AA/SDS recasting issue...

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 10 2006, 11:21 PM
I'm really confused, in regards to trooper armor if I read it right, in your opinion reworking the part doesn't make it original, thus it's ok for others to recast your reworked parts?  Of course it's based on your total opinion of what constitutes an insignificant part...

But, then you go into the GH helmet, and apply the same logic that it's not an original scatchbuilt sculpt since it's only been tweaked, so by the same logic you apply to trooper armor then it's AOK to recast this part?  Ironically though you have personally crusaded against recast of GH's helmet on these forums...

I can't help but see a double standard, or did I misinterpret what you posted...

But you must admit the wording of the definition makes labelling someone who is a nonmember a "recaster" moot.

Well if you want to get anal about it, then banned members (also not members) actions are also moot... And if this is the stance that is to be taken by the RPF as a whole, then I guess you have just shown the perfect loophole for anyone willing to recast parts, just don't join the RPF and it's all good...

[snapback]1155841[/snapback]​

I meant that GF still used an ab plate as a foundation to make the modifications to that rectangle and the buttons. It was referred earlier that the ab plate was an original sculpt...but it really is just a modified part. Is it modified from an original part? If not then is it a recast?

So the logic I was trying to get across is:

GF part modified from original...therefore GF doesn't have rights to the part since it is not his own original creation.
AA made the original parts (whether or not he designed them is up in the air). Therefore wouldn't AA have more rights to the parts than GF? Of course if AA doesn't have the rights to the parts but he made the originals... then instead of being a recaster, he is just breaking copywrite law .

Also, I meant that IF you think a modified ab plate is an original sculpt...which I don't think it is....then the GH copies would also be original sculpts. I never said they were. If I have the original GH master, which came directly from molds made and modified by DP, then by the arguments presented here, I should be able to make copies of it. Did TE ask if he could make copies of his original TK helmet? No. How different is AA from DP? According to those who think AA had such a minor role, there would be very little difference between them....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 10 2006, 10:32 PM
What would you think if you found out that AA was told "the suit he bought, to fill in the blanks was an original screen used suit.......copied "mostly"  off his own original work"????

original screen used or copied? It can't be both...

I would also asked why he as the original creator was unable to tell it was clearly from a ROTJ suit and had many ANH inaccuracies... But in either case you are suggesting a recast of some sort...

Whether it were discovered to be wholly truthful or not????

Then like most honestly artist on this forum when they were informed that they were offering up a recast they cease doing so, and move forward...

And further,  what if that were the reason behind his "rewording" the section of his website to reflect a truer source of his new suit????

What rewording are you refering to, the website and his claims of origin and original status have been changed so much it's hard to keep track of...

I ask this because,  nobody ever asks Andrew any of this stuff..........but they do seem to  "theorize" what his motivations were and then relate them in these threads as facts.

Sure people have asked him he just walks around the questions, there have been many emails posted on these forums in regards to the origins of his parts, and never has he given a straight answer...

 

[GINO]

It really is simple.

1. Unless you are licensed, by MAKING anything prop related, there is an understood disregard for the intellectual property of whatever studio the prop comes from.
If you do not use this logic, then EVERYONE is stealing and it is prop anarchy. We should all purge our collections of anything unlicensed.

THEREFORE YOU MUST USE A SET OF ETHICAL GUIDELINES THAT EXCLUDE THE STUDIOS FROM THE RECASTING EQUATION.

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.

3. It is recasting if someone duplicates or builds off of (slightly modifys) said part with the intention of selling or trading. They would have to have permission from the owner of the original part in order to be above board. If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1.


We make up the prop building/collecting community. We are the only ones who can set ethical guidelines and police it by shunning those who disregard those ethics. It shouldn't matter whether a person is a rpf member, non-member, banned, etc... We all still make up the community and the ethics should still apply outside of it.

A "ruling" by the rpf staff is absolutely necessary to maintain harmony and set standards in our hobby. We all know that the admin are the only ones who can set policy on how the "rpf" views recasting. Policy up to this point has not been voted on.
We as a community should decide how we view AA or any other recasting situation.

Perhaps we should set up a poll to determine how we define recasting and how to deal with it. This way policy is set by the community and not on the shoulders of the few admin that may or may not share the views of the whole.

What do you think?

 

[Gytheran]

Very well said. I agree.

 

[Trallis]

well let me just say now if the mods make a ruling that some recasting is okay, or if people vote on recasting being ok, I will still maintain my on personal ethics and continue doing what i know is right.

Nothing against the rpf as a whole, but in the wake of this thread, i am a little weary of the way people may be voting, with hot heads and the defense of sds still fresh in their minds

 

[gavidoc]

Nice post Gino.

 

[vaderdarth]

So basically, Gino, by your definition, you are calling GF a recaster since he used someone else's creation(everyone knows he didn't create the "origin" of the screen suits), altered it for the purposes of selling to make $$.

These huge Loopholes you guys are creating are gonna cause more trouble than they will ever be worth.

And Gino, I'm not picking on you........I see some logic in parts of your post, but the more "rules" you try to create in all this recasting, the more loopholes you end up creating. No matter how you set the rules up...............they will work to someone else's advantage to either use it against you, or use it for their advantage. Surely you can see logic in what I'm saying as well.

or to put it another cheezier way: "the more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip thru your fingers"

All you end up doing in the end is watching the "terminology" change to fit the crime.

This whole recasting thing is a "gray" area and it's been that way for a very very long time. Obviously the original "black and white" rule we applied to it was to exclude anything derived from a screen used item. Therein lies the first loophole. Since you can't exclude parts of a ST costume from it's whole, and the GF suit was made using at least "some" screen used portions...............you can't rule 100% that we apply a recastor verdict for AA...............since it ultimately goes back to a screen used piece...........whether it is ANH/ESB or ROTJ.

So what do we do? Do we change our terminology to make an exception for AA in the event that we can prove 100% that his whole suit is just a GF recast??? But what if two items on his suit are 100% proven to be real ANH pieces??? Several members have already decided that is what they are seeing by the way. Now the suit as a whole can be said to be based on Andrew Ainsworth's original costume pieces..........just because he had two lousy bucks from the original set of bucks. But he copied later sculpts you say.............but wait, what do we do now??? We are arguing both for and against what he's done. As you can see...........I can flip back and forth in any direction of the argument with minimal effort.

Basically what I'm hearing is that if ANY member of the RPF (or now those who aren't members) uses even one tiny detail not made by them...............they are in violation of some rule we just made up??? That should piss off tons of members fairly quickly.

You can't claim rights to a screen used suit just because you bought it before someone else bought it. Joe Blow buys a ST suit from Christies............he makes a copy for himself. He resells on Christies and Dip Stick pays 30K for the suit. Now Dip Stick wants to sculpt or not on this suit and make copies available for sale to his buds on the RPF. By your definition, this bloke still has to get permission from Joe Blow before he can proceed. People will be popping up all over the place claiming original rights to the suit. This line of thinking is flawed from the outset.

If we do as you suggest and disregard any items that are thought to be traced back to ANY studio pieces.............then you have to exclude AA if a single greeblie he reproduces for his suit could even possibly be linked to a screen used suit.

As much as I might agree with that outcome, the whole line of thinking is inherantly flawed.

Again, I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing out that a monumental decision by the mods on this issue, no matter which side the mods elect to choose....................will cause negative consequences to the RPF.

You are putting the MODs in a crappy position on this one.


Dave

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 01:18 AM
So basically,  Gino,  by your definition,  you are calling GF a recaster since he used someone else's creation(everyone knows he didn't create the "origin" of the screen suits),  altered it for the purposes of selling to make $$.

No. What did GF recast? Did he have an original ANH suit that he had on hand that he used to make his patterns?

NO.

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.

What are you having a problem seeing?

GF doesn't even fall into the category of Gino's recasting definition.

See Section 2 and 3 again.

Here you go. I even highlighted the important parts.

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.

3. It is recasting if someone duplicates or builds off of (slightly modifys) said part with the intention of selling or trading. They would have to have permission from the owner of the original part in order to be above board. If you are thinking, "hey, doesn't the studio own the rights?" see point #1.

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.

AA/SDS duplicated/ built off of (slightly modified) parts of GF's suit with the intention of selling without permission.

Can't make it any clearer then that.

 

[GINO]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 12:18 AM
So basically,  Gino,  by your definition,  you are calling GF a recaster since he used someone else's creation(everyone knows he didn't create the "origin" of the screen suits),  altered it for the purposes of selling to make $$.

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.

 

[GINO]

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.

 

[GINO]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 12:18 AM
You are putting the MODs in a crappy position on this one.

Actually, my suggestion was to take it off the shoulders of the mods and into the members of the rpf as to:

1. Determine exactly what is to be the official rpf definition of recasting and what defines a recaster.

2. Determine the course of action taken against someone proven to be a recaster.

3. Apply these criteria to the AA/SDS situation.

 

[ThePatriot29]

Now, I'm by no means a prop builder, and since I'm not a huge collector, I don't have a dog in this fight.

What Gino said about understood disregard of studio's property rights strikes home though.

However, if we're going to ask the membership at large to create a standard on the RPF's position on something, is it wise to then apply that ruling backwards onto preexisting situations such as the AA/SDS issue? Wouldn't that just turn such a vote into a public referendum on AA/SDS, and NOT a policy debate over an important issue? I'm sure there are alot of members, like myself, who aren't as involved, and holding a public vote during the heat of a situation would in my mind, be unwise.

That's my $0.02, stepping off the soapbox now.

 

[exoray]

What I now find most troubling about this whole situation is that now the whole recasting scenario has shifted away from did AA recast RPF members part to, to can we twist the ethics of this community to justify AA's recasting of the parts... It appears now that most admit that several of the AA parts do indeed originate (or at least damn well look like they do) from GF/TE work and parts, but that's ok because blah, blah, blah...

This is the same exact scenario that went down when AA recast the MR stand, once it was clearly obvious that the stand was in fact a recast, the ethics committee looked for a ethics loophole and jumped on the "it's only a stand, not the item itself" now let it go bandwagon...

 

[GF]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 11 2006, 03:21 AM
Sithlord,  what's the surface area of the entire rectangular button plate???  LIke about 1/30th of the entire abdomen????  AA is now using thumbtacks as buttons,  so it's like 10% less original than it used to be now????   Man the math is staggering...... 

I said,  MAN THE MATH IS STAGGERING.......

Sorry,   just having a little fun with ya Gytherian.  


GF,  I have a more lighthearted question for ya................you are touted as a pretty incredible sculptor and I have to agree with that assessment...........the question is this:  Why,  if all the available reference indicates that the vertical strip above the ab buttons was long and almost reached the edge of the abdomen piece,  did you decide to "shorten" that strip in the first place???   I'm asking only because if you were modelling an ANH suit,  the ANH reference seems clear that it was longer (from what everyone seems to say in these threads).     I'm in no way picking on you GF,  in fact,  your suit is the only one I have ever owned.   It may also be the only one I ever intend on buying.     I'm quite pleased with your work.  ):    I'm just wondering what the "artiste" was considering at that phase of his "reworking" of the TE suit copy.    And from the vast amount of reference you have been able to obtain to date............have you ever found more than one "style" of abdomen for ANH troopers (sandtroopers excluded of course)???   Further,  did you ever discover any ANH trooper suits used in later films???  That were not necessarily "different" from ESB/ROTJ suits???   The answers might shed light on the often asked question of possible multiple bucks from the ANH era as well as possible variants of suits used in all 3 films. 

I am asking GF this question and I'd like to hear his answer and not alot of other folks injecting the answer just because they presume to know it.  Please respect my request if at all possible.  GF has a more vast knowledge of this information  than most.  

Peace,

Dave

[snapback]1155839[/snapback]​

Hello Dave,

As we all know I had to work from a ROTJ AB plate which had a short stem,
I didn't shorten it, it came that way and didn't modify that part.

My priority was to change the more obvious details to capture the ANH look, I didn't really pay that much attention to the stem, my focus was towards the major details like the shoulder connectors, belt, hand plates, AB button plate ect...
This was still a work in progress for me and never stopped searching for new refference to improve many areas, unfortunately with the lawsuit I never had a chance to finish it up to my satisfaction.

IMO there's only one style of AB for ANH suits and no I never discovered any ANH suits in later films.

GF

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by GF@Jan 11 2006, 08:40 AM
As we all know I had to work from a ROTJ AB plate which had a short stem,
I didn't shorten it, it came that way and didn't modify that part.

IMO there's only one style of AB for ANH suits and no I never discovered any ANH suits in later films.

GF

[snapback]1156028[/snapback]​

So what Stormtrooper suits do you think were used in ESB??

I'm interested in your comment about the stem. I've never handled a real ROTJ ab plate so I will have to defer to the few members here who have. But I can only assume then that I have been fooled by lighting or dirt as my comment is based on images like the one below. The image suggests it's both longer and narrower than my TE ab plate :unsure

Are we therefore saying that the original ROTJ ab plate is a completely new sculpt or was it recast off an original ANH piece? If it was cast off an ANH ab plate then you would expect it to have the same characteristic long narrow stem all be it less defined.

ROTJ AB plate

 

[vaderdarth]

Gino,
since when did we take matters like this into our own hands and out of the Moderators hands. Are we vigilantes now???

GF thanks for the candid reply.

WPK, that was one of the points I was driving at..........I've seen multiple costumes from ROTJ (obviously more abundant to collectors), and noticed the longer stem as well. That particular suit looks like all the other long stem fan suits.

Dave

 

[UKscout]

hi guys

first off I'm no expert on ST armour or helmets but I own a set of FX armour, and to me the AA,GF & TE armour have all there good points and bad points in there overall appearance.

but I like the FX set of armour I've got apart from the oversized helmet, surely its down to personal choice and the budget you have to buy an item.

I'm not saying recasting is a good thing but at the end of the day if like the price you paid for it and you like the item surely its down to the choice of the person who's bought it.

remeber guys we all have a passion about this hobbie and as long as we give good adivce about the armour or any prop's out there on the market it's down to the member on this board to buy it or not.

at the end of the day it's your own choice to buy or not to buy

 

[TK765]

I agree with Ginos guidelines, that makes the most sense.

 

[vaderdarth]

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.

 

[TheNuclearHorror]

If you do not support recasters financially, they will slowly go away as there is no money.
To make it a rule here is ridiculous, it could never be enforced.
It is up to the individual to make the correct ethical choise.
Sadly, as MattMunson stated, that ethic is variable.
You may slow recasters here, but there is always eBay.