etiquette

azmyth

New Member
I'm new to the boards (been viewing them for a long time waiting for registrations to open). I'm not trying to open up any cans with worms in them. But I was thinking about something, and wondering what the "etiquette" is on casts. I knew the rule about recasting work, but I wanted to delve a little further. On what is acceptable and what is not. What is recasting?


So your not supposed to recast other people's work? What about people who buy screen used props, and recast those for sale? You didn't create the original, so wouldn't that be recasting? To take it even further.. and get technical, those who sculpt things trying to get 100% accuracy (which is impossible), in essence wouldn't this be the same thing as say, copying a drawing and then trying to resell it as if you created it originally? Even if you did freehand it, so its never going to be a 100% accurate rendition.. is this the same thing as making a copy of someone else's prop even it is screen used?

I was just curios.. don't kill the noob.
 
A noob. Get him. ;)

I would say that the very short version is that the ethical line has been crossed when a prop builder loses income as a result of someone copying his/her work.
 
Wow....

Hell of a 2nd post :)

The way I look at it (and I am not saying I am the greatest person to talk to about this), is pretty simple.

"Studio" stuff like originals, screen used, etc. Stuff made by a prop company in a movie? Stuff a company makes (i.e. Don Post Darth Vader helmets) that is no longer produced and the company is gone? Fair game. Only that stuff is fair game.

Everything else? Off limits without the OK from the creator guy. Not the prop company, but the guy who made his own sculpt or the guy who made his own design.

The best rule of thumb is, if you didn't make it, didn't design it, or can't get permission, it's wrong.
Chris
 
<div class='quotetop'>(hydin @ Nov 16 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]1358947[/snapback]</div>
Wow....

Hell of a 2nd post :)

The way I look at it (and I am not saying I am the greatest person to talk to about this), is pretty simple.

"Studio" stuff like originals, screen used, etc. Stuff made by a prop company in a movie? Stuff a company makes (i.e. Don Post Darth Vader helmets) that is no longer produced and the company is gone? Fair game. Only that stuff is fair game.

Everything else? Off limits without the OK from the creator guy. Not the prop company, but the guy who made his own sculpt or the guy who made his own design.

The best rule of thumb is, if you didn't make it, didn't design it, or can't get permission, it's wrong.
Chris
[/b]

I would say thats a fair reply. :thumbsup
 
Well thats the answer I was thinking.. and what I was leaning towards. Yet, I still see alot of people doing it. Granted, alot of the neat things available wouldn't be available to us normal folks without the ones recasting them for us that are less fortunate. But at the same time.. If I was GUYX, and I had made PROPX and I found out some guy bought my PROPX, made a copy of it.. and was making a killing on ebay selling it. I'd be mad..

I think what I am getting at..

is when someone buys a screen used prop, and recasts it.. when your in the middle of sculpting one from scratch. If you were thinking about selling it, you can forget about it now.. since noone is gonna buy a fan made prop over a recasted screen used prop. Then again.. neither of us should be profiting off of something someone else originally created.
 
Not always true....

There are always going to be people who really want their movie castings, but a lot of people (including myself) dig the fan made ones as they tend to be more "interesting". Lights, sounds, etc. The BR blaster is a good idea of this. People own the movie version, but if it wasn't a popular item, it wouldn't have near the following it does. I have lost count on how many versions have been made, but they have all been popular.

Same goes with machined props like lightsabers.

Granted if you could get castings of a screen used piece, it makes it easier to build the collection, but if you actually fiddle with your props from time to time, sometimes the fan made stuff is a little cooler. I wouldn't have tossed a screen used batman begins batarang around, but I had a lot of fun with the ones I had that were replicas, and they were 99% accurate :)

Chris
 
<div class='quotetop'>(hydin @ Nov 16 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]1358977[/snapback]</div>
Not always true....

There are always going to be people who really want their movie castings, but a lot of people (including myself) dig the fan made ones as they tend to be more "interesting". Lights, sounds, etc. The BR blaster is a good idea of this. People own the movie version, but if it wasn't a popular item, it wouldn't have near the following it does. I have lost count on how many versions have been made, but they have all been popular.

Same goes with machined props like lightsabers.

Granted if you could get castings of a screen used piece, it makes it easier to build the collection, but if you actually fiddle with your props from time to time, sometimes the fan made stuff is a little cooler. I wouldn't have tossed a screen used batman begins batarang around, but I had a lot of fun with the ones I had that were replicas, and they were 99% accurate :)

Chris
[/b]

hmm.. never thought of it like that.
 
a lot of people (including myself) dig the fan made ones as they tend to be more "interesting". Lights, sounds, etc.


I aggree with this,,,I always like the light and sound features...you usually only get this with fan made items
 
<div class='quotetop'>(prop fan @ Nov 16 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]1358998[/snapback]</div>
so am I reading this right ..... anyone offering a BSG pistol from the new show is a recaster, anyone offering a light saber is a recaster, anyone offering star trek items is a recaster since these items are being offered by companys like Rodennberry or MR or the show is still in production ?????? or do I have this all wrong
[/b]


Yes and No...

technically speaking, someone who reproduces anything that was not their original creation, regardless of recasting it or just recreating it from scratch is technically guilty of plageurism.. since the work is not theirs. However, from what I have seen and in my personal opinion there is an unspoken understanding that the creation of screen used props whether recast or created from scratch is usually ok, since its promoting the livelyhood of said movie/show.

when it comes down to creating and selling.. there is a fine line in what is ok to recast, and what is not.
 
I think recasting is kind of a personal issue, in that each person should decide for themselves how they distinguish wrong from right in terms of recasting. I know many of the members here consider this a community, and like any town meeting neighbors may argue, and rifts may occur over recasting and other behaivor.

We also try and support each other, so when a member comes along and posts "This seller/member/person recast my work, here are pictures as proof" we do try and support them. But, you will see in some cases not everyone will agree on the claim.

So, there are variables and circumstances that involve board member created replicas, versus an auction bought screen used piece making it not a clear cut "black or white, wrong or right" issue. It's a more visceral, gut instinct, "how do you feel about it?" situation some of the time.

Also be aware that when a member sits down in thier living room apartment and fires up a dremel, or starts to sculpt a bust to create a replica, it's 99% of the time something they are doing out of love, and not to make money. The members here are not becoming rich men while sharing thier work.

A studio prop maker on the other hand is contracted and gets paid a decent amount of his work, and is not always invested emotionally in thier creations the way the guys and gals here are. That said, you'll find some hollywood prop builders as members here, but I don't think we've ever had a case of them standing up and saying "don't recast me." But I could be wrong.

I guess my point is, recasting seems to be taken on a case by case basis, and it is usually discussed and debated and folks make up thier own minds ultimately, even if the mods get involved and ban a member.

I hope that wasn't too all over the place. :confused
 
License owning companies usually only get mad when you are making money selling copies of their protected works. Watch paramount go after trek items on ebay.

Star Wars items are a very unique and interesting conundrum. Technically, LFL owns all intellectual righst to the sabers, blaster and all other doodads related to the star wars universe. But, in the first three films, those doodads were primarily built using other items that LFL does not own the intellectual rights to. For instance, LFL does not own the right to the graflex - that belongs to kodak. There is no law that states you cannot sell a 3 cell graflex, a length of t-track and a replacement calculator bubble set in one package. As long as they are not assembled to look like a lightsaber, you are not infringing on anyone's license.

Same goes for the mauser, HW scope and flash suppressor. You stick'em all together and you chance having LFL sic their lawyers on you. Sell them seperately as a set and technically, you're teflon.

Now the new trilogy on the other hand is a different animal. Most of the pieces were machined in-house and are pure LFL intellectual rights. Except for the few odds and ends here and there (ep I jedi communicator and base for the naboo blaster (beeman c55 IIRC)), they made everything.

Thankfully, LFL is extremely lenient with us and pretty much leave us alone - but that is completely by their good graces. They could be complete asses about it and shut us down in a heartbeat if they ever had the notion. That's why we're extremely careful when it comes to their license holders.

-Fred
 
<div class='quotetop'>(Gigatron @ Nov 16 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1359036[/snapback]</div>
License owning companies usually only get mad when you are making money selling copies of their protected works. Watch paramount go after trek items on ebay.

Star Wars items are a very unique and interesting conundrum. Technically, LFL owns all intellectual righst to the sabers, blaster and all other doodads related to the star wars universe. But, in the first three films, those doodads were primarily built using other items that LFL does not own the intellectual rights to. For instance, LFL does not own the right to the graflex - that belongs to kodak. There is no law that states you cannot sell a 3 cell graflex, a length of t-track and a replacement calculator bubble set in one package. As long as they are not assembled to look like a lightsaber, you are not infringing on anyone's license.

Same goes for the mauser, HW scope and flash suppressor. You stick'em all together and you chance having LFL sic their lawyers on you. Sell them seperately as a set and technically, you're teflon.

Now the new trilogy on the other hand is a different animal. Most of the pieces were machined in-house and are pure LFL intellectual rights. Except for the few odds and ends here and there (ep I jedi communicator and base for the naboo blaster (beeman c55 IIRC)), they made everything.

Thankfully, LFL is extremely lenient with us and pretty much leave us alone - but that is completely by their good graces. They could be complete asses about it and shut us down in a heartbeat if they ever had the notion. That's why we're extremely careful when it comes to their license holders.

-Fred
[/b]

true, but what about non star wars props?
 
<div class='quotetop'>(Noeland @ Nov 16 2006, 01:23 PM) [snapback]1359013[/snapback]</div>
I guess my point is, recasting seems to be taken on a case by case basis, and it is usually discussed and debated and folks make up thier own minds ultimately, even if the mods get involved and ban a member.

I hope that wasn't too all over the place. :confused
[/b]

Yeah, it was all over the place, Noeland...But it's such an odd issue, that I don't know how you can address it thouroughly without BEING all over the place, (and while it was all over the place, it was as consise and eloquent an answer as I've ever seen on the subject.)

Now, recasting is not something that really effects me. I am not a prop-maker. I have no talent for such things, and am not really interested in trying my hand at it. I am here strictly as an admirer and patron of the wonderful artists whose work is here on the RPF, and to occasionally help someone track down information that I have the privilage of being familiar with.

But, it's a weird thing. I'm a media developer, and tend to work as a freelance video producer. I have, (and still do,) worked in direct video production, where I go out, shoot, edit, and sell directly to an audience, (event videos mostly.) It's amazing the number of people who will come up to the sales table and say, "we'd like two of these, please," and the other person says, "no. Let's split the cost and I'll make you a copy."

What do you do? That's clear copyright infringement, but tell them that, and see what happens?

Do you go after them? How? They're not taking your product, and then selling it to someone else. They're not making a profit, and in that case, they don't feel like they're stealing, (and by the letter of the law, it's such a gray area, that you couldn't convince a judge or jury of it anyway,) but you've lost a sale that you would have otherwise had.

Now, people can talk about piracy, and rant and rave about big business losing a couple bucks not being a big deal, but for a small producer like me who's putting wear and tear on equipment, raw materials, (videotape, DVD media,) software and hardware to put it together, it's a slap in the face.

Just like it's a slap in the face of a person who spends countless hours researching a prop, extrapolating dimensions, sculpting, and creating a work of art. If he decides to share that with people who want it, and someone just simply lifts a cast from their scupt and sells it themselves, or even just makes a copy for himself or a friend. Same difference.

But what do you do? Stop producing or stop selling altogether? Stop doing what you love to do? Stop sharing your passions with others, (and maybe making some money at a hobby that you can dump right back into your equipment so you can go out and tackle bigger projects. Funding the love of the work. That's what I do with video.)

No. You plow forward, and continue to do what you've always done.

But, the way I've dealt with the people who say, "just give us one video," is I refuse to sell to them, and calmly explain why. If they get huffy, I explain how much work goes into these things, and that copying it for distribution, even to just one other person, is not only illegal, but immoral.

I've lost buisiness, but it's buisiness I could afford to lose for taking the high road.

By branding recasters as such, we run the risk of descending into Witch hunting. Branding people we disagree with or have had bad experiences with as such, or the risk of truly being mistaken and claiming their own hard work as yours, (hard to prove one way or another.) But, by pointing out that a person has recast their work we send out a warning, not just to the recaster, but to other artists who might otherwise sell an original scupt that they've spent countless hours on, only to have knock-offs of it appear on e-bay 3 weeks later, costing them potential sales of their product.

Slippery Slope.

And I think the choice is a personal one. Recast if you feel the need or desire, but be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. You can't recast what people won't sell you.

Sell to an accused recaster if you feel the need or desire, but don't expect special treatment of your work.

Buy from a recaster if you feel the need to, but know that while you might be saving a couple bucks, you're taking funding away from the artists who could use it to make the next prop piece of your desire.

All the best,

-Dan
 
<div class='quotetop'>(hydin @ Nov 16 2006, 05:24 PM) [snapback]1358947[/snapback]</div>
"Studio" stuff like originals, screen used, etc. Stuff made by a prop company in a movie? Stuff a company makes (i.e. Don Post Darth Vader helmets) that is no longer produced and the company is gone? Fair game. Only that stuff is fair game.
[/b]

I personally feel that recasting licensed products should be off limits, even if the company no longer exists. Licensed replicas were made to be sold and recasting them devalues them. Original props were made for the production and by the time they get recast their primary function has passed. So long as the replica is distinguishable from the original (usually because the replica is solid resin and the original isn't) then the original shouldn't be devalued too much.

Cheers,

Wake
 
My stance on the issue... after having long talks with people and after having learned a lot about props and their makers:

Cast off Screen Used - good (unless there are accurate licensed equivalents)
Cast off Licensed1 (no longer produced items) - not so good, but still not bad (though why would you?).
Cast off Licensed2 (still in production) - bad (as who wants a copy when you can get a real one?)
Copy of a copy or of a private individuals original work (recast) - bad (I wanna grind somebody to a pulp fiction bad)

Yeah, I know, very simplified... and somewhat hypocritical in a way... but hey... concerning SW items: if LFL delivered, then I would be all licensed guru.
 
<div class='quotetop'>(azmyth @ Nov 16 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1359070[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>(Gigatron @ Nov 16 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1359036[/snapback]
License owning companies usually only get mad when you are making money selling copies of their protected works. Watch paramount go after trek items on ebay.

Star Wars items are a very unique and interesting conundrum. Technically, LFL owns all intellectual righst to the sabers, blaster and all other doodads related to the star wars universe. But, in the first three films, those doodads were primarily built using other items that LFL does not own the intellectual rights to. For instance, LFL does not own the right to the graflex - that belongs to kodak. There is no law that states you cannot sell a 3 cell graflex, a length of t-track and a replacement calculator bubble set in one package. As long as they are not assembled to look like a lightsaber, you are not infringing on anyone's license.

Same goes for the mauser, HW scope and flash suppressor. You stick'em all together and you chance having LFL sic their lawyers on you. Sell them seperately as a set and technically, you're teflon.

Now the new trilogy on the other hand is a different animal. Most of the pieces were machined in-house and are pure LFL intellectual rights. Except for the few odds and ends here and there (ep I jedi communicator and base for the naboo blaster (beeman c55 IIRC)), they made everything.

Thankfully, LFL is extremely lenient with us and pretty much leave us alone - but that is completely by their good graces. They could be complete asses about it and shut us down in a heartbeat if they ever had the notion. That's why we're extremely careful when it comes to their license holders.

-Fred
[/b]

true, but what about non star wars props?
[/b][/quote]


Well, like I said, it's totally up to the license owner. Paramount nukes trek prop auctions on ebay left and right. Part of it is them protecting the prop licensee, rodenberry.com; part of it is just them being hardasses.

Most B movies don't care if you cast their stuff. They're happy that anybody even pays that much attention. But if their props were all custom built by their production team, they are more than legally allowed to come after you. If the props were built on pre-existing items, you can legally sell kits of the items. If the purchaser happens to assemble those parts in to a replica of an existing prop, that's not your fault.

99.9% of the time, studios don't care if you sell a one-off piece from your collection. It's when you start a business selling their intellectual property that you draw their fire.

-Fred
 
Back
Top