Casting off production made pieces , cool or not?

[Art Andrews]

Al, that was probably one of the clearest and most well stated summaries I have seen on this issue. While I am sure some will differ in minor areas, overall your post seems to capture the general sentiment of the membership.

 

[ob1al]

Thank you Art.

Yes, I'm sure there will be differences of opinion in some minor areas. But ultimately, the "code of conduct" is a personal descision which reflects the ethics and honour of each individual member here.

It really all boils down to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

With that in mind, to recaster supporters and recasters:

If YOU bought a screen used prop and offered it to folks here, how would YOU feel if someone threw a casting in silicone and undercut you? Would it make you want to do it again? Would it make others wary of offering new runs of their screen used pieces?

If YOU spent months researching and sculpting a piece, how would YOU feel to see it pop up on ebay for $20, badly represented in a rough recast form? Would it encourage you to start a new project and offer it up to everyone next time?

No.

Bad ethics and selfish, thoughtless profiteering kill the hobby.

That's why recasting is bad.

There are too many selfish profiteers who don't give a damn about the hobby.

That's why some sellers must be selective and why there are "blacklists".

Sad, but useful and certainly true.

It's up to each individual to decide where in the ethical spectrum their position falls, but it's worth noting that one's online personality and deeds are completely one and the same with one's "real world" behaviours, in the grand scheme of things. The internet is not anonymity, nor a free for all to drop ethics and standards and manners.

What we do in life echoes in eternity...

Al

 

[Anomaly]

If it's a film or TV prop, as a general rule everything is the Intellectual Property of the studio that produced it.

So the choice is clear - either EVERY fan-made replica or casting is shunned, favouring licensed products only; or some ethics are laid down and agreed regarding fan-made pieces and non-licensed replicas of screen-used pieces.

The RPF and the prop-collecting world in general is founded upon fan-made and cast from screen used. That's how it all begun.

If we relied solely on officially licensed pieces it would strip the creativity and enjoyment out of the hobby for the majority.

So, in order to foster the creativity of the hobby and foster the sharing of screen-used pieces (via castings), the "honor among thieves" code of conduct was arrived at.

Unfortunately, it is a grey area in the minds of many. But there are certain black and white cases which are undeniable.

My own interpretation is, if I purchase a licensed piece, it should not be recast as long as that company is in business. After a business closes or goes bust, it's fair game as that company no longer has a financial income from that product and the fact it is no longer being produced means some members will never be able to get one. So a run of a discontinued piece, as we see frequently with old Don Post helmets for instance, is OK as it is doing the community a service and depriving Don Post studios of nothing.

If a member here sculpts something, it should NEVER be recast without express permission. That would be stealing from that members hard work and research.

If someone here buys a screen-used prop (not a casting from someone elses screen used prop) then the new owner is encouraged to mold the piece and offer it to the community.

There are always exceptions, as private deals are made and agreements struck between members, to produce a run from a second generation piece for example, but for the most part the above is how I see it.

Whichever way you look at it, the "rules" are never going to be perfect, but in order to continue to see new runs and new cast from screen-used pieces, they are the best we have.

There will always be recasters and people who don't care about spoiling the hobby for the rest of us, but at least by following these rules we are able to keep them at bay, to a degree.

By following the code of conduct, you are not just helping artists to keep working, not just helping to encourage people to share their expensive screen used pieces, you are actually helping YOURSELF as a collector.

Furthermore, you are doing the right thing by the community as a whole.

Al

I like this post. alot of it makes great sense to me.

one query...
what about limited edition licensed props?
the company no longer makes money off it as soon as all items are sold. but to recast it, are you not devaluing the investment that people have made in that limited edition?

Im not trying to make a dig, just trying to learn more about this sticky topic.

I personally dont like the way some people have decided that MR props are now fair game. even on this board.

 

[GINO]

I don't see any reason to differentiate a past or current licensed entity from a studio.
Neither are part of the unlicensed replica prop community that the honor amongst thieves philosophy applies to.

 

[ob1al]

That's a good question and a great example of where individual, case by case ethics come into the equation.

With something like that, one always has to consider all the factors. Perhaps talk to the membership and ask for advice and opinions to define the validity of a run.

Once again, it's all about personal ethics, but for my part I would consider it doubtful as long as the company was still trading.

Even with MR, for me it's still to early to consider recast pieces. It would feel like grave-robbing.

A hipocrisy, yes indeed, because in 5 years time I might not feel so. But a balanced hipocrisy with an ethical reasoning.

That's probably the best we can hope for, really.

Al

 

[propologist]

Finally , Clear as day! Thanks.

and it only took 200 posts and bunches of crying...good time