Ghostbusters 2 Life size Vigo painting

Status
Not open for further replies.
so then since Hotshot basically did a slight digital makeover on what others like rollerboi made for vigo, is it not the same thing as if I take a well known Boba fett helmet, add clay, subtract material, and produce a new cast.

Also I would like to add that we have had an issue similar to this where the artist of the Evil Dead Necronomicons has come here and asked that no one sell copies of his work as well. Lets factor that into the equation as well.


At this point, in my humble opinion, Rhett is on the very dark end of the Grey scale with Vigo, but was very much in the black on recasting. This has lead me to wonder, If someone recasts the work of some of the fine members here and is a member here them self BUT does not sell it here would he/she/it not be as bad? Art has said we can not police other sites, yet when the 501st took that same stance you all bashed them for it.

Now in reguard to the image that the vigo paintings originated from (thank you Rollerboi for your work on it, I hope one day to add one to my collection.) was this not posed so other members may use it? If so could not others use it to do a run "at cost" like Hotshot supposedly did?
 
Just to clarify I do not want to see ANYONE banned. I just want to see clarification on the topic of usage of images.
 
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.

ER, thanks for posting that, I was about to write almost the exact same ;)

With a situation such as this it´s pretty easy, we have to rely on the decisions of the old moderation staff, and have to assume that their decision was correct.
As Art has already pointed out, Hotshot did quite a few runs without any problems. I have not seen anyone complain about any of his artwork.
If there had been any problems, I am sure that a member would have spoken up, which would of course had lead to us taking actions.

@Fifthrider:
As far as I can see it your accusations are quite general, and your choice of words is not really convincing.
Every time I see such a remark as yours
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.
What does the poster mean by that?

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

Sorry, I seem to have not replied to this one in full.

If you took the original helmet (a creation of a member here) and touched it in any way without his/her consent, & made money off it to top it all, yes, he would have every right to be very upset, no matter how much it was changed.


Now in reguard to the image that the vigo paintings originated from (thank you Rollerboi for your work on it, I hope one day to add one to my collection.) was this not posed so other members may use it? If so could not others use it to do a run "at cost" like Hotshot supposedly did?

Ah, now this is a good point related to the above and the very point of this thread.

I was unaware that any suspicion / evidence has been presented to prove that hotshot took a 'clean' image of Vigo made by someone else, & tweaked it a little to make a run of paintings.

Am I understanding that this is indeed the case ?

If someone recasts the work of some of the fine members here and is a member here them self BUT does not sell it here would he/she/it not be as bad?

Sold here or out of the site, if it is proven for any article made by a member here, then in my opinion, there is no difference. It is simply wrong.
 
Also I would like to add that we have had an issue similar to this where the artist of the Evil Dead Necronomicons has come here and asked that no one sell copies of his work as well. Lets factor that into the equation as well.

It's my understanding that Tom Sullivan holds the copyright to this particular intellectual property and sells his own replicas. He has every right to defend his copyright.
 
So then by your thinking Rhett recasting those parts (proof was provided in the pdf file earlier) he should have been banned?

Now a second part to that line of though.

If someone did recast and sell elsewhere BUT was a good member here should his actions not warrant action on here as well? Again keeping in mind that the original and the recast are both members here.
 
It's my understanding that Tom Sullivan holds the copyright to this particular intellectual property and sells his own replicas. He has every right to defend his copyright.

True BUT do we truely know if the original artist for Vigo does not own the rights to his work as well?
 
True BUT do we truely know if the original artist for Vigo does not own the rights to his work as well?

And even this is besides the point. Even if he doesn't own the rights any more, what right ANYBODY has, to take a picture and edit it for personal gain?
There is a huge difference if somebody takes a picture and photoshops it, OR paints completely new picture by their own hands, using original as a reference, and then sells it!

Editing a picture in photoshop does not make you an author! Painting it, would make you an author!
That's a gray area as well, but in my opinion, that is the lightest gray area there is....same with building any replica from scratch and then selling it!

All this being said, it's so obvious HotShot is a recaster, and concrete proof has been provided.
 
Having seen a few recasting accusations over the years when I was on staff I have always told parties that I don't care what you feel or what you know, I only care about what you can prove.

I see a lot of conjecture and speculation, proof elevates these conversations from speculation and hear say to a much higher standard.

Good luck in sorting all of this out, from a lot of what I have read too many opinions, passion and commentary have been added to the conversations linked to where the facts are difficult to extract.

But I am retired from the staff and get to enjoy these conversations about our gray hobby as a member and not a facilitator.
 
Well said, Bryan. I am seeing a lot of the same. There is a considerable amount of "it appears" and only a little that seems to be absolute. However, as with all things RPF, I am sure this is far from over (which makes me envy your position) and we haven't seen all the evidence yet.

Just a note to everyone on the whole Vigo painting thing, if you are hoping we are going to burn anyone on that count, it simply isn't going to happen. You can be angry and you can try to explain how this was used and that person was upset but at the end of the day, looking back at the thread where all this took place, this community supported it and no one had a problem with it back when it was taking place. There were a number of people involved and to try to go back and single out Hotshot as the lone gunman only serves to make his accusers appear to be grasping for straws.

Also, if you are looking for a written-in-stone stance on "digital recasting" you probably aren't going to get what you are hoping for. As the MGL states:

Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting.
and
Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.

Every situation like this will be different and every one will have extenuating circumstances so while we have a general policy on this, because of the nature of this hobby, there will never be a completely comprehensive rule.

Having seen a few recasting accusations over the years when I was on staff I have always told parties that I don't care what you feel or what you know, I only care about what you can prove.

I see a lot of conjecture and speculation, proof elevates these conversations from speculation and hear say to a much higher standard.

Good luck in sorting all of this out, from a lot of what I have read too many opinions, passion and commentary have been added to the conversations linked to where the facts are difficult to extract.

But I am retired from the staff and get to enjoy these conversations about our gray hobby as a member and not a facilitator.
 
There is a considerable amount of "it appears" and only a little that seems to be absolute. However, as with all things RPF, I am sure this is far from over (which makes me envy your position) and we haven't seen all the evidence yet.

Spot on I think

I was unaware that any suspicion / evidence has been presented to prove that hotshot took a 'clean' image of Vigo made by someone else, & tweaked it a little to make a run of paintings.

Am I understanding that this is indeed the case ?

I too recall that WIP thread, & don't remember any 'issues' being brought up.
 
I am not looking to burn anyone on the vigo thing, I am just looking for clarification on it.

1. If one member offers a run of an image posted by another member "At Cost" can anyone use THE SAME source image and do the same.

2. In regard to digital recasting where is the line drawn? Can I say down load a photo from the net clean it up and call "Hobby rights" (Ie if you copy my image you are D-casting me?)?

3. In group efforts such as Vigo who really has "hobby rights"? The originator of the project? The guy who cleaned up the photo?, The guy who resized it, or the guy who printed it and offered the run? (In my mind Rollerboi is the ONLY one who should have called out Superman on his Vigo run NOT Rhett.)
 
That being said (and if AJ could talk his buddy into letting us recreate the painting with his blessing) Rollerboi would you allow others to use your image to do at cost runs?
 
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.

I am sorry that I do not recall the thread being shut down. I think only the OMNI cover was removed at that time. But to be clear, you would have liked to see legal action taken? Yet legal action is a bannable offense? I can't say I understand that policy. However I must extend that it was not my area to infer legal action, I was only passing along information. On my site we have only had something similar happen once. I work very closely with license and copyright holders for Ghostbusters, so I keep that all in balance.

However, stuff gotten off the web is for the most part a free-for-all.

I have never seen it that way, and that is one reason why I didn't take other people's images without permission when I was making my website in the late 90's.

As studio property seen on the screen, it was recreated from photographs and made available for sale as a replica.

However those photos were copyrighted by their photographer. And since they were photos of an owned and copyrighted object, it does not negate the ownership or allow reproductions to be made. For example.. if I take a photograph of a famous painting... I cannot go and sell copies of the photo just because I took the photo. We will all agree however that this is unbelievably grey because everything ANYONE does here is not legal and very difficult to argue.

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'm not sure what role you did play. But Rhett has said that those who
worked on it received compensation from the profits that were made...

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.

While this is normally true. You cannot make that assumption. It depends solely on the contract and purchasing agreement that was made with the artist. In many cases the original artist retains some rights. I'm sure however as a contracted employee there are some differences.

The original painting is not in tip-top condition.

Actually its in pretty close to the same condition it was in Ghostbusters 2. There were several paintings made for the film. If I will remind you weren't they working to restore the painting in the movie? It is weathered...

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.

I know this is more grey area. But what right does he have if he owns nothing? He didn't own the original image he was restoring. He didn't own the works with-in the image. To make a counter argument. How is this different than the original artist getting annoyed? If the original artist isn't allowed to be annoyed... how should the recaster be able to be?
And to make it clear.. The user he was annoyed at did not use the photoshopped image. Rhett was trying to intimidate that user into not doing the run.

Very grey.. but try to see both sides of it.

At this point, in my humble opinion, Rhett is on the very dark end of the Grey scale with Vigo, but was very much in the black on recasting.

I really like this interpretation. I know Art does not want to look at the Vigo part of this argument. However I think both should be taken into account.

ALSO. Do not forget about the OMNI Magazine. The OMNI magazine was owned by gjustis. He made a scan of it and sent it to a few friends asking not to send it to anyone. Inevitably it was traded on and Rhett got his hands on it. After having done the Vigo paintings his immediate thought was. Hey.. I can retouch this and then sell it "at cost"! How is that not digital recasting? In fact.. it was.. his thread was deleted or he was asked to take it down.

I would look at it like this:

Vigo Painting - Grey
OMNI Magazine - Dark Grey
Recasting Parts from 2+ People - Black

I was unaware that any suspicion / evidence has been presented to prove that hotshot took a 'clean' image of Vigo made by someone else, & tweaked it a little to make a run of paintings.

The project took two images off of Flickr and composited them together. The image from Flickr was copyrighted.

Just a note to everyone on the whole Vigo painting thing, if you are hoping we are going to burn anyone on that count, it simply isn't going to happen. You can be angry and you can try to explain how this was used and that person was upset but at the end of the day, looking back at the thread where all this took place, this community supported it and no one had a problem with it back when it was taking place. There were a number of people involved and to try to go back and single out Hotshot as the lone gunman only serves to make his accusers appear to be grasping for straws.

I only hope that the Vigo painting and OMNI magazine are not discounted completely.
 
One more point I forgot to reiterate.

Rhett has been claiming he has approval from the original artist on the Vigo paintings. If that artist isn't allowed to be upset because he doesn't own the rights, how is he allowed to extend the right to make reproductions?

And wait.. why would he give the approval if he also disapproved. The simple answer is that Rhett does not have the approval of that individual, he however lists it as a selling point. That is just another area that exposes his slimey nature.
 
One more point I forgot to reiterate.

clip .. has been claiming he has approval from the original artist on the Vigo paintings. If that artist isn't allowed to be upset because he doesn't own the rights, how is he allowed to extend the right to make reproductions?

My point exactly.

As you so rightly pointed out before - and this for ANY image / prop etc - one has to see what agreement the original artist had with the studio on ownership of that image / prop etc.

It is my understanding that in the majority of cases, the artist is comissioned, gets paid, and hands over ALL rights to the studio.

There could of course be exceptions, but I fathom they are very rare indeed.
 
Not nessecarily, I know Stan Winston retained the copyright on a lot of his creations for films, as did the earlier example of the artist from Evil Dead. It all comes down to the contract involved.
 
It all comes down to the contract involved.

Too true.

Ergo, to start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, as Julie Andrews would say, if the original artist has retained rights to the Vigo, let whoever is selling it in any way shape or form by using the original artist's name as a marketing tool for alledged rights, produce the original artists' consent, together with proof of ownership of the artist's rights over the image.
 
Therefor, then Hotshot needs to "Put up or shut up" on his claim. Likewise the Artist needs to do the same before any runs can be done.
correct?
 
Alan,

It was intended to be a counter point. Because the original artist never did extend approval to make Vigo paintings, despite what Rhett said. If you are not willing to accept the original artists disapproval. You should not accept Rhett's arguement that the original artist gave approval.

Back in Oct 2009, Rhett was asked about the source of the images. He was acused of taking the image from Flickr and photoshopping it then selling it. He immediately threw the users who did the editing under the bus:

Hotshot said:
at what point did I take the image and change it. I had simply assumed that the person who provded it was the guy who took it, as several folks posted in that thread their own pics. Theres a big difference between an assumption and a lie. Again, this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit me. Since I wasn't the guy creating the image digitally, I think you'll need to hop out of you comfort zone and take it up wiht the RPF memebrs that did the digital work. If this 'khunter' wants us to not use the image, what should I do, issue refunds and take back all those prints? Ridiculous . . .

Basically the user from Flickr "khunter" was never approached at this point despite having sold the image in numerous runs by that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top