Double H said:
Sorry what was the question? This has spun way off topic.
Yes, we seem to be talking about two entirely different things here. The original topic was Adam Savage's view that there is a continuum when it comes to "recasting", and that it's not a black and white issue but has to be answered, morally, on a case-by-case basis. Then the discussion morphed into the list rules and how recasting for money is bad.
Double H said:
People will always have different bier a on this but any budding artist that has taken the time, effort and dedication to sculpt, mould and cast what ever item that they happen to be working on would expect to be respected by the person in buying and not recasted and basically disrespected.
Yes. Counterfeiting someone else's work for money is morally wrong. The conversation keeps coming back to that, but I don't see anyone here disagreeing or arguing a different viewpoint. What I am more interested is the same thing Adam Savage was talking about---the continuum of grey area after that and where each of us draws their moral line, and why we draw it there instead of elsewhere. As examples , I cited my necklace skull, which is made from a ceramic aquarium ornament and is heavy so I make a cast resin version so it's lighter, or a fan film in which I need to destroy a lightsaber prop and therefore make a wax copy. In both cases, the whole "selling counterfeits of someone else's work" doesn't apply, since nothing is being sold, no money is being made, and no money is being lost. Indeed, in the case of the wax lightsaber, there is not even any new prop left at the end of the process.
So the question is, is copying something to make it better suited for use in a costume, or to indeed destroy the copy completely, the moral equivalent of counterfeiting someone's work and selling it for a profit?
Monstermaker mentioned that he often makes resin copies of "found objects" for his works (and of course every one of those "found objects" was designed and made by someone somewhere whose work is being copied)---and that illustrates exactly what I am talking about. My view (and his too) is that this is not "re-casting", it is simply modifying what's available. Nothing is being sold, and no money is changing hands anywhere. Others have taken the view that ANY copying of ANYTHING without express permission is "stealing"--an ironic position, I think, since none of us has any permission from, say, 20th Century Fox to copy or derive any of their intellectual property. All of which was also discussed by Savage in his piece.
So that's what interests me--we all agree that selling copies of someone else's work is morally wrong. But what about all the other cases where nothing at all gets sold? Where in that continuum do we draw the moral line, and why do we draw it where we draw it? Those are the questions Savage was interested in, and so am I. Me, my position is pretty much the same as the movie industry's position towards the prop community---they're OK with anything we do or make as long as we're not unfairly making money off their work. But I'm interested in where others draw the line and why.
Sadly, it seems to be a topic fraught with emotions, and difficult to have a rational discussion about. Sort of like politics and religion.
So what do you think? Is copying a prop to make it better suited for one's personal use, or to make a copy that can be destroyed (for a fan film, for instance), the moral equivalent, to you, of counterfeiting someone's work and selling it for profit? Why or why not? Where do you draw the moral line, and why?
Double H said:
Anyway of this roundabout, a happy christmas to all.
And a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Good Kwanzaa, Joyous Winter Solstice, or whatever holiday you choose to celebrate, to you as well.
