hangover 2 !! It was designed by someonw for mike tyson. They took the design without asking and plastered it all over the film. Now they may have to digitally change almost every scene when it comes out on dvd!!

There rerally doesnt see to be any confusuion at all here.

If you copy a detail added by someone that was not present on the screen piece, ie a detail dreamt up by someone, and add it to your design, the you have copied another persons work. Forget what you want to call the term. It is copied.

weequay
 
Zenix is far from wrong here. He assumed that the "Tell" Megatron used on the back of his recreation was on the original screen used item.

He did not scan Megatron's prop. Zenix used images of it as as ref.
I myself being a digital sculptor -say "No image based ref is off limits for myself or others to study when recreating props and film characters"

You can have all the ref images in the world. It still takes artistic skill, talent and hard work to turn those images into an actual item in the 3d digital realm. Recasting, this is not.

What happened here was indirect, and based more on the Zenix ignorance of the original prop, and no I don't think the Zenix has to credit any other artists works he studied.

If he asked for the ref directly, then yes- he should thank the supplier. That did not happen here.

It really disturbs me when Members here feel intitled to some form of Personal Ownership/Claim/Control/Creation over the original item they made a replica of. Really!?!?!

You own the replica you made, not the original it is based off of. You have no control over anyone else who wants to try make a recreation of their own.

You made a "Whatchamacallit", Hey that's cool. I'm gonna make one as well. Don't like it. Don't care. I can't study what you did? Hahaha! Yeah, Um, Sure...

I certainly wont say you can not study my end results. I'm not a prima donna like that. I don't own the original it's based off of. If studying my end result helps you to make a better "Whatchamacallit". That, for this Community is an ideal outcome.

Anyone who is urked about it, is suffering from that personal ownership over the original item the replica intends to be.

The only thing "I" and "You" can not do is recast each others work. That is the one golden rule here I will defend and stand by.

If Zenix had laser scanned the original item. He would be wrong. He didn't.

Saying "My Ref is King, and You Cant use It!" Ha! No, Sorry...

I wont defend that or stand by it. People could abuse it to prevent other people from making better prop recreation follow ups. There is no way in hell I will defend it on those grounds alone.

Laser scanned items are far from print ready. There is so much work involved to clean them up. It would be counter productive to do it for a small item like this. Zenix's Han Solo in Carbo isn't here yet, and you know why. It's a frickin pain in the ass to clean up laser scans. It's not the simple "One Step Involved Solve" gimmick some of you guys think it is.
 
Last edited:
My "line" would be another if a detail of my work would be copied.


Is it a member who shows how to make things to enable others to give it a own try, helps on searching for new public known details ...... a member who acts like it is a labor of love ....

Or

Is it a member nearly only seen with threads regarding "Interest", "I will make for selling", "For sale" and so on. Trying more to find parts to make a buck of all, than trying to be a part that shares.


"I" would give person 1 always the benefit of the doubt, and person 2 ..... well ... yeah, not really.

Just my view on things like that.
 
Folks, again, please leave how things are done elsewhere out of the discussion. This is about how we do things here, in this community, period.

Working in the Digital realm does not eliminate the requirement to do your own research and not just directly copy another member's work. Xenix did not use reference material from the screen used key, he simply directly copied the key of another member. That is no different than buying or borrowing the key and molding it. You can argue about the skill required to do the copying, as a re-caster often does, but in the end, you are directly copying another member's work. zenix admitted that he has decided to change his design because Megatron's key wasn't screen accurate. Well if zenix had done the proper research to begin with, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just because you are replicating something digitally, does not exempt you from the rules and respect for the work of other members that has been established.
 
Well, he falls under "person 2" in my books.

According his own posts i think he took a shortcut to model the part, and just made it to generate some sales. For me the same as taking a piece and pouring RTV and resin.
 
Zenix and I have come to a conclusion.
He offered me money from the sales of the Shapeways key. I turned it down because I don't want money. That is not why I started this thread, rather the reason is we need the understanding of what recasting is on the RPF and that 3d printing and modeling does need to be addressed in the definition for us here.

We have a lot of new members and that is great! But we need to make sure they understand what this place is and how we treat each other here.
 
So it's the duty of anyone sculpting anything in reality or digitally to verify every little thing? People put their own tells in things all the time and, clearly, the reason for that is to tell yours from others in the case of recasting for example. However, it's known that people here keep reference photos to themselves and don't share with others. Not everyone does it, and i'm not saying anyone in this discussion did, just applying it generally. How is anyone to know what exactly is a tell vs detail from secret reference photos? Hell, i've got photos i'm not allowed to share with others. I never thought i'd be in that club :)

Is the discussion of using that pattern for the back of the key still present here? If not, how is anyone supposed to know the star pattern is a tell? The whole point of a tell is not to tell anyone so that only you know if someone is taking your work and recasing it. I can see doing your own research and people saying no one knows what was on the back, finding pics of the back and figuring that was right and going from there. If the tell isn't listed anywhere, how is your research supposed to tell you it's a tell or not what's on the back of the actual piece?
 
It's no more complicated than asking the simple question of where did the source info come from.

Did you scrutinize the movie for all possible information?

Did you search for screen used reference material?

Did you search the Internet for as much reference material as possible?

Did you discuss the piece with other members to find out what information is available and what information members are willing to share?

Or did you just grab something that another member made and copy it?

This entire issue only becomes complicated when people look to cut corners and/or make a quick buck.

This so reminds me of what Malcolm said in Jurassic Park.
I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now, you're selling it
Yes, it's a bit overly dramatic for this discussion, but the basic idea is valid. The concept of protecting our membership from recasting was not born out of a desire to limit creativity, or make it harder for us to get closer to achieving screen accuracy, quite the contrary. The rule was created to foster an environment where members will want to share as much information as possible without the fear of a fellow member just taking that info and making a quick buck, without so much as a by your leave (for those under the age of 30, that means without asking permission or giving recognition). :)
 
So it's the duty of anyone sculpting anything in reality or digitally to verify every little thing?

Well... yeah! I have argued forever that you shouldn't use a replica as reference and people who do are already starting out on the wrong foot and that doesn't even have anything to do with recasting. I can't tell you how many time in the Fett world I have seen someone say "I love member X's paint job and I followed it to make paint my own part." What? REALLY?!? No replica is 100% and there is always some differences so why in the world would you start with something that already have inevitable inaccuracies built in? Do your own research and figure it out for yourself! This is no different than artists being lazy and just going out to Google Images to pick up reference for their artwork and end up using fan art and including the fan's inaccuracies in their artwork. You used the wrong reference! Stop being lazy and really check into it!


People put their own tells in things all the time and, clearly, the reason for that is to tell yours from others in the case of recasting for example. However, it's known that people here keep reference photos to themselves and don't share with others. Not everyone does it, and i'm not saying anyone in this discussion did, just applying it generally. How is anyone to know what exactly is a tell vs detail from secret reference photos?

The whole point of tells is to dfferentiate your item from the original and to prove if someone ignorantly copies you because they didn't do enough research themselves. How is someone supposed to tell? RESEARCH! Now I am all for not reinventing the wheel and from getting help from others, but I just completely think you are already one foot in the hole if you start a project by using another replica as your reference.
 
I'd agree if you're using it as a main point of reference. Less so if you're using it to fill in the gaps. Like I said, the whole secret reference thing. I'm saying, I can see how this can happen without malicious intent.
 
Hey guys, I'm not taking sides here or anything, but you may find this interesting.

I, being a Whovian, have also been collecting reference pics of the key in question for a while now. After reading this thread, I went back through my McCoy key folder and guess what? 3/4 of my "ref" pics are of Meg's key. (Now deleted)

I don't often get reference pics from JY threads BTW. Just something to consider.
 
I'd agree if you're using it as a main point of reference. Less so if you're using it to fill in the gaps.


Why would you use another persons interpretation to fill in the gaps? Do the work, use your own creativity and fill in the gaps yourself!
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top