Can I recast an AA Helmet ?

[Lynn TXP 0369]

Let see..

Here are a few of the most famous manufacturer and Non manufacturer recasts I have seen and know of over the 6 years I have been here that have gone well and are eagerly sought after if they come up forsale.

Boba Fett helmet...
GF... modifed and recast DP DLX
Gino... modifed and recast DP DLX (limited run)
DP DLX recast... straight recast with no mods
MH (Mystery helmet)... Cast off a DP helmet source and is now also itself being recast and modifed.

Darth Vader...
CKing... Low # DP DLX helmet.. two runs(if memory is correct) about 5 years ago and is one of the most sought after Vader helmets and commands a high price when sold.

20th Century... Don't know if this qualifies as a recast or not, but didn't some modifey and recast this one?

Stormtrooper....
GT.... recast of GF's first suit and is what 75% of what the 501st owns since all these new dealers are out there.

GF.. ABS-80 recast or AP what ever is up with that one weather the molds were sold or is a recast, what ever was detemined about that one if anything.

All the above eagerly bought and wanted items that very few people bitched,if at all, about them being recast.

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of at the moment.

Lynn

 

[ShocKWavE]

Originally posted by Lynn TXP 0369@Mar 28 2006, 06:43 PM
Let see..

Here are a few of the most famous manufacturer and Non manufacturer recasts I have seen and know of over the 6 years I have been here that have gone well and are eagerly sought after if they come up forsale.

Boba Fett helmet...
GF... modifed and recast DP DLX
Gino... modifed and recast DP DLX (limited run)
DP DLX recast... straight recast with no mods
MH (Mystery helmet)... Cast off a DP helmet source and is now also itself being recast and modifed.

Darth Vader...
CKing... Low # DP DLX helmet..  two runs(if memory is correct) about 5 years ago and is one of the most sought after Vader helmets and commands a high price when sold.

20th Century... Don't know if this qualifies as a recast or not, but didn't some modifey and recast this one?

Stormtrooper....
GT.... recast of GF's first suit and is what 75% of what the 501st owns since all these new dealers are out there.

GF..  ABS-80 recast or AP what ever is up with that one weather the molds were sold or is a recast, what ever was detemined about that one if anything.

All the above eagerly bought and wanted items that very few people bitched,if at all, about them being recast.

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of at the moment.

Lynn

[snapback]1214969[/snapback]​

Point taken, but none of that justifies recasting.

 

[Lynn TXP 0369]

Originally posted by ShocKWavE@Mar 28 2006, 02:14 PM
Point taken, but none of that justifies recasting.

[snapback]1214976[/snapback]​

It wasn't meant to...I'm not justifying anything, just stating the facts.

I'm just saying this manufacturer recasting has been going on for years now long before AA's helmet has been around and it will continue over the years when other things come out.

People havn't been complaining about them in the past, they were greeted with open arms and wallets, why all of a sudden would someone complain now if someone copied AA's helmet? It is no different, right or wrong.

A person would be a hypocrite if they bitched about a recast AA, or the thought of a AA recast if they owned, or did own, one of the above helmets I mentioned.

If someone does it with a AA helmet it will be no different then what others have done in the past with DP, GF, and others.. People here and other forums will still buy them with open wallets and CC's. eagerly...
That is my point.

Lynn

 

[ShocKWavE]

I understand your point. It is just that your point, to a degree, reinforces a continuance by pointing to past trends which in their own were forms of plagerism, whether accepted or not.

I have no personal interest in this beyond commenting on the legitimacy of recasting in general. You are right, a lot has been met with open arms in the past (and will likely continue to be). I am not arguing with you over that. I am just clarifying/emphasizing that none of that justifies a continued trend of copying someone elses work.

Regardless of the vast array of opinions about AA and his helmets, their value lies in their crafter above all else. Someone may be able to paint Girl Before a Mirror better than Picasso, but its still a ripoff.

 

[zorg]

go ahead dr.s

all you need to do apparently is label it a "mystery helmet"

seems to work for some other gap-toothed retards on here

z

 

[DL 44 Blaster]

I'm more than comfortable that the GF - ABS80/AP stuff is as legit as can be. As in the molds were sold and being used by consent.

Everything else I agree with Lynn.

Steve

 

[kurtyboy]

The thing about recasting that I find the funniest is when people moan that someone has ripped off the stuff that they ripped off.

 

[OldKen]

Originally posted by DrStranglove@Mar 27 2006, 10:46 PM
If not, why not?

Esp since it seems he lied about the whole buis of making them from orig molds and other stuff.

[snapback]1214470[/snapback]​

only if you recast the stand that AA recastED with it. :love


(jumps behind wall waits for debris to fly overhead)


:lol

 

[SethB6025]

Would the recast be with or without AA's permission? Oh, my I do love these threads. They make my head hurt, but I can't turn away. :rolleyes Personally, I wouldn't recast anything w/o permission. You are right however, that the COC is a little vague.

 

[DrStranglove]

Originally posted by Seth B@Mar 28 2006, 05:03 PM
Would the recast be with or without AA's permission?    Oh, my I do love these threads.  They make my head hurt, but I can't turn away.  :rolleyes  Personally, I wouldn't recast anything w/o permission.  You are right however, that the COC is a little vague.

[snapback]1215098[/snapback]​

Now that would be a funny email to send...

"Hey buddy, since you are about to be put out of business I was going to do some 1 x 1 copies of your bucket. Would that be alright?"

 

[Gytheran]

Now... would it make it any better if the helmet was recast in the name of... say...

The AA relief fund... helping those who bought a screen accurate helmet and got a cheap prototype rip-off?

 

[KevVader]

Originally posted by kurtyboy@Mar 28 2006, 04:47 PM
The thing about recasting that I find the funniest is when people moan that someone has ripped off the stuff that they ripped off.

[snapback]1215082[/snapback]​

:lol ....Amen.

 

[Helmetman]

Gap-toothed retards?

That's rich coming from you Zorg. Last time I checked, the C3PO head that you offer was based on an original prop - correct?

Regardless of any 'modifications' you did to it - ultimately you recast it. :eek

 

[Darth Domain]

Originally posted by kurtyboy@Mar 28 2006, 09:47 PM
The thing about recasting that I find the funniest is when people moan that someone has ripped off the stuff that they ripped off.

[snapback]1215082[/snapback]​

:lol

 

[Darth Domain]

As i said, most people would not have the armor/masks etc unless these items had been reacast. Let them without recast cast the first stone

 

[AnsonJames]

Originally posted by zorg@Mar 28 2006, 09:16 PM
go ahead dr.s

all you need to do apparently is label it a "mystery helmet"

seems to work for some other gap-toothed retards on here

z

[snapback]1215015[/snapback]​

What was the source for your 3PO heads Zorg?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Originally posted by Darth Domain@Mar 29 2006, 10:08 AM
As i said, most people would not have the armor/masks etc unless these items had been reacast. Let them without recast cast the first stone

[snapback]1215379[/snapback]​

You are right. NO ONE would have anything remotely accurate if it wasn't for recasts. That's true, since the official licenced props usually stinks (MR excluded).

But I still feel that there are two types of recasts

1. recast from screen used prop. That person most likely used a lot of time, effort and money to get it right and offers it because no companies offer it and because people want the items. Who are they hurting? Yes, they infringe on the copyright laws to sell items they don't own the right to, but since the companies won't get off their a**es and offer those items for sale... then who's to blame?

2. recast from a company's or a private individual's product. The company and the private individual used a lot of time, effort and money to make the product, the recaster did NONE, except make a mold using someone elses product (lincenced and unlicenced) and make copies of that. Who are they hurting? They are hurting the companies and the private individuals who made the original piece, by creating and selling - oftentimes inferior quality - copies of their items at lower prices.

Yes, people will buy them and yes, recasting will continue, but I really think there is a difference between the two types. Though, the "recasters" in group nr. 1 would stop their work once companies offer officially licenced casts from screen used prop or original mold. Then their work is finished because the companies are finally offering what people want. The recasters in group nr. 2 will NOT STOP, no matter what - they don't care about copyright, or the subject or how good their recasts turn out: they are simply in it for the money.

Yes, both groups are recasters, no doubt about that... and I guess it is wrong to distinguish between the two, but I still feel that there is a profound difference.

But again... group nr. 1 would stop if the companies got off their lazy a**es and provided us with better quality products, instead of altered and inaccurate products that costs too much.

 

[Darth Domain]

No humour man, i hear ya , but this all seems like Moral judgement, we all know that this judgement differs from person to person. the person who recasts an item which is from a company may not just be doing it for money, what if they have made the changes to it to make it more screen acceptable then are proud of their work and thinmk "hey, i'd like to offer this tio others". There are perhaps some genuine people out there who may have recast but are not just in it for the money.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Originally posted by Darth Domain@Mar 29 2006, 10:46 AM
No humour man, i hear ya , but this all seems like Moral judgement, we all know that this judgement differs from person to person. the person who recasts an item which is from a company may not just be doing it for money, what if they have made the changes to it to make it more screen acceptable then are proud of their work and thinmk "hey, i'd like to offer this tio others". There are perhaps some genuine people out there who may have recast but are not just in it for the money.

[snapback]1215387[/snapback]​

Sure... and I guess those types of "modified" recasts of company products are frowned less upon than "un-modified", direct recasts of company products, even though many don't care to object towards those either. I find that silly, really.
And, if someone was happy about the modifications he or she made to a lincenced prop, then instead of recasting their work, then maybe they should simply offer a tutorial for others to follow to make the same changes, which many do, btw. So, I don't really think that modifications can justify a recast.

Though, the recasts that all can agree to object to are those where the item being recast is made by private individuals, no matter whether that product was an original sculpt or recast from a screen used prop. Yes, there are examples where recasts of private individuals' work go without complaints, such as the FX suits, but still. That type of recasting is the one most audibly protested against, I guess.

Again, these are only my own personal convictions and I usually try to stay away from the second type of recasts I mentioned in my previous post, since they are only hurting the community instead of offering to it.

 

[Darth Domain]

I can agree with offering the tutorials on a modded item.
But in reality, the moderators should ban all sales of items such as trooper armor and lids/masks etc unless they are licensed or have been produced in the past while holding a license. For example, DP, Rubies, Altmann, MR.
The above held license, these should be fine to sell on Jy

Any masks/lids and armor out of those above are cast/copies/unlicensed this includes AA.

So, if we ban everything from JY other that the aforementioned licesensed products, then the RPF and it's members are bonafide non-promotors of recast items and not in any way hypocritical.
I think this is the rule the mods should use now then, (wonder how many people would like this)