AA/SDS recasting issue...

[TheNuclearHorror]

Hi,
It seems to me that proving the origins of the pieces in question is the heart of the matter.

If SDS is found to have recasted the original pieces, it is OK.
If SDS recasted someone else's work, it is not OK.

Seems to me piracy is piracy, no matter if you throw sheep's wool on it.

The new warning on DVD's against copying make this pretty clear.
This is no different.

Did AA have the licence, true or false?

If false, then everything else is irrelevant.

Piracy is piracy. Stealing is stealing.
The people whom have the licence paid for it and the employees of the company make their livings from it.
To indulge bootleggers of any product takes away from the original creators or the licence holders.
This applies to illegal music downloads as much as recasting.
It is the same thing, piracy and theft.
For a long while no one procecuted illegal downloads from Kazaa, Napster etc.
Now they have.
Props may be next as the public become more aware of our hobby.
You hurt the original artist, the company, the licence holders and everyone that works for the above and their families.
Don't put your head in the sand and say it's OK.

Luke

 

[Treadwell]

Originally posted by Trallis+Jan 10 2006, 12:57 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Trallis @ Jan 10 2006, 12:57 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Treadwell

@Jan 10 2006, 12:48 PM

I cannot recall a single instance of someone being prevented from reselling pre-existing items obtained from members who were later banned. Why start now?

[snapback]1155347[/snapback]​

I think this counts for something. In this thread the mod made the right call
http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...ic=102302&st=20

[snapback]1155356[/snapback]​

[/b]

That was a case of someone trying to broker NEW product from a banned recaster. Different.

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by apollo+Jan 10 2006, 01:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apollo @ Jan 10 2006, 01:31 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Starkids1990

@Jan 10 2006, 01:13 PM
If AA were a member here would not GF, Gino, (TE is already banned)

[snapback]1155376[/snapback]​

TE banned himself and there are a few Studio Artists here

[snapback]1155398[/snapback]​

[/b]

Then what if I obtained a screen used piece through legit channels (purchased at auction) that one of those artists who are RPF members made while working on a film and took a casting of it. Then proceed to offer up the castings here?
By the CoC it would be fine.
However would not the original artist as an RPF member here be entitled to call me out as a recaster of their original work?

That is more to the point of my question and yes I already knew TE originally banned himself. That wasn't meant to be taken as derogatory towards TE just a reference to the fact he is not longer a current member here.

For me I tend to agree with LA regarding an original artists stance.

I would like to hear what the studio artists here think on this issue as it is being presented.

The implications of what is being said in this thread and the reasonings behind them have ramifications toward the RPF and the future of all its members.

Trallis, I understand what your saying about being angry at a misrepresentation of the product AA is offering.

 

[Treadwell]

Originally posted by vaderdarth+Jan 10 2006, 03:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Jan 10 2006, 03:10 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Cenobyte

@Jan 10 2006, 03:54 PM
Apparently not if you get a kickback deal on AA's items if you stand up for him on public forums

[snapback]1155478[/snapback]​

Cenobyte, who exactly gets "kickbacks"??? Are you referring to a particular member or members with that "implication"? I assume you have proof of it as well, right???

If not, this is exactly the sort of ridiculous crap that I was referring to earlier. Thank you for becoming a perfect example for all to see.

[snapback]1155490[/snapback]​

[/b]

Ditto. There is no constructive purpose of dropping an incendiary bomb like that, especially without proof.

 

[Treadwell]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 10 2006, 02:52 PM
As for UA. Was he that guy that offered really crappy castings that fled to Australia around 2000?

[snapback]1155476[/snapback]​

The Phillipines, but yeah, that's him.

 

[Treadwell]

So far by not answering, if a member were to read between the lines, it would appear that the official RPF stance is that recasting is ok despite what the COBSC says.

Gav, that logic is ridiculous, and you're smart enough to know that. Please stop trying to push our buttons just because we won't say what you want us to.

 

[gavidoc]

Jay,

How many times have you been asked something and you felt uncomfortable telling the truth so you chose to not answer at all?

Of those times, how many times did the person asking the question imply from your silence that you were in agreement when you didn't say anything?

A woman asks you if she is fat. She is. You choose to skirt the issue. Interpretation? She believes by your silence that you are in agreement.

You are friends with 2 people that hate each other who get in an argument. Friend 1 asks you if you believe him or do you believe Friend 2. You choose not to get involved. Friend 1 will assume you will be siding with Friend 2.

By your silence on the matter, you are implying you are ok with it.

 

[OldKen]

guys your gonna give treadwell an anurism.

lets quit trying to point out loop holes and technicalitys in the wording of the COC... seems its people kinda playing devils advocate... we know the moral differences, and we know the Legal copyright infringements that cant and shouldnt be openly discussed here.

lets quit trying to point out things about any RPF mods desicions and banned members actions, and get back on talking about AA/SDS TK suits.



:cheers

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Treadwell@Jan 10 2006, 04:44 PM

So far by not answering, if a member were to read between the lines, it would appear that the official RPF stance is that recasting is ok despite what the COBSC says.

Gav, that logic is ridiculous, and you're smart enough to know that. Please stop trying to push our buttons just because we won't say what you want us to.

[snapback]1155524[/snapback]​

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.

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by TheNuclearHorror@Jan 10 2006, 08:18 PM
Props may be next as the public become more aware of our hobby.
You  hurt the original artist, the company, the licence holders and everyone that works for the above and their families.
Don't put your head in the sand and say it's OK.

Luke

[snapback]1155495[/snapback]​

Welcome,

Now that you have tried to make us all feel like @#$%. are you sure you've joined the right forum?

 

[OldKen]

you know what i find hillarious???

for some time now (as long as ive been a member) anytime anything TK related was mentioned in a thread (any thread for that matter) it turned into an andrew ainsworth discussion...

mods tried long and hard to keep things on track and to keep the comparisons and finger pointing to a minimum...

now that weve had a couple straight on AA/SDS to GF, TE and the rest of the TK making universe...

it gets derailed to this...

hmm... :unsure (oh well)

anymore comparisons??? (to the suits in question, not peoples morals or past actions)

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 10 2006, 09:08 PM
anymore comparisons??? (to the suits in question, not peoples morals or past actions)

[snapback]1155547[/snapback]​

Why bother? Unless you can come up with comparisons with every single suit made then you've proved nothing :rolleyes

 

[OldKen]

well i have deffinately had some tells pointed out to me that i find rather... coincidental, and not found on originals so... :rolleyes back at ya.

 

[CWR]

I think RKW is trying to say that someone posted that we need to look at all of the suits that were made for ANH since apparently there is enough variation possible in vacuum forming to pull a GF/TE looking ab/cod piece from an original ANH mould.

That said, I guess its possible for a Jedi helmet to be a badly vac pulled ANH helmet as well. If we keep this line of thinking I suppose we will never be able to prove anything.

 

[Apollo]

[snapback]1155398[/snapback]​

Then what if I obtained a screen used piece through legit channels (purchased at auction) that one of those artists who are RPF members made while working on a film and took a casting of it. Then proceed to offer up the castings here?
By the CoC it would be fine.
However would not the original artist as an RPF member here be entitled to call me out as a recaster of their original work?

That is more to the point of my question and yes I already knew TE originally banned himself. That wasn't meant to be taken as derogatory towards TE just a reference to the fact he is not longer a current member here.

For me I tend to agree with LA regarding an original artists stance.

I would like to hear what the studio artists here think on this issue as it is being presented.

The implications of what is being said in this thread and the reasonings behind them have ramifications toward the RPF and the future of all its members.

Trallis, I understand what your saying about being angry at a misrepresentation of the product AA is offering.

[snapback]1155511[/snapback]​

[/quote]

Hmm.. I guess that would depend on the Artist. Although technically you would be in your right to.

One I know could care less but if you started making crappy copys he would let you know.

 

[Jedirick]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM


we know the moral differences, and we know the Legal copyright infringements that cant and shouldnt be openly discussed here.

[snapback]1155539[/snapback]​

Amen.

 

[OldKen]

Originally posted by Jedirick+Jan 10 2006, 07:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jedirick @ Jan 10 2006, 07:02 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-oldken

@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM


we know the moral differences, and we know the Legal copyright infringements that cant and shouldnt be openly discussed here.

[snapback]1155539[/snapback]​

Amen.

[snapback]1155652[/snapback]​

[/b]

im glad that someone at least read that statement as i thought it was very appropriate.

now lets all :cheers and be

 

[Jedirick]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 10 2006, 06:11 PM



im glad that someone at least read that statement as i thought it was very appropriate.

now lets all  :cheers  and be 

[snapback]1155658[/snapback]​

It's not the only meritorious statement you have made here. Hope some here will pause, review and digest prior to wading in with commentary.

 

[Ghost Host]

this should just be retitled "THE ARGUEMENT THREAD" :lol

 

[SithLord]

**=my replies

...Legally they may not hold the rights to the likeness, but I think we as a community should agree that they own the rights to their work without question.

This is, and always has been the premise behind the term "recast". Nearly every(if not every one) person banned from the RPF for recasting has been for this precise reason. They stole the physical labor of another member and profited from it."

**I think it is important to note here that there is something missing....I would instead write: "They stole the original artistic physical labor of another RPF member and profited from it." If that is the meaning, then it does not apply in AA's case. If AA doesn't have the rights, then it's a matter between LFL and AA, not between GF and AA. GF may have made the ab plate and other parts, but they are not original creations and therefore GF has no rights to them.

"From the moderation, it would be "business as usual"... There would be an announcement that AA had been found to recast GF's work and items from him would not be allowed to be traded, sold, or advertised here."

**GF's work is not original.

"This would help protect to any potential victims from buying GF's stolen works under the guise of AA's "connection" to Star Wars."

**Here's a different swing to this idea...

I respect the mods opinion if they have irrefutable evidence that AA copied GF armor parts to make his own parts to sell. But we have admissions here that he modified said parts, making them DIFFERENT from the GF parts. Some parts are already so clearly different from GF armor as not to be recast. If the original parts AA showed that look like GF parts were part of his prototype and instead he is SELLING parts DIFFERENT from GF parts, even though we suspect they are GF parts, they have been altered and therefore are no longer based on GF's "original sculpts".

"And Thomas,
I'm not a dealer. I'm not a friend of a dealer. What I am is a COLLECTOR who despises recasters and those who support their scummy ways. I also find the lack of interest in applying our forum guidelines to all acts of recasting to be along the lines Matt Munson posted above. I personally take self-pride knowing I do not fit in that catagory."

I wonder then about the line of helmets from TE's original to the GF, then the GINO/CRPROPs, then the other offshoots of that line....where does the recasting start in that case? I would be interested in your opinion about that...

BTW I have nothing against TE or the other fan helmet makers. I have never said "don't buy a TE or CRPROPs helmet". I've discussed similarities/differences of these helmets, and offered opinions of what I like or don't like. What irks me is when supporters of these fan helmet makers attack someone...anyone.... without sufficient evidence. AA's integrity was questioned indescriminantly long before the armor came out....and to me it still boils down to whether AA has the rights or not to the design...something I hope we will find out...

:cheers,

Thomas