Casting off production made pieces , cool or not?

[WookieeGunner]

It's simple!
There are no ethics or morals here! There is just respect for our fellow members of the RPF and prop community!

But it's not that simple. Go back to post #162 and you'll see where it is specifically said that it was ok to recast the work of an RPF member.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I'm here for cast from screen used props or the best fan representation available if there isn't a licensed equivalent... and in that order. If cast from screen used wasn't available... I would have to redefine why I'm here and whether I'd actually still be interested in spending time with this hobby. For me, it's that simple.

Actually... I AM being forced to redefine why I'm here as cast from screen used is quickly becoming a limited thing, as why would anyone bother with enriching the hobby with something new, when recasters are applauded for their actions!?

 

[GINO]

But it's not that simple. Go back to post #162 and you'll see where it is specifically said that it was ok to recast the work of an RPF member.

It completely depends on the situation.
The criteria for when it is okay vs when it is not okay have been pretty well laid out in my opinion.

 

[franz bolo]

Ok , my pieces were pulled from the dumpster at fox studios , some were pieces that didn't make the cut and some were painted and discarded after filming. The general consensus here is that its ok to mold and share with this community . Does everyone agree?

The consensus is that you need to post pics first, then we will vote to see if your stuff is worthy!! :lol

So post some pics!!

FB

 

[WookieeGunner]

How does that not further the hobby?
Where and how exactly do you think these replicas become availble to you, if not the way described above?
So you can have one, as you put it?

.

The ones I have, by an artist creating it, either through research of the item in question or by creating the original. Not a middle man dropping it in silicone. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone who wants to buy something screen used and post pictures of it all over the Internet with a ruler beside it and a color match card. It's when they try to enforce a rule of "I can make money off of the item I bought but you can't make money off the item you bought." that I have a problem.

 

[GINO]

The ones I have, by an artist creating it, either through research of the item in question or by creating the original. Not a middle man dropping it in silicone. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone who wants to buy something screen used and post pictures of it all over the Internet with a ruler beside it and a color match card. It's when they try to enforce a rule of "I can make money off of the item I bought but you can't make money off the item you bought." that I have a problem.

Actually to be more clear, it should read "I can make money off the item I bought/first introduced into the community, but you can't make money off the item I bought/first brought into the community.'

 

[Too Much Garlic]

But only if he got hold of the original screen used piece and then molded and introduced his own offering of the same item, and not simply molding the other guys offering.

 

[defstartrooper]

The ones I have, by an artist creating it, either through research of the item in question or by creating the original. Not a middle man dropping it in silicone. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone who wants to buy something screen used and post pictures of it all over the Internet with a ruler beside it and a color match card. It's when they try to enforce a rule of "I can make money off of the item I bought but you can't make money off the item you bought." that I have a problem.

Don't tell us you have a problem tell us why you have a problem then maybe we can stop going in circles and getting dizzy.

Of course money is an issue, in an ideal fantasy world that doesn't exist it wouldn't be but unfortunately we have to live in the real world and in the real world money matters.
Do you think just because someone builds something or sculpts something from scratch they have no interest in making money from it, or that they don't make money from it ?
Infact they probably profit more, their financial costs stretch to materials or parts that's all, it's not like anyone is taking days off work and losing wages to create these things they do it in their own time.
Counter that with someone buying an original prop and spending hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands on it, it's simple economics that they are going to have to sell a great deal of copies just to recoup their costs let alone make any profit from it, if a recaster comes along and drops one of their copies in rubber and starts undercutting their price they're going to find it even harder to recoup those funds.

They don't sell copies of screen used items because they're lazy or untalented they sell them because people want accurate exact copies of the real prop not someone elses attempt at a version of the real prop.

Think about this, if you wanted a print of a certain painting would you rather have a direct copy of the original painting or would you rather have a copy of someone elses interpretation of that painting that they painted themselves ?
Or a bootleg CD of a concert of your favourite band, would you want a recording of your favourite band or a recording of a tribute act pretending to be your favourite band ?

 

[PHArchivist]

But it's not that simple. Go back to post #162 and you'll see where it is specifically said that it was ok to recast the work of an RPF member.

You're twisting things...

In fact, it certainly seems to me that you laid out the scenario, leading Chris to his response, and more or less (or consciously or subconsciously) manipluated the discourse to use to your advantage.

This quote above suggests the average, run-of-the-mill RPFer/hobbyist.

Chris' response was applicable to a unique niche' of RPF members that are industry professionals - a niche' that YOU previously had guided the discourse toward.

In retrospect, it appears poor form that you set up an exchange referring to industry pros (that happen to be RPF members) then attempt (again, perhaps subconsciously) to twist that reference into simple plain-jane RPF members.

Here's the posts (bold and caps added)...

You should be able to pick any props made by a PRO member of this board. Let's take this (purely hypothetical but plausible example). Adam Savage makes something for Mythbusters, which by definition makes it screen used. He also made a LotR map that he released to the RPF community. Is it ok to sell copies of his items?

Not really a great example. Depending on what it was for Mythbusters Adam himself might remain the copyright holder. I don't know what his contract is with the show.

Adam was a model builder on the SW prequels. If you had a model he made for SW it would be fair game. Legally it was work for hire and Lucasfilm owns the rights to it. Adam couldn't even make copies legally.

The LOTR map is Adam's own design, not a copy of a film prop, either way it would be wrong to copy it.

But it's not that simple. Go back to post #162 and you'll see where it is specifically said that it was ok to recast the work of an RPF member.

 

[WookieeGunner]

I'm not twisting things, I am merely pointing out that the "We protect our own" rule that everyone likes to tout isn't the rule. If it was then we would protect our own even if the work was for a studio.

And as far as the recouping the money. Yes, I believe an artist should be paid fairly for their work, wether that work is an original or a replica. The problem is that when you recast, whether screen used or not, you aren't paying the artist for their work. And yet people seem to feel that if I buy a $500 screen used item I have the right to "recoup my losses" but if I bought a $1200 replica item I'm not.

That's all I'm saying, a single rule that applies to all work done by prop artists. There isn't a single thing here that doesn't have exceptions, even the "sticking it to the studio" was brought up as not straightforward (go back and look at the complaint to my Mythbusters argument).

 

[PHArchivist]

And to clarify (and to keep going around in circles)...

The point in Chris' post about casting models made by Adam for the SW prequels reflects the "honor among thieves" code/mentality of the RPF - as long as it was an original item, made by and for the production, it is considered OK amongst the RPF to cast.

But a custom-build/sculpt by an RPF member is off-limits for re-casting.

Its ironic, really...

What is unequivocably illegal (casting a tangible representation of the Intellectual Property of a studio) is consider "A-OK:thumbsup".

But what is possibly legal* (re-casting a custom creation - though it may look a LOT like the IP of a studio - made by a private hobbyist), is shunned.


*I'm not an IP attorney. I don't know if a casting/distributing a custom, scratch-built replica would be legal or not, and would likely ultimately depend on the studio and/or court to prove that the maker has infringed upon the copyright.

 

[PHArchivist]

I'm not twisting things

1. Does Adam (and other resident industry professionals) exist here on the RPF in a niche' minority?

2. And, as a professional, can his (their) work be classed in two distinct categories (made for production, and made for himself)?

 

[propologist]

< peanuts , popcorn , cotton candy ...>

 

[ob1al]

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

 

[SithLord]

To be honest this has been one of the more interesting threads about this subject that I have participated in... simply because the issue has been presented and debated in a manner I have not experienced before. Maybe the players have changed, maybe I have changed... but something has definitely changed. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Because I haven't posted yet..... :lol

I keed....

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Because I haven't posted yet..... :lol

I keed....

Ah... there's my migraine. Nasty bugger, you. :confused

 

[stormtrooperguy]

Because I haven't posted yet..... :lol

hahah! nice!

I think this horse is dead. We should really leave it alone now

It takes all kinds to make a hobby. There are some money grubbing pirates, some crazy hippies that give stuff away, and everything in the middle.

We've established that everyone has strong thoughts on recasting, but that we don't and probably won't ever agree completely on the subject.

I think somewhere in here we probably objectified a female member of the board (just guessing).

That about sums up the RPF experience I think.

 

[RelicMaker]

I think there are just some sensitive guys on here who get all upset when they see "morals & ethics" used in the same paragraph as "honor amongst thieves".

 

[Eaglewood]

just wanting to know the general consensus. If you own a screen used or production made prop and want to recast it for other forum members benefit , ie as a trade is that ok ? or will you be branded a dirty recaster for all eternity?

I had a rubber stunt of the Riddick Necromonger Knife and had permission from the owner to make a mold of it. He even sent it to me as long as I made him a cold cast one.and then I had the actual maker contact me and we discussed making replicas--he gave me his blessing so I would go the high road if in doubt.

I still have the mold somewhere------

 

[jedimaster]

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

Finally , Clear as day! Thanks.