Buyer beware DavetheDane

[MsngPcs]

LOL. "Rights". Isn't it all copyright infiringment to a degree? GINO didn't sculpt a damn thing! Keep claimg your "rights", and we'll keep laughing at you...and your $800 helmets!

I'm sure you have a letter from LFL giving you rights to recast a suit and sell for profit.

:ninja

 

[GINO]

No one here including myself is claiming to have any legal rights. Only rights within the hobby.
If you can't understand the difference between that, then you shouldn't be here.

.

 

[bubba fett]

Oh wow, the summer reruns have started - and I almost missed this first episode!

Seriously though, always good to get a heads-up on a recaster that I should not be buying from. It's a long list...

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Jez.
Take a moment and carefully, slowly, re-read post #79 of this thread.

.

Yup re-read it, and it conflicts with this which you said earlier...

Everyone besides me and AP are illegitimate (by our hobby standards).

.

So this suggests to me that for instance you don't see TE2 as "legitimate"

More importantly you've shown no evidence to suggest how YOU personally have any rights. Now if Dave G wants to chime in saying he's passed all his "rights" to you then I'd be interested to hear his comments.

Cheers

Jez

 

[darthvaderv]

Yeah, I have seen a rise within the last 6-12mths especially. It has always been present but I wonder if this has a knock on affect with the global economy? There definately seems more recasters thesedays IMO :thumbsdown.

 

[GINO]

Tony is an innocent in this mess. But that doesn't change that what he has is illegitimate stuff.

I don't distinguish between the recasting of something cast from original or something sculpted from scratch. In the eyes of the law, LFL owns the rights to them both equally.


You say Tony should be legit because he unknowingly bought illegitimate pieces.

So for example, if someone bought one of Chewie15's recast busts off of ebay not knowing it was a recast, should he then be allowed to make copies and sell them even after he knows it was a recast?

You can't launder illegitimate props by means of 'I didn't know any better'.
You can forgive them for not knowing, but that doesn't mean that they get a pass once they are made aware.


.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

That would only be true IF (and its a great big IF) there was an agreement of some sort passing all rights over to you.

But thus far you've failed to provide any evidence of this.

We therefore have a situation where you claim to have certain rights - without anything to back the statement up!

Cheers

Jez

 

[Grey]

Everyone is a hipocrit. It's cool to 're-create' props from movies for a profit but it's not cool to rip off the guy ripping off the idea.

Despite idea's to the contrary, there is no difference. Atleast not aside from the fact that now the shoe is on the other foot. I seriously doubt if you went up to some of these origional prop masters from the movies, and told them you we're making a profit off of unlicensed replicas of thier idea's, that they'd greet you with a smile and a handshake.

The grey area comes in when the person who re-creates said prop, isn't just flat out pulling a mold of one of the origionals. Technically, they are taking the idea or concept, and using thier own skills to re-create it rather than flat out re-casting an origional prop.

Do I support recasters? Hell no, i'd never defend them or buy their products regardless of how tempting thier prices usually are. I am simply pointing out you should get off your moral highground here because your basically doing the same thing to the origional prop master, but for reasons you deem more 'worthy' like love of the hobby and the props rather than sheer monetary greed.

 

[kalarcana]

I have to say that anyone new entering this hobby and reading this is just going to think "WTF!" :wacko

Cheers

Jez

Even those not new to the hobby are still thinking the same thing. Seriously, it's never going to end.


Rick

 

[BDK]

So for example, if someone bought one of Chewie15's recast busts off of ebay not knowing it was a recast, should he then be allowed to make copies and sell them even after he knows it was a recast?

My only issue with this comparison is intent. If someone bought a helmet for themselves and then down the rode had the idea, hey lets make some casts and make a few bucks to get my money back is diffrent than TE2 who bought the molds for the sole purpose of selling the suits.

Its more like buying the car from the sleezy car joint down the street, if you buy a car and not no you got ripped and then sell it and the next person finds out its a lemon are you the one at fault or the dealer? Does it make you a bad person?

 

[GINO]

Okay, let me rephrase.

So for example, if someone bought one of Chewie15's recast busts off of ebay with the intention of making copies and selling them, not knowing he was stepping on the toes of a fellow hobbyist (or even knowing about the concept that recasting is bad), should he then still be allowed to make copies and sell them even after he knows it was a recast?

I'm sure Chewie15 would say no as would most people here.

There is no difference between a sculpted bust and a cast from original prop in terms of what should be 'protected' within the hobby.
LFL from a legal standpoint looks upon a sculpt from scratch bust the same way they do a cast from original prop.

Based on this, TE2 Tony offers illegitimate product.
I have no beef with Tony personally.
His intentions were good, he was totally unaware of what he was really getting from Matt, but just like the example I gave above, that doesn't give him a pass now that he knows the situation, nor does it take the stigma of recast away from what he offers.


.

 

[BDK]

But now your into the money situation, should he stop even if he hasn't got what he put back into it back? I don't know what he paid, or you paid and I know how I'd feel in his shoes, or even in yours. I'd be P.O. if I was yourself but as Tony, its hard to just stop after dropping serious dime on something. The only way I'd consider it was if the one who claimed to have that right, yourself, would buy that set off me less what I came out with so far. So if I paid say $10,000 for a helmet mold, and sold helmets at $500 and only sold 2 when you found out, I'd either come to terms that I'll make these until I reach that 10 grand or you buy the mold back from me or evidence of destruction for $9,000. That would be the only way for both parties to achieve some moderation of sucess, now way in hell after that much investment would anyone just stop.


Maybe thats Tony's play, I dont know I don't know the guy, don't personally know any of the involved parties used to PM G.F. a lot in the old old days but that was about it, so as the un-intrested 3rd party if I was an arbitrator between just you and Tony thats what I'd decide. Or make TE reimburse Tony or yourself for the cost of the molds but that'd be money no one would ever see most likely.

 

[Onigiri]

7 years and 60 posts and you still dont get it. Let me break it down for you. Its not a legal issue here rather an issue that effects the hobby in very real terms.
If person A shells out a butt load of money/time/materials to procure and/or recreate a helmet (for instance) for the HOBBYISTS in the understanding that he will make his investment back and shmuck B buys one and recasts it and sells it thereby undercutting A then A will say screw you hobbyists Im never wasting my money bringing something new to this hobby. Ill buy or make my originals and Ill keep them ALL TO MYSELF.
Recasting DESTROYS this hobby because people are tired of spending LARGE amounts of money on originals or on CREATING originals and having some bottom dweller recast it it for a fraction of the cost and under cut him. Do YOU have 40 thousand bucks to shell out for an original screen used helmet not to mention the time, skill, risk, and additional money to recreate that helmet? Youve done all that work and taken out a mortgage on your house.
You sell a helmet to shmuck B for 1000, a drop in the bucket as to what youve invested, and shmuck B copies that helmet and says he wants to make it so EVERY trooper can have an affordable helmet so he sells for far less thereby crippling the investment return of the original person making the offer. Person A gets screwed and decides 'screw these A holes, Ill never bring another rare piece like THIS to market again.
Shmuck B wants to sound all 'savior of the people' because hes offering 2d or 3d Gen recasts for SOOOOO much cheaper then greedy A but guess what? Its easy for shmuck B to charge less because he has INVESTED less. Dont buy in to all this altruistic BS. If you cant see how this behavior destroys the hobby and leads to stuff NOT being shared or offered up then nobody here can help you. If you havent figured it out in all this time then you really have no concept at what keeps this hobby going.

Is an issue.
You get angry when someone recasts what you have recast.
So, you have no real right to be angry over stuff you recast yourself.
Legal or no legal right. Your still recasting.

 

[Onigiri]

Youre not doing anything to the original propmaster in the case of studio originals as they dont have any fiduciary claim 90% of the time. What youre doing is to the STUDIOS. And its not about MORAL high ground here its about the survival of this hobby. If you screw over the folks who are investing big money to bring RARE and nearly impossible to get your hands on items then guess what? No more rare items. Its not MORAL its PRACTICAL and to couch it in any other terms is disingenuous.
As for who has rights in this case its a grey area as Ginos only real claim as I read it is that he got duped before Tony got duped (not saying anyone got duped just paraphrasing). Both got (supposedly) sold rights to something you cant really sell rights to and if both acted in good faith then there really isnt a complaint against Tony at all.
Dave G bought a set of molds and the right to produce armor from that set. A new set of molds was produced from Matts ROTJ set and that set of molds was sold to Tony. Its not like the same set was sold to two people. Also, if there WAS an agreement for Matt to get out of the armor making business then it seems like he did...he just didnt get out of the mold making business. Goes to show where a good written contract can go a long way because without it we only have he said she said.

 

[GINO]

That's exactly right Don.
Nice summation. :thumbsup

The problem is that most costumers, (not all, but most) aren't interested in what's down the road or the long term effects on the hobby.

They just want their armor now. They most likely probably aren't even interested in potential future prop offerings, so they have a mentality of 'well it's not going to effect me, so who cares, all I wanted was this trooper armor anyway'.

Dave G bought a set of molds and the right to produce armor from that set. A new set of molds was produced from Matts ROTJ set and that set of molds was sold to Tony.

Yes, but Dave and I own THE original set of molds. What was sold to Tony was something that Matt had to resort to recasting in order to make new molds. After the molds and rights were sold on and he agreed to be 'out', he was not in a position to grant any more rights to any new people. Yet he did, and took advantage of Tony's good faith.

Also, if there WAS an agreement for Matt to get out of the armor making business then it seems like je did...he jsut didnt get out of the mold making business. Goes to show where a good written contract can go a long way because without it we only have he said she said.

Why would anyone buy molds for that kind of money with the risk of the seller making duplicates? Because he was not supposed to, and stooped to recasting to make it happen.
Do you know how frustrating it is to be so badly screwed over and years later hear what happened be described as 'he said, she said'. That's why I can empathize with Tony. It sucks.

Also, in the illegitimate world of replica props where there is no real legal recourse when someone screws you over, an actual contract is pretty much worthless.
That is why it is so important for the hobby to police itself, something I feel a lot of people need to be reminded of.


.

 

[Onigiri]

I know the he said she said thing sucks but thats the problem...without a contract thats all we're left with. It would be nice if we had more to work with but we dont and so people are left to make up their own minds based on hearsay. Its tangled to be sure. and a contract may be LEGALLY worthless but we're not talking legality here. If there was a contract it would most likely not be enforceable but it would serve its purposes HERE and give weight to one side or the other.

 

[defstartrooper]

But now your into the money situation, should he stop even if he hasn't got what he put back into it back? I don't know what he paid, or you paid and I know how I'd feel in his shoes, or even in yours. I'd be P.O. if I was yourself but as Tony, its hard to just stop after dropping serious dime on something. The only way I'd consider it was if the one who claimed to have that right, yourself, would buy that set off me less what I came out with so far. So if I paid say $10,000 for a helmet mold, and sold helmets at $500 and only sold 2 when you found out, I'd either come to terms that I'll make these until I reach that 10 grand or you buy the mold back from me or evidence of destruction for $9,000. That would be the only way for both parties to achieve some moderation of sucess, now way in hell after that much investment would anyone just stop.


Maybe thats Tony's play, I dont know I don't know the guy, don't personally know any of the involved parties used to PM G.F. a lot in the old old days but that was about it, so as the un-intrested 3rd party if I was an arbitrator between just you and Tony thats what I'd decide. Or make TE reimburse Tony or yourself for the cost of the molds but that'd be money no one would ever see most likely.

So theoretically you're saying the original buyer should then pay again to stop someone selling stuff they shouldn't be selling.
If anyone should pay it should be the scheister double dipping.

 

[mattiza]

7 years and 60 posts and you still dont get it. Let me break it down for you. Its not a legal issue here rather an issue that effects the hobby in very real terms.
If person A shells out a butt load of money/time/materials to procure and/or recreate a helmet (for instance) for the HOBBYISTS in the understanding that he will make his investment back and shmuck B buys one and recasts it and sells it thereby undercutting A then A will say screw you hobbyists Im never wasting my money bringing something new to this hobby. Ill buy or make my originals and Ill keep them ALL TO MYSELF.
Recasting DESTROYS this hobby because people are tired of spending LARGE amounts of money on originals or on CREATING originals and having some bottom dweller recast it it for a fraction of the cost and under cut him. Do YOU have 40 thousand bucks to shell out for an original screen used helmet not to mention the time, skill, risk, and additional money to recreate that helmet? Youve done all that work and taken out a mortgage on your house.
You sell a helmet to shmuck B for 1000, a drop in the bucket as to what youve invested, and shmuck B copies that helmet and says he wants to make it so EVERY trooper can have an affordable helmet so he sells for far less thereby crippling the investment return of the original person making the offer. Person A gets screwed and decides 'screw these A holes, Ill never bring another rare piece like THIS to market again.
Shmuck B wants to sound all 'savior of the people' because hes offering 2d or 3d Gen recasts for SOOOOO much cheaper then greedy A but guess what? Its easy for shmuck B to charge less because he has INVESTED less. Dont buy in to all this altruistic BS. If you cant see how this behavior destroys the hobby and leads to stuff NOT being shared or offered up then nobody here can help you. If you havent figured it out in all this time then you really have no concept at what keeps this hobby going.

Whom ever copies an origianl of any prop is not in it to provide something for the community, they are in it for the money only, otherwise they would not make it in the first place. If so they would only charge a purchaser basically cost. If you copy any original you are a recaster if you like it or not. And these molds from all the different names or suppliers one way or another are all recast.


As far as I know the first armor out there was made by Marco, then how many people copied his armor. I can name some but I will not.

Stop trying to say its for the community when it really for the money.:angel

 

[Art Andrews]

Whom ever copies an origianl of any prop is not in it to provide something for the community, they are in it for the money only, otherwise they would not make it in the first place.

That is an ignorant, short-sighted, and irresponsible broad-stroking of the issue. Only further proves how little of this hobby you understand. I can't deny that your description nails some people stone cold, but to paint everyone who makes original copies available to the public or even to a select few is offensive, and only serves to show how out of touch you are with the better individuals who are here and at similar boards.

 

[nzjedi]

I find this whole subject quite confusing. I'm looking at this from the stand point of an artist. I sculpt costume props from scratch, sometimes based on designs that I don't have the right to reproduce but, I still make parts from scratch, my understanding of the "unwriten rule" of this hobby is that should I choose to make a price avaliable, it's done so with the understanding, it will not he copied. When it come to something that is stolen to begin with, I find it hard to apply the same reasoning. I have great respect for artists like pghfett, skygun, evo etc etc, the people who create work. I will never understand the respect people give to those with film used props. Certainly some items are carry cultural and historical significance but, it requires no skill, time or talent to aqquire film pieces, merely connections. I wonder if some people defend "ownership" of such items so vigourously because they are unable to make anything for themselves. Personally I care very little for stormtrooper armour, all I see in this debate is theives masqerading as artists, and asking for the same respect and protection this hobby gives to those who work to make it possible.