AA/SDS recasting issue...

[vaderdarth]

I completely agree TNH, we've seen it time and time again, that recasters have no problems doing quite well on Ebay once they get banned here. As long as some people see value in what the recaster sells...........history shows they continue to pad the pockets of the recaster. It's a sad truth. The known recasters of years past are selling lots and lots of items on a daily basis. You only need to scan Ebay occasionally to find them. You can't track them all down.......they hand out Ebay ID's like candy. Even if the person get's kicked off Ebay........he usually returns under a new name with a new ID and carries on business as usual.

Dave

 

[RKW]

Why does this discussion keep getting bogged down with the recasting issue? I would have thought it was more important that SDS stopped misrepresenting his product(s). I would rather he just explained to customers that he reverse engineered a ROTJ suit than continue claiming that he used the original ANH moulds, skins etc.

Surely we must all be able to agree on that.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by GINO@Jan 11 2006, 01:59 AM

Did you read my previous post?
TE owned the rights and gave permission for GF to make copies. So no, GF is not a recaster.
If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1 of my previous post.

[snapback]1155975[/snapback]​

I don't see TE in the courts fighting for his "rights" to make TK armor.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[ImprisonedFett]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 11:23 AM
I'm not saying the suggestion doesn't have merit........I'm just saying that if we as the RPF membership...............decide to apply that to the "membership body"  what do we do when an individual falls outside the membership???  There are tons of questions to be answered about all this.  That seems like a biggie to me.  Do we expand who we apply the guidelines to (outsiders)????  Or do we even need to make an official stand when they aren't members of our community????  Should we extend our "Iron Clad Rules" to other unsuspecting communities???? Do we,  the RPF Govern the entire world wide web????

I ask this because it's quite obvious that AA isn't selling his wares in the junkyard. 

I think the MODs need to make this call.    I wouldn't want to be in their shoes,  but it would at least tell us what our boundaries are as the RPF.

[snapback]1156173[/snapback]​

Of course we the RPF cannot run the way the prop community works as a whole outside of our little forum. However guidelines CAN be set HERE for recasters in general. Whether they are part of this forum, banned, non members, some joe shmoe on Ebay or whatever, we CAN govern how we handle those parts from those people who are proven to be recast. I don't understand the thinking that we cannot decide what to do if a person is a non member as regards recasted items. We as a community can decide what to do if recasted items are seen, promoted, or sold here.
We cannot make other forums follow our lead. We can't make those who recast stop. It isn't going to happen. Quite frankly if someone wants to buy a recast item on Ebay that is their choice. We don't need to police that. However if something is going on in this community whether it is a product from a member here or not it should be handled one specific way ALL of the time.

 

[ImprisonedFett]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 11 2006, 11:55 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 11 2006, 11:55 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-GINO

@Jan 11 2006, 01:59 AM

Did you read my previous post?
TE owned the rights and gave permission for GF to make copies. So no, GF is not a recaster.
If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1 of my previous post.

[snapback]1155975[/snapback]​

I don't see TE in the courts fighting for his "rights" to make TK armor.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1156185[/snapback]​

[/b]

You didn't see #1 in Gino's post. We aren't talking about legally, we are discussing ethically according to our prop making/collecting world.

 

[Treadwell]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 10 2006, 04:02 PM
All I want to hear is that it's ok or it isn't ok. Silence leads to nothing except more questions and an interpretation that may or may not lead to confusion.

[snapback]1155542[/snapback]​

It's just that it is more complex than the binary choice you provide.

The staff is discussing it--that's what we try to do, we deliberate, rather than make rash proclamations. We don't entirely agree there needs to be an Official Stance, as the community is already working out its own (isn't that what folks wanted us to do, cut down on the edicts from on high?).

But there will be a statement, because you demanded it. :lol

 

[vaderdarth]

But how do you police "ethics"??? People are either ethical or they're not. Unfortunately it's not against the law to be "unethical".

I do agree, however, that AA needs to tighten up his descriptions of his products to better reflect what he's offering.........BEFORE he puts the incorrect information on his website. I don't think anyone has ever argued against that.

Dave

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 11 2006, 01:59 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 11 2006, 01:59 AM)</div>

He created his own patterns based on the ANH suit. He didn't have anything on hand to copy. He didn't have an ANH suit ab plate to modify when he created his own. He built his from SCRATCH.

GF didn't have an original item, an original cast item but he had the scratchbuilt item. He owned the rights to his part in our twisted little world of propmaking.
[/b]

So GF built the ab plate from scratch. LetÂ’s see what Gino says:

<!--QuoteBegin-GINO@Jan 11 2006, 01:59 AM
TE owned the rights and gave permission for GF to make copies. So no, GF is not a recaster.
If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1 of my previous post.

[snapback]1155975[/snapback]​

So GF copied an ab plate, therefore it was not made from scratch.

So, Gino backtracksÂ….

Originally posted by GINO@Jan 11 2006, 02:06 AM
For clarification, GF took an AUTHORIZED recast and "scratch built" sections directly on them (ex. ab plate). He also scratch built entire pieces as well that appear to be recast (ex. shoulder connectors).

For example, in the case of the ab plate, GF took an authorized recast rotj ab plate, and scratch built the ab plate box and it's details. This section in question was not sculpted screen accurate and is very easy to identify the same section in the SDS ab plate.

[snapback]1155978[/snapback]​

So now we have “authorized” and “unauthorized” recasts. We also have further admission that GF copied a ROTJ ab plate and THEN modified it. Doesn’t sound like scratch-built to me.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by ImprisonedFett@Jan 11 2006, 12:03 PM
You didn't see #1 in Gino's post.  We aren't talking about legally, we are discussing ethically according to our prop making/collecting world.

[snapback]1156192[/snapback]​

So the RPF is immune from legal action if its members decide that #1 always applies? I believe we need to consider the larger picture as well. How often have some that are against SDS stated that if the RPF support AA there may be legal reprocussions? More than once....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[ImprisonedFett]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 11 2006, 12:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 11 2006, 12:40 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-ImprisonedFett

@Jan 11 2006, 12:03 PM
You didn't see #1 in Gino's post.  We aren't talking about legally, we are discussing ethically according to our prop making/collecting world.

[snapback]1156192[/snapback]​

So the RPF is immune from legal action if its members decide that #1 always applies? I believe we need to consider the larger picture as well. How often have some that are against SDS stated that if the RPF support AA there may be legal reprocussions? More than once....

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1156225[/snapback]​

[/b]

Then I believe you need to throw out your collection. I need to throw out my collection. Everyone else needs to do the same because legally we have all done wrong and there could be repercussions. Hopefully we all know legally what is correct, however we also know what is correct from out propmaking standpoint. Unless you are prepared to throw out all your stuff I wouldn't start down this line of thinking.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Gino,

Some time ago, someone here (and I really cant remember who) produced what it seems to me as the most accurate definition of “Recasting” according to the apparent view of many RPF members. It was

“Recasting is not recasting when I’m doing it”

And joking aside IMO that is precisely the line you have taken.

Its this statement that I look at with sheer incredulity

Originally posted by GINO@Jan 11 2006, 03:56 AM
It really is simple.

2. Whoever first obtains the original item, original cast item, or scratchbuilt item, owns the rights to the piece. They alone have the right to do what they wish with it, or grant the permission of another person to make copies, sell copies, or modify a copy of it. If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1.

IÂ’m sorry Gino but I just donÂ’t accept that view and believe you have conveniently constructed it to defend your own position.

If TE got hold of an original Stormtrooper Helmet and made a cast of it, I AGREE that under forum rules this should be seen as “acceptable” for HIM to make copy helmets available. HOWEVER that does not entitle him to transfer or sell-on "manufacturing rights" to the highest bidders. In addition I find the use of the word “rights” or "authorized" anywhere to be wholly out of place.

To be in a position where there are multiple moulds and a helmet is viewed as “©TE Approved” is just crazy (there must be 4 or 5 of them now). There may be a moral argument that say’s someone can sell their one-and-only set of moulds IF they'd decided to bow out of production, but multiples, 5, 10????

How on EARTH you can produce a scenario where AA is a recaster and yourself not is just amazing. You've perversely drawn a "Right/Wrong" line precisely where it suits your own agenda.

IÂ’ll say it again as this hypocrisy is simply incredible

“Recasting is not recasting when I’m doing it”

Cheers

Jez

 

[vaderdarth]

I think I also heard some comment not long ago, that as long as that "recaster" is doing the props community a favor..........he's A-Okay. I've seen the AA costume.......and in my book, it's a BIG favor to the community....it's definitely a few steps closer to an ANH suit of armor(at least to some people). We can't apply different rules to people just because they are our friends. If we make these rules.........everybody is governed by them.

It's far better to chastise someone for their "unethical" behavior and let the masses decide in silence if your side, his side or a mix of the two is the "guts" of the truth. Then they can make their own decisions about dealing with the person in question...............and they can do what I do.......warn members thru PM about the person they are considering dealing with. Even after you warn them, THEY have to make a conscious decision if they want to continue dealing with that person or not. At least they were informed. But it is up to the consumer to make the call where they spend their cash once they are informed. As long as they have heard both sides........and God knows, both sides have been hashed to death on this forum concerning AA..........they are surely smart enough to do what they feel is right without our input a second time.

I don't care if you decide you hate AA, you see them as the Antichrist, and will never do any business with them based on what you know about them. I really truly don't.

But why do you, who might disagree with my own assessment of AA, insist that my own opinion is invalid??? And then try to drive your point home by creating an official proclamation that yes, he is the Antichrist and that anyone who deals with him henceforth is a demonic worshiper???...and further "screw your opinion".

What I don't want to see happen, is some fella down the road (possibly me) who decides to unload their AA costume in the Junkyard or on Ebay, and all the sudden the fella gets labelled as "supporting a recaster" and gets banned for doing so. Don't you guys see how dangerous that whole notion could be for us all???? I have a whole list of members that have supported recasters by that definition. I consider alot of them friends. Do we really wanna go there???

Another problem I have with this line of thinking is: How do you base your rules on recasting to apply to someone where a significant number of members seem to disagree about this part or that part being original/recast/new sculpt etc etc???? Unless we all agree, how valid/fair will our new "label" for the supposed recaster really be??? I can tell you a significant amount of details on the SDS suit, does not in any way match the same details on my own GF suit. That causes me alot of doubt about the "accusation" in general. Others see the same photos as rock solid proof the guy is the Antichrist.

How much of all the suits, TE/Gino/AA/GF "should" have similar anatomy when large portions of it were supposedly a screen used suit??? Sure, some parts were resuclpted by different artists........but it's not like JOE BLOW went out and totally sculpted a set of Stormtrooper armor from scratch (like GF has proven he did with his first incredible set of armor....now known as Armor FX etc...). If you take a "screen used" piece, you add to it, you recast it with your own details built in, you certainly can't call it your own creation. You can call it an improvement...

It's not yours if you didn't sculpt all of it, in my book.

Would anyone change their minds, if AA were to give credit to GF/TE on his website for "parts" of the costume??? I honestly don't think either side would budge. So again I ask: What's the point???

If I apply Gino's logic, I really will have to throw my entire collection of Star Wars props to the curb........even a few MR pieces along with it if I am to remain true to the original "owner" or "maker" of all the details of all the props. Since I didn't buy those items directly from the person(s) who originally made the items, they are now tainted???? Even MR's license can't protect them from "borrowing" certain details of certain props from the props community if we proclaim ourselves the Props Ethics Committee.... That whole idea is ludicrous.

Rubies misrepresents their costumes regularly..........we aren't burning them at the stake. They don't even bother to correct the blaring errors. We buy from Rubies every day here at the RPF.

A license doesn't change whether you are ethical or not.

Dave

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by ImprisonedFett@Jan 11 2006, 12:53 PM
Then I believe you need to throw out your collection.  I need to throw out my collection. Everyone else needs to do the same because legally we have all done wrong and there could be repercussions.  Hopefully we all know legally what is correct, however we also know what is correct from out propmaking standpoint.  Unless you are prepared to throw out all your stuff I wouldn't start down this line of thinking.

This line of thinking is perfectly valid and would not require us to throw out our collections. It deals with makers of prop replicas, not buyers or collectors of prop replicas.

Gino is saying that it should be part of our CoC that we disregard the rights of the studios in regard to recasting. The way it stands now the CoC deals with recasting among members and from what I've read the RPF also does not support the sales of recasted pieces even from nonmembers. Keep in mind that if a collector sells a piece he finds out afterward is recasted, preventing him from selling in the junkyard is very different from preventing a known recaster or his dealer from selling directly in the junkyard. Even if a collector knowingly buys a recasted piece because he likes it and then decides to sell it later on, it has become a part of his collection and he should be able to sell it here. However if it was found out that that collector is actually fronting for the dealer here, as has happened before, then I believe that collector not only be prevented from doing so but also face possible suspension or even banning.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[gavidoc]

Vaderdarth,

I misspoke as I forgot the details. GF still fabricated parts of his ab plate. While not the entire thing, he fabricated certain details that are visible in AA parts.

In regards to this whole: policing ebay and all that good stuff.

It would be no different then the following:

You don't smoke. You hate the smell of it. You dislike what it does to the human body. You have friends who do smoke. You don't let them smoke in your house. You have no control over where they smoke when not in your house. That doesn't stop you from making a rule that there is no smoking in your house.

Same thing here. We can't stop recasting nor recasters. Not going to happen. We can't keep them from selling their stuff on other forums. That shouldn't stop us or the staff from making a rule that recast work can't be sold here in our house. Who gives a flying flip about elsewhere. We have no control over it.

Treadwell,



It's been said before that the staff needs to be more clear on letting members know that they are discussing something. You just did that, a little late, but you did.

 

[ImprisonedFett]

I think the problem lies here relies on people's views of our hobby. We understand that our hobby as a whole is a bootleg on the corporations. We understand and acknowledge this. The problem that we see is the question regarding recasting. There is a line on acceptable/non acceptable forms of recasting. However this line is not black and white. Either way people sit on this will be harsh one way or the other. If it is not acceptable at all to recast an original piece such as a screen used prop, then many of us will not have accurate pieces in our collections. If it is acceptable, then there is a double to standard in play. "If they can recast, we can't we?" mentality. As Jez pointed out with his quote of recasting: “Recasting is not recasting when I’m doing it”. This attitude will prevail as well. I think Gytheran's post was to see where these gray areas are. I don't think we as a group know this. At the end of the day we will each have to, as individuals, make up our own minds on what is acceptable and what is not. It seems this will be the case.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 05:09 PM
he is the Antichrist and that anyone who deals with him henceforth is a demonic worshiper???...and further "screw your opinion".   

There's really no need for the hyperbole.

I don't see anyone here suggesting that Andrew Ainsworth is the devil incarnate, or that those who favour him in this debate are Satanists.

Sorry, I can understand when so many disagree that you feel you are being persecuted, but it bothers me when justifiable criticisms and points of view (IMO) are blown out of proportion and seen as hatred or vilification.

Originally posted by RKW+Jan 11 2006, 03:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 11 2006, 03:54 PM)</div>

Why does this discussion keep getting bogged down with the recasting issue?
[/b]

Probably something to do with the title of this thread I imagine?


For me the question isn't who has the right to make stormtrooper armor.

The question isn't the perceived hypocrisy from members here.

The question isn't any one of the many tangents that this thread has spun off on.

The question put forth in this thread under the assumption that the answer is yes is: Is Andrew Ainsworth a recaster and should we, as a community, do anything about it?


As we all know the RPF already has an official policy on recasting: Don't.

And while it appears to many that AA has borrowed from other people's work to create his own, the fact that the membership here is so incredibly polarized on the issue suggests to me that a consensus will never be reached.

As such, rather than have some kind of mandate issued by the mods, I suggest that we all simply have to decide for ourselves whether or not we support a possible recaster or not -- we can't make people think a certain way. Unfortunately.

I mean, I'd be cool if the official RPF stance was that AA armor not be bought or sold here. But I am sympathetic that some people are on the other side of the fence, and if I was them I would be livid if such a ruling came to pass. I'm just trying to find a resolution that works for everyone because otherwise, to quote a very wise person in the first page of this thread:

<!--QuoteBegin-jeezycreezy@Jan 9 2006, 02:11 PM
Unless it was put to a vote I think all that will result from this is another massive, pages long thread full of contradicting opinions and disharmony.

Talk about prescience.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting a vote.

I'm not suggesting people who want to discuss this stop.

I'm just making a futile attempt at making peace here is all.

Cheers.
TJ


PS. In case people can't tell from my wishy-washy response: It appears to me that AA recast components of other people's work and I would not be comfortable supporting him with a purchase. If asked I would sway people against purchasing his armor for that very reason.

 

[vaderdarth]

Gavidoc, Jeezy, I don't completely disagree with either of your views. I suppose from that viewpoint that if the RPF were to make some blanket rule about recasting and that person selling his wares in house................I really would not object to it. I honestly thought that rule was already in place. If the ruling body, decides that SDS, being a non member, cannot sell his stuff at the RPF, I won't argue with that either.

I just don't want to see folks, down the road a bit, get crucified for selling an AA suit in the junkyard...............because certain less ethical members here might start crying "Homeboy is supporting a recaster......he's selling a suit in the junkyard.....off with his head".

As long as we expand the rule to avoid that sort of thing, let the process continue. I would like to also include some definitive mention of whether recasting includes just those items we made 100% by our own hands or can it also be part our sculpt/part screen used.......etc etc etc.

Further, let's make it crystal clear.......if there is any doubt as to whether the "recast items" could possibly be found to originate from a recast of a recast of a recast of even a totally different item.........back in 1976......does our rule still apply??? We'd look pretty dumb if AA wins the case against LFL and thus laid some claim to "general stormtrooper costumes" under UK law. (Yeah I know it's about as likely as winning the lottery and winning the nobel prize in the same day). Afterall, LFL is the SW Law...in the USA at least.

Will I be crucified after the RPF makes this law as long as I don't buy my suit thru the RPF????

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by jeezycreezy@Jan 11 2006, 02:25 PM
PS.  In case people can't tell from my wishy-washy response: It appears to me that AA recast components of other people's work and I would not be comfortable supporting him with a purchase.  If asked I would sway people against purchasing his armor for that very reason.

[snapback]1156307[/snapback]​

Perhaps that is it in a nutshell...I agree that it is ultimately up to each individual whether they want to support AA's business or not. The problem for the mods is how do they phrase it? A warning that SDS is a dealer that may have recasted member's modified armor parts and that the RPF does not support recasting? To me that's about all they can do. I wouldn't ban people from showing off their SDS armor here, nor trying to sell armor or helmets if they wanted to because they are selling parts of their collection, and not supporting AA's business. That would be like punishing the child for the crime of the parent.

I bought AA helmets but don't plan to buy the armor just because I'm only interested in helmets. If I was interested in the armor, it would be a tough choice if he really did take advantage of someone elses armor. Perhaps my interest in authenticity would overrule that, but then there would be the impression of the RPF on my purchase. The whole problem here is trying to define what right GF has to his armor and what right AA has to the armor. If it turns out AA does have legal rights to the armor, then GF would be answerable to AA in court directly, and a court wouldn't care if AA modified one of GF's pieces since the act of GF using AA's armor would take precedent. Pehaps someone with better legal knowledge than I would have a more accurate appraisal of that kind of scenario....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[vaderdarth]

I totally agree Sithlord. It seems that it needs to be up to "individuals" rather than the RPF itself.

This gets back to what Jeezy posted above........the issue is highly polarized. There are lots of supporters of AA and lots of Anti AA. The likelihood of an agreement is pretty low.

How about those individuals that end up buying a small army of AA costumes to properly display their Vader??? How long until they get accused of selling for AA in the junkyard, should they decide to unload their collection??? We had better account for that possibility.

Gino sold his personal collection not long ago..........though he claimed he was no longer selling suits to people. Gino might get taken advantage of if he found himself in this situation with AA suits rather than Gino/GF/TE suits. We just need to cover all bases.

Dave

 

[KevVader]

Wow, I'm getting dizzy.....I think it is near impossible to determine an official stance on recasting when we cannot collectively and categorically define what "recasting" is....