ALIEN Warrior head refurbishing project.....

[Onigiri]

Breaking News: OK, now even I am tired of hearing myself. Theres really no point of view on recasting (pro or con) that hasnt been covered/answered/flogged like a dead equine. Like all of these threads there are marked divisions and subtle ones. Ultimately Art and the fellas have to make a decision as to the well being of the community and how this affects it. If Ian doesnt come forward then thats on him. There are more strident opponents of recasting then myself that may disagree but at that point I'd say que sera.
My head hurts and Im sure part of my intensity about this was teh fact that I came to this thread because I love ALIENS. I saw a head that looked really cool that I liked and then when the origins came in to question it became "DAMMIT...now I cant get that because it goes against my stance on Re-Casting!". You may not not agree with what I say but I try to remain consistent...

 

[Weequay]

Onigiri, I think its great that you are able to remain firm on isues such as this, especially when its something you want.

I have to say though, that I am not totally convinced (nor do I have to be as as you say, it is a MOD decision).

A couple of scenaries sprang to my mind. The most notable being the HIC casts that are offered for sale around the RPF/Net.

Not every seller obtained theres by buying an IC. Most will be casts of casts. And I have to say, I was unaware that this was a problem.

Another would be the Arnold T2 winston busts that float around. again, im sure almost none of these sellers obtained an original. They would have come from cast of a cast most likely purchased on ebay (ie a non rpf member as is the case here). Again I didnt think this was a problem.

Its seems to me that the recasting policy is there to protect someones WORK. If no work has been done, then you go back to argument of 'well why can one person cast the original without permission but someone else cant' Very very rarley will an original buyer actually have permission from the seller to make copies, yet as is the case with Ian, they do still make those copies (obviously I am assuming no permission was given to Ian to make copies. It may have been, but without him actually emailing the board to confirm I am assuming he didnt).

There seems to be a very simply answer to this.

How much work did Ian himself put into the is piece before offering it up for sale?

If it was none, then I cant personally see a problem

If it was some, then we have a problem. But without Ian actually firing off an email, there is no was to tell.

Again, let me state that I think it is vital that people like you defend this hobby as you do, I just cant agree in this instance.

Weequay

 

[Weequay]

Just to add, I can see the other side of the coin.

Ian invested in a piece, which may have cost thosands. He then made copies and recouped his investment.

Along comes SD and invests hundreds not thousands (am am assuming figures here), which he then sells.

I can totally see why Ian would be annoyed.

However:

1) Ian has not (as I am aware) made his complaint public

2) SD has put alot of work into this piece

3) Ian is no longer selling them

4) Ian may not of had permission to recast the piece initially (he would need to confirm)

So again, I can see why Ian would be annoyed, but I think labelling SD a recaster would seem very harsh in this instance.

weequay

 

[Too Much Garlic]

How much work did Ian himself put into the is piece before offering it up for sale?

If it was none, then I cant personally see a problem

So, you're saying that someone offering direct from screen used casts to the community isn't protected in your view, but someone who did some alterations is? Why the difference? I don't get it.

With an original you have to factor in the risk of damaging it, when molding it. Sometimes you actually have to take it apart to mold it, sometimes not. You may also have to buy special molding materials, so you don't damage the original.

With your logic, why should they bother offering ANYTHING to the hobby ever again, if they are not protected by the hobby and community from recasting leeches?

I collect Star Wars helmets. I know of SEVERAL helmets that will NEVER be made available, but was in fact actually about to be or considered, because of the RAMPANT mess with Stormtrooper helmets and armor. We all lose out because of that... and all we are left with is the same old recast crap and the constant arguments about this and that percentage fixed should grant a new guy recasting rights.

There are NUMEROUS pieces I've been interested in, but had to back out from buying, because I learned the history of the piece was questionable. The recasts I did accidentally buy is slowly being weeded out of my collection as we speak and I'm not even trying to get back the money I paid for them. I hold the standard and principle higher than what cool pieces I want... and eBay is a damn temptress, but I've learned long ago to not just buy.

Sorry if these standards prevent you from getting what you want. Hell, I can't expect everyone to have the same views on this that I have... but think about this... what is more important: a thriving community with lots of new cool things being offered continually or you getting what you want right now at the risk of stopping anything new being offered.

The CFO guys planning to offer RotJ armor is seriously depending on the support and protection from the community against being recast. Others are as well... so this is a very serious deliberation the staff is subjected to... and their verdict will affect all those new things, as well as old... so I'm glad I'm not in their shoes right now.

 

[Weequay]

So, you're saying that someone offering direct from screen used casts to the community isn't protected in your view, but someone who did some alterations is? Why the difference? I don't get it.

With an original you have to factor in the risk of damaging it, when molding it. Sometimes you actually have to take it apart to mold it, sometimes not. You may also have to buy special molding materials, so you don't damage the original.

With your logic, why should they bother offering ANYTHING to the hobby ever again, if they are not protected by the hobby and community from recasting leeches?

I collect Star Wars helmets. I know of SEVERAL helmets that will NEVER be made available, but was in fact actually about to be or considered, because of the RAMPANT mess with Stormtrooper helmets and armor. We all lose out because of that... and all we are left with is the same old recast crap and the constant arguments about this and that percentage fixed should grant a new guy recasting rights.

There are NUMEROUS pieces I've been interested in, but had to back out from buying, because I learned the history of the piece was questionable. The recasts I did accidentally buy is slowly being weeded out of my collection as we speak and I'm not even trying to get back the money I paid for them. I hold the standard and principle higher than what cool pieces I want... and eBay is a damn temptress, but I've learned long ago to not just buy.

Sorry if these standards prevent you from getting what you want. Hell, I can't expect everyone to have the same views on this that I have... but think about this... what is more important: a thriving community with lots of new cool things being offered continually or you getting what you want right now at the risk of stopping anything new being offered.

The CFO guys planning to offer RotJ armor is seriously depending on the support and protection from the community against being recast. Others are as well... so this is a very serious deliberation the staff is subjected to... and their verdict will affect all those new things, as well as old... so I'm glad I'm not in their shoes right now.

For a start, I can totally see and understand your point.

The main problem I have with this thread is that the term 'recaster' (and we all know just how derogatory and damaging that label can be to a person) should NOT be thrown around.

If someone believes this is a recast, then a simple email to the mods along with their evidence should be the course of action.

SD has not been found guilt of anything by the RPF staff, and yet from now on people will forever accociate him with the term 're-caster'/

That does not sit well with me.

Again I will point out:

1) Ian has not been in touch (that I know)
2) Ian no longer sells these

3) And this is the biggest one for me...did Ian have permission from the seller to make copies. IF he did not, why does he have the right, and not someone else??

From now on, when ever someone brings a cast of a screen used piece to the community for sale, the first question everyone should ask is 'do you have permission from the seller to make copies?' and if they dont,there should be a boycot.

Yet how often does this happen?? what about the HIC panels and T2 casts?? And lets not get started on whether the studio was consulted by the seller in the first place....

Recasting is BAD! but it is not for everyone to brandish the term 'willy nilly'
A complaint should be made behind the scenes with evidence, and the MODS/Staff should make a decision.

weequay

 

[Too Much Garlic]

If someone believes this is a recast, then a simple email to the mods along with their evidence should be the course of action.

It's confirmed to be.

If he gets permission from Ian, then it no longer will be.

SD has not been found guilt of anything by the RPF staff, and yet from now on people will forever accociate him with the term 're-caster'/

The RPF doesn't have to find anyone guilty to make them recasters. Regardless of what they say, casting someone else's stuff without permission is recasting. No two ways around that.

3) And this is the biggest one for me...did Ian have permission from the seller to make copies. IF he did not, why does he have the right, and not someone else??

Because he was the one to mold and cast the original piece. Not someone else.

From now on, when ever someone brings a cast of a screen used piece to the community for sale, the first question everyone should ask is 'do you have permission from the seller to make copies?' and if they dont,there should be a boycot.

Seriously... how do you figure that to happen... EVER? Do you really think that you can get permission from the movie studio to make these casts to offer to the community? Clearly you don't know how this works. The guy who buys the original or gets access to the original or the molds cannot ask ANYONE permission to offer casts. How could he? The studios certainly won't grant him permission. So, what you are suggesting is a total ban of ALL cast from screen used pieces.


And to put things into perspective. People who want this alien head may think I'm preventing them from getting one by posting my concern about this. That I'm standing in their way of enjoying their hobby. But try to turn it around. By your acceptance of this, you are actively standing in my way of getting what I want, because those who have what I want won't make casts available because of recasters and you supporting them. That's why I have an issue with this. I'm losing out because of you, the same way you feel you are losing out because of me.

If permission from Ian is given to make casts, there really isn't an issue and SwampDonkey's restoration sure is top notch.

 

[AdamNightmare]

I know I'm just a n00b with a small post count, and by extension I'm basically irrelevant to all you end-bosses like Onigiri and TMG, but I do have a question - not because I'm interested in the piece as a sales item (although the process updates in between the drama have been great), but because I don't understand the logic presented in this thread.

The general idea being presented by Oni and TMG is the following - correct me if I'm wrong:

I purchase an item that is screen used - let's say an Alien head - and (without permission from the sculptor) cast that object, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is based on "bringing a prop to the community" and my own financial investment in buying a screen used prop.

I sculpt an item based on references from a movie - let's say an Alien head - and (without permission from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property) cast that sculpt, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is based on the quality of craftsmanship, and my own financial investment in sculpting, molding, and casting a prop.

I purchase a replica item - let's say an Alien head - and use it as a reference for my own sculpt (without permission from either the original cast maker nor from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property), and cast that sculpt, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is again based on the quality of craftsmanship, and my own financial investment in sculpting, molding, and casting a prop.

I purchase a replica item - let's say an Alien head - and use it as a base for my own sculpt which is a major overhaul of the original (without permission from the original cast maker, who in turn does not have permission from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property). I wait until a point in time where the seller from whom I purchased my cast is no longer offering his own for sale, and then cast the sculpt I've re-worked, and sell copies. This is considered a sin to the prop community, and will get me blacklisted as a re-caster.

I'm not trying to intentionally misrepresent the debate - I'm giving an honest recap based on my own interpretation of the posts in this thread. If I've misunderstood, please, correct my mistake.

 

[Weequay]

It's confirmed to be.

If he gets permission from Ian, then it no longer will be.


The RPF doesn't have to find anyone guilty to make them recasters. Regardless of what they say, casting someone else's stuff without permission is recasting. No two ways around that.


Because he was the one to mold and cast the original piece. Not someone else.


Seriously... how do you figure that to happen... EVER? Do you really think that you can get permission from the movie studio to make these casts to offer to the community? Clearly you don't know how this works. The guy who buys the original or gets access to the original or the molds cannot ask ANYONE permission to offer casts. How could he? The studios certainly won't grant him permission. So, what you are suggesting is a total ban of ALL cast from screen used pieces.


And to put things into perspective. People who want this alien head may think I'm preventing them from getting one by posting my concern about this. That I'm standing in their way of enjoying their hobby. But try to turn it around. By your acceptance of this, you are actively standing in my way of getting what I want, because those who have what I want won't make casts available because of recasters and you supporting them. That's why I have an issue with this. I'm losing out because of you, the same way you feel you are losing out because of me.

If permission from Ian is given to make casts, there really isn't an issue and SwampDonkey's restoration sure is top notch.

I was playing devils advocate with my line about boycotting all sales without permission. As you say, permission from the studio would never happen, BUT permission from the person who sold the piece on could indeed be sought.

How often is it??

SD did not have permission to recast this head from Ian. Did Ian have permission from the seller he bought it off to cast and sell it?

IF he did not (and that is indeed a big IF), then how are the two different?

The notion that because 'Ian got there first' doesnt make it right.

For the record, I have absolutely no interest in purchasing this piece, I just dont believe this is a clear as people are making out.

weequay

 

[Weequay]

I know I'm just a n00b with a small post count, and by extension I'm basically irrelevant to all you end-bosses like Onigiri and TMG, but I do have a question - not because I'm interested in the piece as a sales item (although the process updates in between the drama have been great), but because I don't understand the logic presented in this thread.

The general idea being presented by Oni and TMG is the following - correct me if I'm wrong:

I purchase an item that is screen used - let's say an Alien head - and (without permission from the sculptor) cast that object, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is based on "bringing a prop to the community" and my own financial investment in buying a screen used prop.

I sculpt an item based on references from a movie - let's say an Alien head - and (without permission from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property) cast that sculpt, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is based on the quality of craftsmanship, and my own financial investment in sculpting, molding, and casting a prop.

I purchase a replica item - let's say an Alien head - and use it as a reference for my own sculpt (without permission from either the original cast maker nor from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property), and cast that sculpt, and sell copies. This is considered not only "ok," but commended by the community. This reaction is again based on the quality of craftsmanship, and my own financial investment in sculpting, molding, and casting a prop.

I purchase a replica item - let's say an Alien head - and use it as a base for my own sculpt which is a major overhaul of the original (without permission from the original cast maker, who in turn does not have permission from the studio which holds the rights to that intellectual property). I wait until a point in time where the seller from whom I purchased my cast is no longer offering his own for sale, and then cast the sculpt I've re-worked, and sell copies. This is considered a sin to the prop community, and will get me blacklisted as a re-caster.

I'm not trying to intentionally misrepresent the debate - I'm giving an honest recap based on my own interpretation of the posts in this thread. If I've misunderstood, please, correct my mistake.

You understand exactly what Im trying to say re: an original piece.

We could go on forever. At the end of the day NO ONE has permission to do anything at all from anybody!

No, ok, in order for this hobby to exist, you have to relax the stance somewhat and have guidlines.

If I sculpt something and you recast it, then that is a very BAD thing (regardless of whther I had permission from the studio or not). That is how this hobby and forum contine to 'be'.

But as you say casting a screen used item without the permission from the sculpter, or the original seller for that matter is somehow ok?

None of the 'permission' lark makes any real sense, but as said you have to have guidlines.

I just dont think its fair to scream recaster in this case. Tat term carries serious weight to it.

weequay

 

[Amish Trooper]

On a side note that I find it odd that we as a majority/community support the copying of former licensed products that are no longer available but a non licensed copy that is no longer available is considered taboo and bad for the hobby. ???

The lines of recasting have been drawn by everyone on a personal level and they all aren't the same. It is a matter of the "grey area" that sparks debate. Let's not let this discussion turn into a IP rights debate because IMO it has no place here. This forum then wouldn't exist if that was the case.

Onigiri is speaking from his heart and using his head and is very much respected here. I think his energy is a heartbeat of what keeps this forum going but with saying that I think he jumped ship a little early. I think the mods need to here from Ian. We have a member here mention that he is in direct contact with Ian and if so then it would be great for the mods if he contacted them. What this thread has going now is 2 separate convos. 1 being the refurbishing of the head the 2nd the old recaster debate.

Oh and I do hate that people are judged by post count and or join date. That really is short sited.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I know I'm just a n00b with a small post count, and by extension I'm basically irrelevant to all you end-bosses like Onigiri and TMG, but I do have a question - not because I'm interested in the piece as a sales item (although the process updates in between the drama have been great), but because I don't understand the logic presented in this thread.

Hey, you have as much a right to voice your opinion as anyone. What some old-timers just find annoying is some newbies trying to "educate" an oldie about how the hobby is. Not that you are doing that.

I think you recapped the situation pretty well.

Your opinion is not irrelevant to me. Far from it. Newbies are the future of the hobby and at best I can only hope to let newbies know some of the strange intricacies that form and shape out hobby and hope they'll realize that this community may expand or diminish by their direct choices.

I was playing devils advocate with my line about boycotting all sales without permission. As you say, permission from the studio would never happen, BUT permission from the person who sold the piece on could indeed be sought.

Sometimes when they get access to the originals or the molds the people responsible for allowing them that access can't always publicly say they gave permission for that simple reason that they'd then be out of a job faster than you can say: "Fired!".

Wasn't it mentioned that Ian cast this thing himself from original molds or did I read that wrong? So again... who should he ask for permission to offer casts? The studio? No can do. The guy allowing him to make the cast from the original molds or mold an original? No can do - well... he can... but how will he be able to let the community know he got that permission... and who is that guy anyway to be able to give such a permission when it is the studio that owns the piece/molds???

For the most part with these "cast from original", who will you get the permission from?

On a side note that I find it odd that we as a majority/community support the copying of former licensed products that are no longer available but a non licensed copy that is no longer available is considered taboo and bad for the hobby. ???

For the most part I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't copy licensed stuff either - while they are producing and after they lose the license. But that's just me and I know many do not agree with that.


And yes... this is getting OT to the OP's thread, so out of respect I think I will bow out and let him continue showing off his refurbishing of the piece and await the staff decision. Personally, I think this guy Ian should contact the mods and SD to get this sorted, that would be best, imo.

 

[AnsonJames]

I've spoken to Ian about this and he has basically told me he doesn't care what Swamp Donkey does with his cast.

Good luck with the run.

Anson

 

[ender9492]

So... SD, any updates? Can't wait to see the final paint job!

 

[Onigiri]

I havent jumped ship I was just getting tired of being the lone voice in the wilderness. That gave folks like Oneye the opinion that I was the only one who cared. I can only say the same thing so many times in so may different ways and continue to get blank stares of incomprehension...
I havent jumped ship. The answers to the questions are all in this thread and people just keep re-phrasing the questions and I just kept rephrasing the answers. I feel that some folks responding here were only doing so because they already decided A. This run was going ahead regardless and B. They are going to find a way to get this piece regardless of the decision. Thats what is sad to me...when obtaining the prop is more important the standards that we old timers did our time here in the trenches trying to preserve. Again, if Ian doesnt come forward thats on him but Swamp donkey is still a re-caster by definition. Nobody's throwing that name around lightly. By his own admission he didnt know there was an issue with re-casting but continued on his merry way after being enlightened by saying in effect, "Well, too late now...I already spent the money." He also made it clear that regardless of the decision that gets made by the mods he's going to sell these. Again, that speaks to character. Even if he does get the begrudging go ahead that is not somebody I would do business with, not because he does or does not get approval if Ian doesnt chime in but because he's going to do it regardless.

 

[ghostryder]

I own an original screen used Colonial Marine prop from Aliens.

I lent it to a friend to cast because he wanted one.

Can we sell castings here? Or are we recasters?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I've spoken to Ian about this and he has basically told me he doesn't care what Swamp Donkey does with his cast.
Good luck with the run.
Anson

Well, that settles it, then. There's no longer an issue anymore.

I own an original screen used Colonial Marine prop from Aliens.
I lent it to a friend to cast because he wanted one.
Can we sell castings here? Or are we recasters?

Not recasters. Sure, you are copying the existing original helmet, but the term recaster was coined to label those who copy other's stuff without permission to undercut them with bad quality casts. Recasting and copying an existing item is by no means the same.

I'm out. Good luck with the refurbishing and the run.

(Since this has been okayed and this is no longer to be considered a recast, I'm okay with it if the staff removes my posts from the thread)

 

[Amish Trooper]

@ Onigiri. When I say jumped ship I am saying that once it was known that Ian knew about this thread and that when it changed from a refurbishing topic to a recasting topic the thread should have stopped or been locked or separated please don't think I am trying to insult you when that was not my intention.

 

[AdamNightmare]

Edit - NM. Problem resolved.

 

[Weequay]

He also made it clear that regardless of the decision that gets made by the mods he's going to sell these. Again, that speaks to character. Even if he does get the begrudging go ahead that is not somebody I would do business with, not because he does or does not get approval if Ian doesnt chime in but because he's going to do it regardless.

In total fairness, I believe he was going ahead with the sales becasue he did not agree that there was an issue to answer to.

If he had said, 'yep im a recaster but I dont care, im going to sell any way' then that would indeed speak volumes about his character.

BUT I dont think that was waht was said.

SD disagreed with you re: the issue at hand and did not believe his actions should be deamed recasting. He did not/does not believe what he is doing is 'wrong'. It is for that reason I believe he said he would continue.

Anyway, Ian seems to have cleared this all up now, but I would like to add that I think it is vital that we should be able to debate these things in a constructive manner as has been done here.

It can only make the forum stronger

Weequay

 

[Art Andrews]

I own an original screen used Colonial Marine prop from Aliens.

I lent it to a friend to cast because he wanted one.

Can we sell castings here? Or are we recasters?

I think part of the problem is that recast, recasting, and recaster has been used in nothing but a negative light so that any time someone talks about a recast, it is seen as a bad thing. In the scenario you listed above, would you be considered a recaster? Of course you would. You directly copied something. That is recasting. The thing is, that form of recasting isn't frowned upon by this community... but just because it isn't frowned upon doesn't change what it is.