A question concerning the perfect replica

[Gigatron]

After reading through the thread in which one member accused another member of recasting and reading both sides of the arguments and counter arguments, I realized we, as a board, may be at a new junction.

Follow along if you will. Up until the DVDs were released, all the photos we had of star wars were either VHS stills, pre/post production stills (which we know always included changes to the props/costumes before or after filming) and fan pics from museum tours. Not exactly the best source material. Those pics are either fuzzy or printed using the dot matrix method (for magazine prints), either too small or from a usuelss angle.

With the release of the DVDs, anyone with time, patience and dvd capture software can capture hundreds, if not thousands, of screen accurate stills of any prop or costume piece that's on screen.

So, now to the point of this thread. The ultimate goal of any fabricator and collector is to get the utmost, absolute perfect screen accurate replica possible, correct? People strive to have the most dead-on accurate anything. From every dimension to every blemish. And with the technology available to fabricators, whether it be machining or sculpting, the perfect replica is now achievable.

So my question to everyone is this; if multiple people have all the same refernce material, fabrication opportunities and the same dedication, isn't it completely feasible that multiple people would conceivably produce the perfect replica without "recasting" another's work (whether it's through resin casting or taking dimensions from a machined piece)?

Logic should dictate that the perfect replica, regardless of manufacturer, should look exactly like every other perfect replica. And if one person states that their piece has visible "tells" in it, then clearly that piece is not the perfect replica. It may be extremely close in every other respect, but if there is a visible way for the maker to tell that a piece is theirs, then it is not 100% screen accurate. If there is a scratch, dent, notch or some other way for a maker to identify thier piece visibly, then they have not achieved thier goal of the perfect replica.

The ultimate goal is to replicate what you see on screen, exactly. There is only one way of accomplishing this - using the exact dimensions regardless of how straight or crooked the original may be. Copying every flaw and goof is the only way to achieve true screen accuracy.

So, once one person has achieved this, should all other fabricators stop their quest for perfection for fear of being labled a recaster?

So, to all of you out there with an opinion, what say you?

-Fred

 

[GINO]

I ALWAYS put tells on my pieces that I offer, which are different than what I keep for myself. 99.999% of the time, they go unnoticed. That way it isn't up for debate and is easily verifyable.
In my recent thread, it wasn't a question of whether they were my pieces or not, it was whether or not they were recast.

On another note, there is a wide range of what people want in terms of accuracy. Some want exactly what the prop looked like during filming regardless of how beat up or crappy is truly was, while some want a more idealized look without all the blemishes and warps. There is a wide range.

 

[Ramiel]

Gigatron,
Your affirmations are flawless...
I agree with you 100% (except for the "idealized" interpretation of a prop, just because IS an interpretation, but this is the ONLY exception )

 

[juno]

I don't like the concept of tells. If I'm going to buy something, I want it to be exact. When I did my Platform 9 3/4 tickets, my goal was to be exact. There are other tickets out there, but I felt that I could differentiate myself with my technique and the packaging. (And mine was more exact .)

Also, I wasn't making them because I need to feed my babies off the proceeds. I was making them because *gasp* this is a h-o-b-b-y, and the part of it I enjoy the most is the nit-picking of the pieces. I've even shared the original files with a select few.

One of the big wake-up calls I had as a teen was doing CADD work for a company that made patented laser micrometers. A company in Korea started making EXACTLY the same laser micrometer (reverse-engineered). Now, because the company I worked for had the patent, they sued. Eventually they won the case, but the owner said that the money he got back was no where near the amount of money and time he'd spent, and by the time the case was over the micrometers in question were obsolete. He said that next time he'd put the money and energy into research and better technology.

That is not to say I wouldn't get mad if I saw an exact duplicate of my ticket being sold for less on eBay (and unfortunately, I think that happens more with paper props than any other) but how would I know it wasn't just someone reselling a ticket they bought from me?

 

[Gigatron]

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Jul 29 2006, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1289901[/snapback]</div>

I ALWAYS put tells on my pieces that I offer, which are different than what I keep for myself. 99.999% of the time, they go unnoticed. That way it isn't up for debate and is easily verifyable.
In my recent thread, it wasn't a question of whether they were my pieces or not, it was whether or not they were recast.

On another note, there is a wide range of what people want in terms of accuracy. Some want exactly what the prop looked like during filming regardless of how beat up or crappy is truly was, while some want a more idealized look without all the blemishes and warps. There is a wide range.
[/b]

But see, this is my point. And it's just not you Gino, so please don't take this thread as a personal attack. You have every right to defend your work. But in a time when perfect, exact replication is possible, how does one determine that their work is being copied or if another maker has achieved the same level of perfection. If seller A's piece has a visible tell (noticable or not to 99.999% of the market) regardless of how small, it therefore, is no longer screen accurate.

If two or fifty makers all make a piece that is exactly screen accurate, then you will have two or fifty replicas that will, and should, look exactly alike. But then will we end up with 50 "so and so is a recaster because his dead-on accurate piece looks exactly like my dead-on accurate piece" threads?

When do we accept the fact that one 100% exact replica will look like another 100% exact replica and not everyone is copying everyone elses work?

And, I hate to say this again, but pieces with visible tells are not screen accurate. If you want to engrave your initals on the backside of a piece (where it is out of sight and may be glued to something else) that is your perogative. But if you think people are going to start pulling their multi-pieced props apart so you (or some other maker) can check for your initials, you're out of your mind.

And as far as idealized is concerned, that not even in the same clas as accurate. You might as well just call it "artist's interpretation".

I'm sorry, but screen accurate has only one definition - accurate to what is seen on screen, down to every last dimension and blemish - nothing more, nothing less.

-Fred

 

[franz bolo]

I think if you got 20 prop replicators and gave them the same reference material, you'd still get 20 different versions..

Short of a blueprint, it's all interpretation.

FB

 

[kell]

Just a thought, If 10 people made the exact same prop and they were all identical, the one made by the propmaker with the most street cred, and has 'tells' in it would probably be a more valued item just because of its maker. Agree or disagree it something to think about.

 

[hydin]

there is no such think as a "perfect replica".

there is "used in this scene" or "scene in this scene", but no "perfect" all around replica.

take for example, a stormtrooper. 3 movies, tons of scenes. what trooper armor is more accurate.. the guys raiding the falcon taking off at the spaceport (poor ******* that faceplants himself for a good take), or the guys in the death star walking around?

"tells" to me, are always annoying. if i can notice it, it doesnt belong. not that i get super anal about my props details anyway, but no way in hell am i going to take a perfect cast off screen used master and "alter" it to sell as a perfect 1:1 copy as seen in "this scene". adding a tell MAKES it not perfect, and not exact as the screen used master. false advertising for the very detail anal.

thats what pissed me off about the unobtanium spidey bomb. it was altered a lot. its was bigger, it was reversed, and therefore not "screen used accuracy". thats why i didnt buy one when i had the chance. it was being sold as a "cast from molds to match screen used" prop replica, which it wasnt.

logic tells me that if 40 people all research the same stills, and bust ass, we will have 40 different versions that all look damned close. shadows, lights, focus, stunt, hero, all this stuff matters when you are designing something. no 2 people are going to think alike, or make things alike, so there will always be SOME form of diff in the replicas.

then again, im a hobby guy, im not a "business" guy. i dont do this for a living, not bashing the guys that do this for a living. if you can make a great living doing something you love, more power to ya. i just dont want to ruin a great hobby by making it work related.

chris

 

[Serafino]

Degree of accuracy achieved by multiple workers is not always the same. It depends on the complexity of the part, and in the more difficult cases everyone's is slightly different.

In a case where 'perfect accuracy' is fairly easy, then I can definitely see the problem Fred is talking about, and I don't see a solution.

Although 'tells' can exist within a 'generally' screen-accurate part, or can be placed in a hidden area not normally visible. Then of course it becomes a question of how much trouble the originator wants to go to to protect his work.

 

[Gigatron]

<div class='quotetop'>(kell @ Jul 29 2006, 02:56 AM) [snapback]1289941[/snapback]</div>

Just a thought, If 10 people made the exact same prop and they were all identical, the one made by the propmaker with the most street cred, and has 'tells' in it would probably be a more valued item just because of its maker. Agree or disagree it something to think about.
[/b]

Well, here's a way to think about it.

Suppose you had an opportunity to purchase a replica of a Picasso and you had 10 to choose from. Each one was painted by a respected, clasically trained artist. Eight of them were nearly identical. At first glance, could easily be confused to be the original, but upon closer examination, certain tells become obvious. The ninth is a deadon accurate reproduction. Stroke for stroke, it is a precisely accurate reproduction. Even experts can't tell the difference. The tenth is like the first eight; very, very close but there are tells - BUT, it was painted by Van Gogh (yes I know the timelines make this impossible but let's ignore this for this example). Which would you rather have - a dead-on, so accurate that the experts can't tell the difference replica, or a close enough painted by another famous artist? Depending on what my true interest was, it would be a toss up. If I wanted accuracy, I would pick the ninth. If I wanted resaleability, I would go with the tenth.


Hydin, the stormtroopers are an potentially bad example, and here's why. There are dozens of them and almost impossible to single one out. But if you could single one particular trooper and replicate it's peculirarities, that would be a screen accurate trooper. As long you could provide photographic evidence of the trooper you were replicating and we could compare the the two, that's all we could ask.

But in instances wher there is only one version of said object, or a person chooses to replicate either hero or stunt version of said object, I believe a perfect replica is indeed possible. For instance, there was only one version (that I'm aware of) of the training remote. Members have dedicated a great amount of time and resources figuring out dimensions and what parts were used. With all the photo references available (actual prop and other references), it is 100% possible to create a 100% accurate replica.

Now to use the other thread as an example, how many versions of the chest box coinslots do you think exist? A hero box and a stunt box at most? So a maker chooses which he would like to replicate, gets the necessary reference material and makes an exact replica. If someone else, independently, decides that they are also going to make a replica the same coinslot (unknowingly that another exists), I find it is completely feasible that 2 exact replicas can exist without being copies of each other.

-Fred

 

[Serafino]

I would pick the one with tells for two reasons. 1.) I'm not trying to fool anyone; and 2.) I am not interested in supporting anyone who's trying to fool anyone, or in making it easier for someone in the future to fool someone.

Besides, visible tells can easily be done on a level where less than 5% of the prop-buying public would notice.

 

[CaptCBoard]

Fred-

This is one of those hypothetical questions that I normally blow off because they're just plain stupid. However, the whole point of your first post was calling into question what a recast is or is not. By your post, I have come to the conclusion you either haven't a clue or you just like to stir things up.

A recast is a molded copy of work not done by the person doing the molding and subsequently offering it for sale. The work is usually some form of resin kit, whether it is a figure or vehicle of some sort or another. In other words, the unauthorized copying of work by someone else. The last qualifier that makes something a recast is if the whole idea was to sell a product without having to make a master. The term 'recast' would not exist if the copies were not being made by molding and casting. To make the copy any other way automatically means more work had to be done, by hand, and thus the final item has a percentage of original work involved in its manufacture.

Identical work being done by any number of individuals can in no way be considered recasting. Each individual is working from scratch to make an item as close to what was on screen as possible. Individually, their limitations are talent, expertise and budget. Even if all of them produced absolutely identical items, none of the individuals used the work done by another to achieve the result.

Scott

 

[juno]

So . . . then . . . I have an item someone made. As long as I copy it without using molding or casting of the piece, I'm in the green?

 

[Serafino]

Scott--Obviously. The question is: if many people are producing visually identical 'perfect' replicas, how do you then tell if something IS a recast?

Juno--not necessarily. But it's pretty much impossible to do anything about, whereas recasting is only exceedingly difficult to do anything about.

 

[juno]

I don't think there's really much to be done about "recasting," except maybe on this board. :unsure

 

[micdavis]

There is no perfect replica.

There is no honor among thieves.

There is no gray area.

This is just a hobby. Or it should be anyway.

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(CaptCBoard @ Jul 28 2006, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1289989[/snapback]</div>

A recast is a molded copy of work not done by the person doing the molding and subsequently offering it for sale.
[/b]

You mean almost every trooper helmet we see?
I still don't see how you can recast an original helmet and re-sell it, then go after someone who does the same to your parts.

This completely baffles me.

FB

 

[CaptCBoard]

Juno-

Exactly how would you copy something without molding it? Answer that and you have the reason why it is not a recast. It is a replica, but it is your own work. And I'm talking about real-world scenarios, not what-ifs.

Serafino- Obviously "many people" are not making visually identical "perfect" replicas, so the question of recasting is moot.

FB- The act of making copies of your trooper helmets is infringement if you don't have a license to make them. Anyone making copies of your copies is recasting. Whether you "go after" the guy recasting your work is up to you, but I don't see the point, with this exception-- If he is claiming what he is selling was made by you, whether it is inferior to your work or not. Exactly HOW you would "go after" him eludes me, but then again this entire thread is just plain stupid as everyone reading it already knows the ins and outs of this hobby.

Or am I in the minority when it comes to actually understanding what recasting is about? What is so difficult to understand? If someone is selling something made by using 100% of someone else's work, he's recasting. If he is manufacturing something using dimensions taken off another piece of work, the end result of his work is a replica, as the item he used is a REFERENCE. Whether the reference is an original prop or a replica prop someone else made, the end result is not a recast. It is an original copy, also known as a replica.

Now here's a question for everyone to consider... The Millenium Falcon is covered with parts from commercially available, copyrighted plastic kits. If a model of exactly the same shape as the Falcon was made using nothing but hand-made detail parts that look nothing like the parts used on the original, is LFL copyright infringed? Can LFL claim copyright on a model that contains copyrighted parts used as detailing, without securing the proper permissions? If the parts were stripped off due to copyright infringment, would it still be the MF? And finally-- did Master Replicas obtain permission from all the detail part copyright holders before making copies of those parts for their new MF model?

The answer is this: LFL can claim copyright on the MF without obtaining clearances from the manufacturers of the kits. LFL is not reselling anything, they are claiming copyright on an original work that has details taken from model kits they bought. Just because the parts were not used to build each specific kit does not mean they can't be used for something else. They bought the kits, they can do what they want with the parts. However, LFL is probably partially liable should a problem arise with MR copying the kit parts. MR is definitely in violation if they did not obtain the proper clearances. This very thing happened to the SF3D line of kits when they first came out. A large number of their kits were kitbashes of other company's kits and they were sued, causing the line to be discontinued. I don't know the final bit of that story, but it took about 15 years for the line of kits to come back.

Scott

 

[Jumpin Jax]

<div class='quotetop'>(franz bolo @ Jul 28 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]1290017[/snapback]</div>

You mean almost every trooper helmet we see?
I still don't see how you can recast an original helmet and re-sell it, then go after someone who does the same to your parts.

This completely baffles me.

FB
[/b]

On this board, I call it the Pioneer Clause. Currently, there's a guy on the board about to cast up his bone sword from Brotherhood of the Wolf. It's his prop, his initiative, and as a member of the board he should expect.....how shall I say it: right by being the first? You copy up a prop or costume, then offer dupes. You did the work, you made the connections, you made it happen. Now to have someone, especially another board member take a sh** on what you did by copying it for themselves to make a business, sucks. In the gray area that we exist, there is no wrong so much as respectful. And it's not a matter of "I copied this piece a gay made, while it's not his to claim exclusively, I acknowledge the roots", it always becomes "So what if I copied it? Screw you man, I had the right or inclination and it's a free country.... Mine's better anyway, so forget you."
Kinda beats the stuffing out of the sense of community. Yeah stuff's going to be copied, sometimes real props and costumes, but try a modicom of respect for whoever puts in the time, effort, and usually a LOT of money.
Dennis Farina was right: It's not a matter of just rules and right, it's just manners. It's falling on mainly deaf ears, but hope springs eternal.
JJ

 

[Gigatron]

<div class='quotetop'>(CaptCBoard @ Jul 29 2006, 04:33 AM) [snapback]1289989[/snapback]</div>

Fred-

A recast is a molded copy of work not done by the person doing the molding and subsequently offering it for sale. The work is usually some form of resin kit, whether it is a figure or vehicle of some sort or another. In other words, the unauthorized copying of work by someone else.

Scott
[/b]

Think of it this way Scott; Suppose someone produces a machined metal piece. Someone else purchases said piece and thinks to themselves "I can sell copies of this for a major profit". Do think they're going to offer up resin copies? Not very likely. All he has to do is take a set of micrometers to it, reverse engineer it and take it to a machinist. As far as I'm concerned, that falls under recasting of a different medium. And yes, I am trying to stir things up. You know why? I'm tired of reading thread after thread of "so and so is a recaster" when there's never any proof that the person never did anything more than come up with the same accurate representation as the original poster. It's time we accept the fact that it's possible that more than one person is capable of achieving near perfection around here. We're a world wide board, we're bound to find more than one person who can do math and scale things from available references and then machine them. It's just the law of averages.


Serafino, let's just say a contest was held and the challenge was for an artist to produce the most exact replica of the painting, so it eliminates moral dilemas of people trying to rip other people off (and all the artists had to sign their names on the back in big huge letters).

But certain artists, for fear of their work being copied, worked in small tells only noticeable to the true expert - not for any other reason. Noone was trying to fool anyone or pretend to be something they're not. It was all part of the contest.

And please, everyone cut with the "the perfect replica doesn't exist" line. Seriously, how long do you think it will take before someone with some serious skill, enough reference and desire to make the most accurate reproduction of a piece, shows up on this board?

I mean come on, just look at the work Serafino has put in to reproducing the ANM2 booster. He's got tighter tolerances than the original manufacturer. Don't you think that other people might have the same drive and desire? Granted, Serafino might have a slightly easier time because he was able to get his hands on an orignal for measuring, but the way props go on tour, it's not that hard to get dead accurate pictures,angles and measurements.

-Fred