Another thread about recasting

[temponaut]

I have a practical question about dealing with recasters. I'm sure this must have come up before (probably more than once) in one of the RPFs many past threads about recasting. But I can't find it using "Search," so I'd like to throw it out here for opinions.

If a seller is known to sell an item some parts of which are recast from another person's work without permission, is everything that seller sells considered to be tainted?

What if that same seller also sells items that are his or her own original sculpts? Should RPF members avoid purchasing those because they are tainted by association?

Does it matter whether the seller actually recast the items himself or is just selling them as a broker for a third party?

Should business with recasters be avoided unconditionally? Or is it the recast item, rather than the seller, that should be avoided?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

My personal opinion. If a seller is capable of recasting other people's parts or whole items, then I would stay clear. Only offering few or shouldn't give a free-pass. If seller offers his own creations among the recast items... yes, they get tainted, 'cause can you honestly believe and trust that seller really made them?

Seller, when brokering items from others should set a standard - if he is selling recast items for a third party, he is no better than the recaster and is selling stolen goods.

Stay away. Recasts taint you, no matter how you put it. If you know what you are buying is a recast... then you a freely supporting recasting and has no right to cry foul later, if someone recasts you.

However... since this is somewhat a fluid grey-zone, regarding copies off screen used items... I can only talk about items currently in the market or made by a fan.

 

[Blad]

If you're looking for black & white answers......

<div class='quotetop'></div>

If a seller is known to sell an item some parts of which are recast from another person's work without permission, is everything that seller sells considered to be tainted?[/b]

No.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

What if that same seller also sells items that are his or her own original sculpts? Should RPF members avoid purchasing those because they are tainted by association?[/b]

No.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Does it matter whether the seller actually recast the items himself or is just selling them as a broker for a third party?[/b]

Why would anyone want to sell recasts as a broker? You may as well be a proper recaster and do the whole thing yourself.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Should business with recasters be avoided unconditionally? Or is it the recast item, rather than the seller, that should be avoided?[/b]

Recast items didn't recast themselves. It's the person. After an item has been sold on, maybe a couple of times, it would be difficult to tell if it's recast.

 

[SithLord]

Of course, all of these are moral questions and it is up to you ultimately who you prefer to deal with. For the purposes of the forum, it is not the products of recasters that are banned, it is the recasters themselves. I agree that one should be cautious about dealing with a recaster in any way. If someone is brokering items you know are recast, but they are not aware, then it is your decision (ideally one would not deal with someone like that). If someone is brokering items he or she knows are recast and they do not tell as such (and you know this), then the answer is obvious. If you purchase an item that's an original sculpt from a banned member, and show it off on the forum, will that be looked down upon? I agree that it will throw into question whether it is an original sculpt or not, but hey....showing something like that off and that stimulates discussion is what this forum is all about. .

One thing that I've been curious about is if someone gets a casting and modifies it, does that make it an original sculpt? It seems so far here that doing so can bestow some rights to the person who did the modifications...ie: those are my modifications and therefore it is my work and cannot be recast without permission. Sometimes it seems to apply and sometimes it doesn't....

 

[temponaut]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Blad.

<div class='quotetop'>(Blad @ Aug 16 2006, 11:25 PM) [snapback]1301499[/snapback]</div>

Why would anyone want to sell recasts as a broker? You may as well be a proper recaster and do the whole thing yourself.[/b]

I don't mean someone who wants to specialize in selling other people's recasts. I agree with you that not many people aspire to do that.

Maybe "broker" wasn't the right word.

Some aftermarket sellers carry a variety of kits, some of which came out of the seller's own garage while others came from different manufacturers.

I'm wondering about a situation in which a seller is marketing kits that are his own original work as well as kits supplied by other makers that might be partly or wholly recast. Should we avoid this seller's original work if he is also selling (other people's) recast kits?

Actually, I think you already answered this question indirectly through your responses to my first two questions.





Thank you, SithLord. Cogent as always. :thumbsup

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 11:51 PM) [snapback]1301518[/snapback]</div>

One thing that I've been curious about is if someone gets a casting and modifies it, does that make it an original sculpt? [/b]

Another slippery slope. What constitutes a "modification"? If proprietary "rights" are to be granted for a modified work, then presumably the modifications must meet some minimum standard in order to qualify. I couldn't just smooth a bead of putty onto someone else's helmet cast and then declare, "This is now my original work."

These are good questions. Looking forward to more thoughts from y'all.

 

[Blad]

Well I was answering without resorting to 'grey area justification'.

It's apparent that on the RPF if you are suspected of recasting, or proven to be a recaster, then at the very minimum your circle of friends shrink and your sales reduce. If you aren't banned of course.

If you are buying via eBay or anywhere else then it becomes far more difficult, most people would avoid Coolmodels (RCRobert) because he's a clear recaster and frankly his stuff is pi**. But we've seen that some others are able to jump-ship and do very nicely thank you from a new bunch of people who don't know the track record. (Wolfmorgan etc.)

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I'm wondering about a situation in which a seller is marketing kits that are his own original work as well as kits supplied by other makers that might be partly or wholly recast. Should we avoid this seller's original work if he is also selling (other people's) recast kits?[/b]

The best example is probably SidKit? Stunning work on his original kits and then he mostly recasts RAC's PKD. I have been sorely tempted several times by his amazing looking Galaxy Quest gun, but my conscience doesn't allow me to click on 'Buy-it-now'.

A friend made a nice little Farscape gun based on a PKD as a one off - I would have had no qualms about buying that. I f he went on and made multiple copies I'd have advised him to get permission.



There - after being nice and black & white, I've gone all grey area.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1301518[/snapback]</div>

If you purchase an item that's an original sculpt from a banned member, and show it off on the forum, will that be looked down upon? I agree that it will throw into question whether it is an original sculpt or not, but hey....showing something like that off and that stimulates discussion is what this forum is all about. .
[/b]

Actually... it is not what this forum is about, since that is not allowed here.

And you state so yourself on another, now locked, topic.

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 14 2006, 08:30 PM=)</div>

I believe there is no discussion permitted of a banned members products here.
[/b]

Surely, the rules should apply to ALL banned and not only a selected few.

Sorry to go OT.

 

[kurtyboy]

What about this then?

It seems to be okay to recast something as long as the owner of the original is not a member.

So what if the owner of a recast item decides to become a member? Does the seller of the recasts suddenly get labelled a recaster and get banned?

 

[temponaut]

<div class='quotetop'>(kurtyboy @ Aug 17 2006, 01:52 AM) [snapback]1301601[/snapback]</div>

It seems to be okay to recast something as long as the owner of the original is not a member.[/b]

Is that right? I hadn't heard that before and it surprises me. I thought the RPF looks down on recasting in general, not only on recasting of its members' creations. Am I wrong about this? :confused

 

[hydin]

honestly, expecting the rule to count towards the world is a little dumb.

we police our little area of the interweb. to expect any "law" or "rule" we make to affect the larger areas out there we have nothing to do with is just silly.

here, the members can point out "hey. my stuff was recast." and give evidence to the problem, and let the matter out to be discussed and the recasting person punished.. they can point out "hey. my stuff was recast by this jerk on ebay." and let us know which auctions to avoid. the board isnt psychic though, so i am pretty sure they cant ban everyone who has ever recast anything from ever joining.

recasting sucks, doesnt matter if you are a member here or not. the rules apply to here though, last time i checked we dont have the kick/ban gland for ebay/yahoo/etc.

chris

 

[vaderdarth]

Problem with a cut and dry/black and white answer is that there are always individual variables that have to be considered. Was the item sourced from a screen used piece??? If it was........nobody thereafter seems to have rights to it.

Here is the black and white of it: If you sculpt it, and create it totally from scratch.........you have all rights to it for the purposes of this forum.

If you are creating something in the image of a licensed item............then you still don't have legal rights to it. Doesn't matter if you sculpted it or not. Just ask GF and others that got spanked by LFL.

If someone joins the board later and can prove that the item was his creation, then he might have a valid argument against an existing member. But is he telling the truth or trying to pull the wool over our eyes??? He'd better have proof. That's the bottom line in my book.

Same goes for someone selling their moulds of an object they created............if nothing is specified.......in my estimate, they void all rights to the buyer of the moulds should he later offer a casting from that mould. If on the other hand a written agreement not to do so was struck.............he should be labelled a bad man. If it's not in writing, don't cry foul.

It all boils down to a person's individual ethics in this hobby. Either he or she is ethical and gets permission to replicate what they bought from the original creator, or they are unethical and do not ask permission.

Just because a person lives within the RPF guidelines doesn't make them good or bad. Rules are there to guide us and keep the peace. They don't dictate whether we are a scumbag or not. Most of the members here have already figured that one out on their own at one time or another.

Just do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Does that sound familar to anyone???

Peace,

Dave

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]1301549[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1301518[/snapback]

If you purchase an item that's an original sculpt from a banned member, and show it off on the forum, will that be looked down upon? I agree that it will throw into question whether it is an original sculpt or not, but hey....showing something like that off and that stimulates discussion is what this forum is all about. .
[/b]

Actually... it is not what this forum is about, since that is not allowed here.

And you state so yourself on another, now locked, topic.

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 14 2006, 08:30 PM=)</div>

I believe there is no discussion permitted of a banned members products here.
[/b]

Surely, the rules should apply to ALL banned and not only a selected few.

Sorry to go OT.
[/b][/quote]


I believe you took my statement out of context. The question raised in this thread was whether original works can be discussed if the member is banned. This forum is about discussing prop replicas and original artistic works.
If that original work happens to come from a known recaster, and IF it is shown on the forum, it's up to the mods to decide whether that is permissible or not. IF discussion ensues and questions inevitably raised as to whether the "original" sculpture is indeed a recast or not, considering the reputation of the person who claimed to have made it, that IS part of this forum. People ask questions about claims made regarding prop replicas here all the time. IF someone buys that piece and IF they show it on the forum, THEN it is part of this forum to discuss it. I'm not saying it IS permissible to do so, because in that case I frankly don't know because it's a grey area and up to the mods.

And I do agree, the rules should be consistent or at least better defined.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 08:20 PM) [snapback]1301653[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]1301549[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1301518[/snapback]

If you purchase an item that's an original sculpt from a banned member, and show it off on the forum, will that be looked down upon? I agree that it will throw into question whether it is an original sculpt or not, but hey....showing something like that off and that stimulates discussion is what this forum is all about. .
[/b]

Actually... it is not what this forum is about, since that is not allowed here.
And you state so yourself on another, now locked, topic.
<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 14 2006, 08:30 PM=)</div>

I believe there is no discussion permitted of a banned members products here.
[/b]

Surely, the rules should apply to ALL banned and not only a selected few.
Sorry to go OT.
[/b][/quote]
I believe you took my statement out of context. The question raised in this thread was whether original works can be discussed if the member is banned. This forum is about discussing prop replicas and original artistic works.
If that original work happens to come from a known recaster, and IF it is shown on the forum, it's up to the mods to decide whether that is permissible or not. IF discussion ensues and questions inevitably raised as to whether the "original" sculpture is indeed a recast or not, considering the reputation of the person who claimed to have made it, that IS part of this forum. People ask questions about claims made regarding prop replicas here all the time. IF someone buys that piece and IF they show it on the forum, THEN it is part of this forum to discuss it. I'm not saying it IS permissible to do so, because in that case I frankly don't know because it's a grey area and up to the mods.
And I do agree, the rules should be consistent or at least better defined.
[/b][/quote]
Well, you made a very general statement, so I just had to make sure what you really meant, since your two statements contradicted each other.

I would like to get some clear rules on the subject, as to what is and what is not allowed to be discussed here and then those rules should be followed on not just applied to specific topics, but all.

Tbh: I find the rule to be quite silly... as long as people are not trying to offer sales or promote a banned member's item. A discussion cannot hurt - and will definitely bring out the rights and wrongs and usefull information that all could profit from instead of this censoring and keeping people from knowing the real stories. But that's of course just my opinion.

 

[Treadwell]

It depends on whether the discussion is serving the sales of the banned member's offerings as much as it is the discussion itself.

If someone buys an item made by a banned member, and makes a show-off thread, maybe even showing/discussing modifications he's making or how he's painting it, etc, well, that's what this board is about. It's even less of a problem if it's an item the banned member doesn't even sell anymore anyway.

But if it amounts to an advertisement for the banned member's current product, then that is what crosses the line.

That line is very fine. Makes our job that much more interesting.



<div class='quotetop'>(hydin @ Aug 16 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]1301611[/snapback]</div>

honestly, expecting the rule to count towards the world is a little dumb.

we police our little area of the interweb. to expect any "law" or "rule" we make to affect the larger areas out there we have nothing to do with is just silly.[/b]

hydin and vaderdarth get it. Just because we don't have an explicit rule about something doesn't mean it's condoned outright. What isn't forbidden isn't necessarily "okay". It just means we don't consider it part of our dominion.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating:

The RPF staff is not the prop police of the world.

I mean, as it is we're all mad with power in our little corner of the web, right? Why impress upon us a global jurisdiction?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Aug 16 2006, 09:58 PM) [snapback]1301723[/snapback]</div>

It depends on whether the discussion is serving the sales of the banned member's offerings as much as it is the discussion itself.
If someone buys an item made by a banned member, and makes a show-off thread, maybe even showing/discussing modifications he's making or how he's painting it, etc, well, that's what this board is about. It's even less of a problem if it's an item the banned member doesn't even sell anymore anyway.
But if it amounts to an advertisement for the banned member's current product, then that is what crosses the line.
That line is very fine. Makes our job that much more interesting.
[/b]

Apparently also: not consistent.

Just an observation

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 03:30 PM) [snapback]1301712[/snapback]</div>

Well, you made a very general statement, so I just had to make sure what you really meant, since your two statements contradicted each other.
[/b]

You're right, at face value they did. :lol

My guess is that the grey areas are very difficult to outline in terms of conditions since the hobby itself can occasionally walk a fine line since by its nature we collect or make replicas of props (properties)...

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Then let's not make them grey. It's actually very simple. Either:

1. Banned members and their products: not allowed.
or
2. Banned members and their products: allowed.

Not:
1. Banned members not allowed, but banned member's products in show-off threads allowed.
or
2. Some banned members and their products: allowed - some banned member and their products: not allowed.

Not that "grey". Very straightforward - consistent - easy to figure out.

It is impossible and fruitless to discuss someone's item if we are not also allowed to discuss the maker and seller. What IS this policing of the topics? What good does it do? All this censoring? Who benefits from that? It is impossible to figure out what is and what is not allowed to talk about, since the "rules" are so fluid and not applied to all topics, regarding these beforementioned issues.

And yeah: recasting sux. :thumbsdown

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 04:18 PM) [snapback]1301754[/snapback]</div>

Then let's not make them grey. It's actually very simple. Either:

1. Banned members and their products: not allowed.
or
2. Banned members and their products: allowed.

Not:
1. Banned members not allowed, but banned member's products in show-off threads allowed.
or
2. Some banned members and their products: allowed - some banned member and their products: not allowed.

Not that "grey". Very straightforward - consistent - easy to figure out.
[/b]

There's already a mechanism in place: "Banned members and their products: not allowed."

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]1301773[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 04:18 PM) [snapback]1301754[/snapback]

Then let's not make them grey. It's actually very simple. Either:
1. Banned members and their products: not allowed.
or
2. Banned members and their products: allowed.
Not:
1. Banned members not allowed, but banned member's products in show-off threads allowed.
or
2. Some banned members and their products: allowed - some banned member and their products: not allowed.
Not that "grey". Very straightforward - consistent - easy to figure out.
[/b]

There's already a mechanism in place: "Banned members and their products: not allowed."
[/b][/quote]
Apparently, that rule only applies to SOME banned members and not ALL.

Be consistent mods or not at all.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]1301775[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]1301773[/snapback]

There's already a mechanism in place: "Banned members and their products: not allowed."
[/b]

Apparently, that rule only applies to SOME banned members and not ALL.

Be consistent mods or not at all.
[/b][/quote]


How is it inconsistent? Discussion of banned member products is not permitted. From that I understand it means items being actively sold by that banned member. Can you give an example where it is not consistent?