Ghostbusters 2 Life size Vigo painting

[tripoli]

This came up as one of the first issues when I became a mod here. It is obvious Hotshot had some issues on other boards. I did look into the situation and spent about 5 hours reading through post on other sites. In reading those post one of the things that stood out was that in almost all the situations (not all), Hotshot had made amends. From what I could see, he had burned some bridges and was trying to move on to the better. I have traded pm's with these issues with Rhett and AJ, so both should know I have tried to take an objective look from both sides.

Here at the RPF, he had done quite a few projects that no one seemed to be upset about. He has come through on his projects here although there were some members from the other boards that did chime in on his threads to beat him down, not on anything relevant to his works here.
Ectoman pm'd about threatening to start legal action and had inferred it was already in the works noting we needed to close down Rhett's thread immediately for such legal reasons.
(These pm's are archived in the Moderators section as I copied them for review before taking action). I noted to Ectoman that we would close down the thread for three days in which time we needed to see the legal paper work go through and get copies. We never heard back from him on that and we re-opened Rhett's thread after the 3 days past at that time. We did give weight to Ectoman's claims when we did close down the thread on the Vigo paintings.

Given that, it was for me an empty threat (and a very nasty one at that) and a show of harassment to Rhett. And as noted, bring a studio down on a member or going to push for legal action on another member is considered a heavy weight offense here. Also as I noted earlier, unless there is something extremely obvious that makes a person a threat to the community, the moderators here cannot monitor our members at all other sites on the internet. Judgment in such a case tends to center around what is seen here. Given his past, I kept a very close and critical eye on him here but have not seen any issue with members here and Rhett, to the contrary, he has been in good standing here.

I am long time GBFan member, but had not kept a eye on the community as other members there. I know Ectoman is a great moderator over at the GB site and is an enthusiastic supporter of the board and members there. I understand his motivations here. Given this and weighing his actions already with Rhett on the RPF, I think that care and enthusiasm is pushing beyond what is merited here towards Rhett.

 

[tk1055]

I have to question in what ways did he make it right? He recast others work (including members here) and is still here while others ,like Propfan, were banned for just one offense.

Now according to the members guidelines which state
"Selling/trading of recast items

Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.

Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting.

If anyone believes their item has been recast by a member, they are encouraged to provide proof to the RPF Staff, with the understanding that the burden of proof lies solely with the accuser and that members will be considered innocent unless clearly proven otherwise by the aggrieved party."

would he not be in the same hot water?

It seems to me that there are a few issues here.
1. The original complaint of Hotshot recasting others that was reported earlier.
2. Hotshot's rudeness to Superman's run of Vigo paintings.
3. Ectoman's history with Hotshot.
4. Hotshot selling substandard parts in the past.
5. Source of the Vigo image used in Hotshot's run (accused of theft from Flikr)


Considering the Vigo image was a group effort by many members here brings up some questions in my mind.

1. As a group project who gets to say "hey that is my work you can't print those."
2. Was the Vigo picture not posted for the boards use? IE anyone could use it (not to make money but make one for them selves)
3. Is it considered digital recasting if some one printed one for themselves?
4. If the answer to number 2 is yes then would Hotshot not be in trouble for offering a run of them? As pointed out there is some doubt that they were done at cost.
5. Should he be required to provide proof that it was done at cost?

 

[AJ Quick]

Given that, it was for me an empty threat (and a very nasty one at that) and a show of harassment to Rhett. And as noted, bring a studio down on a member or going to push for legal action on another member is considered a heavy weight offense here. Also as I noted earlier, unless there is something extremely obvious that makes a person a threat to the community, the moderators here cannot monitor our members at all other sites on the internet. Judgment in such a case tends to center around what is seen here. Given his past, I kept a very close and critical eye on him here but have not seen any issue with members here and Rhett, to the contrary, he has been in good standing here.

That is your interpretation of how things went but that does not mean that is how they actually occured. The individual does not represent a studio and it was ultimately up to that individual to take legal action, which would have been his decision. Do you shoot the messanger who delivers the news of "Hey I think he is gonna sue the guy."

You decided to skip over the recasting parts because he hadn't done it in a while and no one was upset by it (at least not members on RPF at the time).

I find it hard to believe you can remain objective when you have posted that you wish to purchase items from Rhett in the future. It sounds like if anything there is a personal view or a friendship there that is clouding the judgement, and I am glad to see another moderator involved.

Going back through my PMs I found this one from Hotshot:

AJ,
It's come to my attention that you've posted more untruths about me recasting someones work. I have NEVER recasted anything.

From anyone.

Period.

In legitmate forums such as this, you must prove your claim, and knowing that you have no proof, I'm asking you to remove the recasting claim.

I have no problem with you saying my work has shoddy, as was the case during my first runs of props.

I am completely blown away by you vicious amounts of attacks on me, and am not pleased with what I am hearing.

I am warning you that if you continue to bash me in any way in a public forum, by personal name, or company, I will have no choice but to sue you for libel, and claim damages.

Consider yourself warned.

Rhett Martin (AW Hotshot) recasted the works of:

-Brock (phantom50, Verified.)
-Charles Walker (propfan, Verified)
-Utinni (suspected)
-Glen Eytchison (Vigo prints)
-Greg Justis (prevented OMNI magazine.)

Proof can be seen in the final pages of this PDF: http://www.gbfans.com/Rhett.pdf

Furthermore, as TK1055 posted (THANKS BTW) from the member guidelines:

"Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting."

Does it make a difference when you edit the digital image together from one you took off of Flickr?

I have seen Rhett selling those Vigo prints back a few years ago for as high as $400 on eBay. Not exactly at cost if he was selling them for $180 here. Even then, profits were made as I understand compensation was distributed amongst those who helped edit the image as an after thought to appease.

 

[tk1055]

you are welcome.

NOW I have another question when was the pm sent?

 

[AJ Quick]

July 13, 2009.

Just before any communication with tripoli in regards to Rhett.

 

[Montagar]

[snip]and I am glad to see another moderator involved.[/snip]

Just so that no one misunderstands or gets the wrong idea, tripoli is not a member of the staff at this time. Any comments or opinions, other than those relating to what took place during his time as a staff member, are his own, and are not official staff statements.

Please understand that this is a post we would make regarding any previous staff member if there was the possibility of a misunderstanding, and has nothing to do with tripoli personally. Thanks.

 

[tripoli]

No problem with the clarification. I am working full time hours during the day and going to school full time at night. My schedule just does not allow me to handle issues such as this, which is the main reason I backed off doing the job of moderating here. There are quite a bit more man hours in the job than anyone would expect, this issue is just one example of many that pop up and have to be handled.

Ectoman: "That is your interpretation of how things went but that does not mean that is how they actually occured. "

My perspective is that of the interaction we had, I am not all knowing and would never claim to such. However I have stated my perspective the interaction that was between us and on this issue. That's all I have to go on, although I also accepted any and all input from the other mods who as well were keeping an eye on the situation at that time.

Ectoman: "You decided to skip over the recasting parts because he hadn't done it in a while and no one was upset by it (at least not members on RPF at the time)."

Yes, I looked only at the issue at hand at that moment, although I did look at your links and try to see if there was something more that needed to be handled at that moment. Those post were also forwarded to the other mods to see if there was anything that needed further action to be taken. Please note in defense of the moderation, it was right at the time Art was taking on leadership on the board and there were many other things going on that required attention. I believe I had already noted: unless there is something extremely obvious that makes a person a threat to the community, the moderators here cannot monitor our members at all other sites on the internet. Judgment in such a case tends to center around what is seen here. That is not an all inclusive statement, the mods can look into the history and act if they deem it is necessary, something Art has noted he is willing to look deeper into. There are a lot of grays to go through in such a complex issue, which is the reason why such issues tend to be judged on what happens just here and not over the entire net. To consider such as you want, is quite a bit to ask of given the number of members and issues that pop up in the prop community. And, for most such cases, you would be asking for the moderators to have an all inclusive knowledge base to justly handle such issues.

Ectoman: "I find it hard to believe you can remain objective when you have posted that you wish to purchase items from Rhett in the future. It sounds like if anything there is a personal view or a friendship there that is clouding the judgement, and I am glad to see another moderator involved."

Actually, at that time I was not purchasing anything from Rhett. As well, EVERY moderator knew what was going on at that time and all the pm's were reviewed by all the mods, not just myself. Please do not play that "bias" card, you are flatly wrong to do so. Surprised as a moderator on another board you would do such.
I also gave you the benefit of weight in the issue when I closed Rhett's sales thread upon your request. BUT, again, you did not back up your part of the original pm's in verifying the legal threat to actually stop him selling the paintings. Had you, or had the original artist been in contact as requested via multiple pms back to you, it would have been shut down; it is the RPF policy is to shut down such sales upon such request. A situation as you noted we did do with Rhett's Omni cover sale. Thus again, your pm's and lack of follow through with the Vigo painting artist was in MY perspective empty and not valid.

I was more than willing to act upon your request had you followed through in any acceptable manner and we did follow through in keeping a critical eye towards any issue that might pop up with Rhett given the history noted earlier.

 

[Utinni]

Well, if anyone here owns some of Rhett's earlier GB gun parts, that are still "raw" please pm me so I can see if they are recasts of my parts. There is at least one part that really stands out that looks like one of mine. There's a detail that I purposely left different so I could always spot one of my guns. It's something that is almost obvious to most GB builders, why he would do something similar is more than a little fishy to me.

If he can show his original masters next to one of his castings, then I will withdraw my claim

- Jeff

 

[Art Andrews]

AJ,

While the issue seems clear in your mind (I think primarily because you want to see Rhett as a bad guy), I think the questionable nature of our hobby as a whole vs the issue about Rhett using an image of a piece of artwork used in a production would be so muddy that you are never going to have a satisfactory answer that everyone will agree to, primarily because it involves the very slippery "honor among thieves" concept. If you REALLY want me to spend the time breaking down all that is wrong with your assessment (and even the original painters assessment) regarding the ownership and who can do what based on whose rules, I will consider it, but I can tell you again, no one is ever going to fully agree on this matter, and in the general sense, I can't condemn Rhett for his Vigo portrait project and considering the evidence I am seeing, I maintain that your condemnation of him on this particular matter is hypocritical.

With that being said, the recasting allegations are another matter entirely. When tripoli was a mod the RPF took the stance of "if it doesn't happen here, we can't react to it." Given the rules at the time, from what I know of this situation, tripoli acted in accordance with RPF policy. However, that policy has changed. According to our current MGL;

Please note that your actions outside the confines of the site may affect your membership.

I want to point out that neither this, nor our statement regarding recasting obligate us to take action based on your allegations. I am only pointing out that it would seem that tripoli acted appropriately to the situation at the time, but that our policies have changed since that decision was made.

As I posted earlier, we will be looking into this further.

 

[fifthrider]

I can't even believe this is a topic. [...] For some reason the admins/mods around here defend Hotshot, or at the very least are afraid to accept him for what he is and take action. Sometimes it seems like those in charge are only brave when it comes to punishing the meek, not the real problem makers.

But hey, you choose the company you keep, don't you? If someone here wants to defend Hotshot in spite of his perpetual and ongoing history of recasting ( poorly ) and then telling lie after lie in an effort to cover it up, well then go right ahead. It helps define the standards of today's RPF to me.

LOL, I love how he only piped up to bully the new guy. Classic.

 

[rollerboi]

"Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting."

Does it make a difference when you edit the digital image together from one you took off of Flickr?

IMO, no. This rule is a reference to the Paper Props subforum. The spirit of this subforum is to freely share with one another ones' own work that others can then go and have produced for themselves. To sell stuff produced from this source is a violation of the trust of the original member that made it available. However, stuff gotten off the web is for the most part a free-for-all.

It may sound callous of me to say this, but your friend who did the Vigo paintings for the production was compensated for his work and it became studio property. As studio property seen on the screen, it was recreated from photographs and made available for sale as a replica.

I have seen Rhett selling those Vigo prints back a few years ago for as high as $400 on eBay. Not exactly at cost if he was selling them for $180 here. Even then, profits were made as I understand compensation was distributed amongst those who helped edit the image as an after thought to appease.

The collaborative Vigo picture was done around May of 2009, which was the source for the large canvas run. For the record, I received no compensation of any kind for the role I played and have no idea whether anyone else did or not.

I do apologize to your friend, however. I can understand how he would feel slighted and can only say that it was nothing personal against him, we just wanted to recreate one of the coolest paintings from one of the coolest movies around.

 

[EvilRocketeer]

I can't even believe this is a topic. [...] He makes low quality work and his Vigo prints are just more proof of that. For some reason the admins/mods around here defend Hotshot, or at the very least are afraid to accept him for what he is and take action. Sometimes it seems like those in charge are only brave when it comes to punishing the meek, not the real problem makers.

But hey, you choose the company you keep, don't you? If someone here wants to defend Hotshot in spite of his perpetual and ongoing history of recasting ( poorly ) and then telling lie after lie in an effort to cover it up, well then go right ahead. It helps define the standards of today's RPF to me.

LOL, I love how he only piped up to bully the new guy. Classic.

You have to keep in mind that Art, Montagar, and ManfromNaboo are new mods. They were not mods during the time it was presented to Tripoli or the old staff (i believe).....Also, remember there are new rules in place and a whole new team that might be unaware to the situation until recently. Give them a break...

They can't just ban people because of a few people making accusations of a fellow member. They have to be objective and investigate the situation. It takes time to get all the facts straight. They are mods on their free time and this isnt a full-time position for them, so it has to be done on their time not yours.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Questions if I may, out of simple need for understanding.


The artist who made the original painting did it for the film, right ?

Did he not get paid to do it, and therefore, did his creation not become property of the film studio (if not, why is the painting at ILM) ?

Above being the case, why would the original artist be 'annoyed' that his work was being copied etc ?

If I created something and sold it, the new owner can do with it as he pleases. If it is copied or whatever, its the new owner's problem, not mine - (if he deems its worth the time to make a mountain out of a compartitive molehill to him)

Right ?

What am I missing here ?

 

[Art Andrews]

alan, you are nailing some of the grey issue regarding the vigo print perfectly.

Questions if I may, out of simple need for understanding.


The artist who made the original painting did it for the film, right ?

Did he not get paid to do it, and therefore, did his creation not become property of the film studio (if not, why is the painting at ILM) ?

Above being the case, why would the original artist be 'annoyed' that his work was being copied etc ?

If I created something and sold it, the new owner can do with it as he pleases. If it is copied or whatever, its the new owner's problem, not mine - (if he deems its worth the time to make a mountain out of a compartitive molehill to him)

Right ?

What am I missing here ?

 

[Alan Castillo]

Thanks Art. I thought my logic was becoming flawed with age.

 

[Weequay]

Questions if I may, out of simple need for understanding.


The artist who made the original painting did it for the film, right ?

Did he not get paid to do it, and therefore, did his creation not become property of the film studio (if not, why is the painting at ILM) ?

Above being the case, why would the original artist be 'annoyed' that his work was being copied etc ?

If I created something and sold it, the new owner can do with it as he pleases. If it is copied or whatever, its the new owner's problem, not mine - (if he deems its worth the time to make a mountain out of a compartitive molehill to him)

Right ?

What am I missing here ?

Whilst I dont doubt you are right on a technical level regarding the original Vigo artist, What you are saying brings into question the whole issue of recasting and who is allowed to get annoyed.

If I bulid a proton pack and someone recasts my parts am I allowed to get upset? If I am, why?

I did not design the proton pack. Someone who worked for sony did. A design they got payed to for. A design that is property of the studio.

If I asked the recaster to stop (as glen did to HS), should I expect to be told 'its not yours anyway, it belongs to the studio' ??

I dont know the answer, and it is indeed very 'grey'.

Weequay

 

[Alan Castillo]

The following is not intended to get into the nitty-gritty arguments about recasting. I've read & followed a vast amount of such threads for years on end.

As has been said a gazillion times, its all a 'grey area'. So lets leave the general issue copying props per se out of the picture on this one. We are all treading in 'muddy waters' with this hobby in one form or another.

This is my opinion about this particular case, straight and plain.

The original artist has no say in what happens to his work once he has sold it, and its copyright etc. Sorry, its true, technical or otherwise.

The original painting is not in tip-top condition.

The person who, through his/her efforts, spends hours on end photoshopping it to 'restored condition', has every (big inverted commas) "right" to get (again big inverted commas) "annoyed" if someone takes his (big inverted commas) "work", and peddles it for cash.

Ah yes, grey areas indeed.

 

[Weequay]

The following is not intended to get into the nitty-gritty arguments about recasting. I've read & followed a vast amount of such threads for years on end.

As has been said a gazillion times, its all a 'grey area'. So lets leave the general issue copying props per se out of the picture on this one. We are all treading in 'muddy waters' with this hobby in one form or another.

This is my opinion about this particular case, straight and plain.

The original artist has no say in what happens to his work once he has sold it, and its copyright etc. Sorry, its true, technical or otherwise.

The original painting is not in tip-top condition.

The person who, through his/her efforts, spends hours on end photoshopping it to 'restored condition', has every (big inverted commas) "right" to get (again big inverted commas) "annoyed" if someone takes his (big inverted commas) "work", and peddles it for cash.

Ah yes, grey areas indeed.

The probelm is its very difficult to disscuss this without giving examples, and disscussing recasting as a whole.

If Hotshot IS allowed to get annoyed? Then why isnt Glen? (the original Vigo creator).

No matter how much effort was put into the photoshop you cant deny that 90% of the material was already there to work with. Which bring on another example.

If I take a well known Boba fett helmet, add clay, subtract material, and produce a new cast, should the original maker get upset?

From what you're saying, No. The only people who should get upset should be LFL.

weequay

 

[Alan Castillo]

The probelm is its very difficult to disscuss this without giving examples, and disscussing recasting as a whole.

If Hotshot IS allowed to get annoyed? Then why isnt Glen? (the original Vigo creator).

No matter how much effort was put into the photoshop you cant deny that 90% of the material was already there to work with. Which bring on another example.

If I take a well known Boba fett helmet, add clay, subtract material, and produce a new cast, should the original maker get upset?

From what you're saying, No. The only people who should get upset should be LFL.

weequay

If the creator of the original helmet, and by that I mean the guy who actually made it for the film, has retained no copyright of use for its design beyond the film, then no, I'm sorry, in my opinion he would have no right to get upset.

If it were an rpf member who created a replica of the helmet, and then finds out it has been cast to be sold, yes, there is the 'right' to be furious, livid even.

LFL, other studios, etc etc. I really don't think for an instant that any of them give a hoot about these matters, unless the 'seller' is making tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars.

A case in point is the part of a proton pack I read about today that was recast by someone here. Sure, the original creator of the metal one has every 'right' to be furious. But what do you think a studio would say if told "OY, there's a guy there making a thingy that is a piece of cut pipe with a twisty thingy on it, that fits onto proton pack" ? Personally, as the studio, I'd laugh my head off.

If I were a film studio & saw that people are copying etc items of one of my films, I'd smile and say to myself "Wow, thanks for keeping the memory of the film alive".

Everything has to be taken into proportion and perspective of who is looking at it.

 

[Alan Castillo]

A case in point is the part of a proton pack I read about today that was recast by someone here

Clarification - I mean that someone here made a metal part of a proton pack, that was then cast in resin & sold by someone else.

I am refering to the maker of the metal one having every 'right' to be livid.