Message to "all" recasters (RESULT Page 18!!!)

[itsalive]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

You guys ever heard of Horrorbid.com?

I think it would be ace to see someone start a RPBid.com website.

We could prevent recasters right from the start. Give the people here a safe place to exchange and sell they're work. Make it so non members can't view the items up for bid, or better yet we could go one step further and make it so no one can view any of the items for sale until they sell a few items first, or you could enact a "trusted buyers only" view option before listing your item- Letting only buyers with greater than "X" amount of item buying history see the items listed this way.

 

[Rylo]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Silly me.

Okay. You made a Maul Statue that you had no rights to and offered it for sale. Someone copied it. Sure, it sucks, but you aren't the copyright holder in the first place.

You have no legal rights that would hold up anywhere. To enforce a legal VERO you would have to swear you hold the legal IP rights to this property.

Again. Your logic is flawed, but I digress. As a propmaker I loathe recasters, but I understand I have no more rights than the next guy. I think you're confusing the court of public opinion w/ the law. We frown on recasting in that "Honor among thieves" way...the law simply calls a duck a duck.

Your Maul is quackin'...just sayin'

Good luck!

Hmmm, I don't know where you got that impression about me... I did this s a personal project... yes I let a few go to cover my costs but this was a person project between myself and Gino to try and realise the best possible Darth Maul statue... it was never meant as a profit making venture...

The trouble is I trust people to much in here not to abuse my art yet they just stab you in the back by making money for other peoples craft

Like Howard, Mike Hill, JRX and the likes (dare I put myself in there group) we as artists always find there are those who ride on the back of genius.

Phil

 

[Beechy McFly]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Yeah I've only just heard of this program as I had to use it recently for someone using images from my website to sell their V cards.. Takes ages, but works..

 

[propologist]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Rylo you are my hero...very well said and should be understood.

 

[Tetmatek]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Actually no you're wrong....

Its a likeness of Ray Park that i sculpted and stuck horns on... Like a photographer has the rights over his pictures or an artist has the rights over his painting, I have the rights over my sculptures.

I had no idea about the Maul, :confusedand did not mean anything but an example. I used it because I see it in your sig and have always liked the piece. :$I apologize as I did not mean anything negative as your work is tops. You are correct about the likeness of real people sculpts; you are free to create.:cool

 

[exoray]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

but you aren't the copyright holder in the first place.

Incorrect, you own the newly created copyright once you created the work, be it a copyrighted already or not (infringement if any is decided in court, not at creation time)... Your ability to enforce your new ownership because it was created by infringing upon another's existing rights is what is where it balances...

You have no legal rights that would hold up anywhere.

Incorrect, circumstances vary on a case to case basis... The unclean hands defense that would dismiss any claims made to the 'recasters' rights is not an automatic win that is instantly granted, circumstances can effect it's application... If in say the example I posted above both parties have unclean hands the court will take a much larger view to see what is in the public's and court's best interest, things like fair use and who's hands were more' unclean and both parties intent and overall impact behind the claimed infringement would then weigh in...

Copyright caselaw is a mess, there is no sure fire yes or no answer it all really depends on the specifics of each case and the mood of the courts...

Back on subject of the VERO, because of 'unclean hands' I personally would never sign a doctrine claiming ownership rights as it might come back to bite bigger then the original issue... But laws also vary by location, take for instance the UK now were it appears many movie props original Copyrights have now expired thus any newly create piece would garnish some new ownership rights in that particular form and use... For example the original copyrights to K-9 for Dr. Who appear to have expired, but that doesn't mean the Copyrights of the new K-9 cartoon can't be enforced in and about themselves...

 

[lonepigeon]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Apparently VERO has been ammended to allow us who create these things the opportunity to close down auctions of those who recast our work.... So you may be looking at old news but we're actually dealing with NEW News.

I don't see anything new in the forms.

Good luck to you if you submit them. Ebay may or may not approve them because Lucasfilm is the primary IP rights holder.
I know others here have tried this route in the past to try and stop recasting. I don't recall the outcome.

I see no problem in at least trying this route especially in your case.
Since you don't sell on eBay the recaster can't turn you in as well.

Edit: As Exoray said above signing the form "under penalty of perjury" that you are the IP rights holder could come back to bite you. I don't know if eBay would reveal to the recaster who brought the VeRO complaint against them. They might just think it was Lucasfilm though and back down right away.

 

[lonepigeon]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Actually no you're wrong....

Its a likeness of Ray Park that i sculpted and stuck horns on... Like a photographer has the rights over his pictures or an artist has the rights over his painting, I have the rights over my sculptures.

A photographer would not hold all the rights to a photo of someone else's painting. That's more the situation we have here.

A photographer would also need a model release to sell a portrait they took of someone.

 

[Tim Allen]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Some one should set up a fake account and put this to the test.

 

[Rylo]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Bro, just because you say it w/ conviction doesn't make it so.

While I agree NONE of this has been challenged with regard to props, I believe there is a great deal of room for one to form an educated opinion outside of the aforementioned, playground logic.

I think you're reaching but appreciate your opinion just the same.

Incorrect, you own the newly created copyright once you created the work, be it a copyrighted already or not (infringement if any is decided in court, not at creation time)... Your ability to enforce your new ownership because it was created by infringing upon another's existing rights is what is where it balances...



Incorrect, circumstances vary on a case to case basis... The unclean hands defense that would dismiss any claims made to the 'recasters' rights is not an automatic win that is instantly granted, circumstances can effect it's application... If in say the example I posted above both parties have unclean hands the court will take a much larger view to see what is in the public's and court's best interest, things like fair use and who's hands were more' unclean and both parties intent and overall impact behind the claimed infringement would then weigh in...

Copyright caselaw is a mess, there is no sure fire yes or no answer it all really depends on the specifics of each case and the mood of the courts...

Back on subject of the VERO, because of 'unclean hands' I personally would never sign a doctrine claiming ownership rights as it might come back to bite bigger then the original issue... But laws also vary by location, take for instance the UK now were it appears many movie props original Copyrights have now expired thus any newly create piece would garnish some new ownership rights in that particular form and use... For example the original copyrights to K-9 for Dr. Who appear to have expired, but that doesn't mean the Copyrights of the new K-9 cartoon can't be enforced in and about themselves...

 

[jarvis]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Recasters are ruthless.
Recasters are a big problem in the garage kit/figure modeling world as well. Recently when some kit enthusiasts started an ebay patrol reporting recasts, an unusually large rash of C&Ds were handed out to kit producers shortly after by various companys that owned the rights to those characters. Most assumed it was the angry recasters giving the license holders info about garage kit producers websites and whatnot as retribution for getting their recast auctions pulled. A lot of kit producers closed up shop altogether as a result.

 

[Rylo]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

That's exactly what happens! It snowballs. I'd love have gone all, scorched earth on any number of recasters over the years, but wasn't gonna slit my own throat in the process. I've seen it happen to too many other people. Bad ju-ju.

Recasters are ruthless.
Recasters are a big problem in the garage kit/figure modeling world as well. Recently when some kit enthusiasts started an ebay patrol reporting recasts, an unusually large rash of C&Ds were handed out to kit producers shortly after by various companys that owned the rights to those characters. Most assumed it was the angry recasters giving the license holders info about garage kit producers websites and whatnot as retribution for getting their recast auctions pulled. A lot of kit producers closed up shop altogether as a result.

 

[Hecubus114]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

let me ask a semi-related question here:

I know characters are owned by those who created them, but what about actors themselves? Do the same rules apply to real people? Like in this case, if cyberman had created this simply as a Ray Park bust, would he then fully own it? Say it was without the horns, etc. If I sculpt a bust of Harrison Ford, and sell it as just that, am I breaking the law? I know selling it as an Indiana Jones bust would, but I seem to remember learning that portraits of real people have different rules... yes? no?

 

[etrigan69]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

I honestly think that the big companies that hod the actual rights kind of let this fan to fan stuff go as long as it's kept small. They probably think its not a good idea to **** off the hardcore fans. I don't know if you guys are familiar with DC/WB vs Johnny Resin but they coud have crushed him but didn't.

I would jus be very cautious about stirring that hornets nest. Get their real attention at the hobby's possible peril......

 

[exoray]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Bro, just because you say it w/ conviction doesn't make it so.

One example is Andy Warhol's Cambell's soup cans paintings, clear Trademark and Copyright infringements but yet he and now his foundation own Copyrights on those pieces of art (and license the Trademark only rights for distribution) that govern those paintings and have profited off them openly for decades as the legal Copyright owner...

Another current case revolves around the Obama 'Hope' poster in Shepard Fairey vs Associated Press pointing out that ownership and new rights vs infringement and fair use is not a black and white line... Although in the end this case probably won't really solely revolve around Copyright ownership as Fairey has been telling lies to the court, and the photographer Manuel Garcia says he is the rightful owner not the AP complicating the whole mess...

 

[etrigan69]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

I really think the bottom line regardless is do you really want to end up in court over it?

As much as having your work recast sucks, the only way you can stop that is don't sell your work. Or find a way to undercut the guys from China.

 

[Jumpin Jax]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

One example is Andy Warhol's Cambell's soup cans paintings, clear Trademark and Copyright infringements but yet he and now his foundation own Copyrights on those pieces of art (and license the Trademark only rights for distribution) that govern those paintings and have profited off them openly for decades as the legal Copyright owner...

But a painting is a picture of an item, just the way a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Warhol didn't claim the can or the logo was his; it was a representation of it in 2d form.
This is duplicating the ITEM, not chronicling or portraying it in another medium. Copyrights favor the owner when you make the piece for use in the exact way the original was used, then it's plain duplication without permission. Sampling music without permission, recasting, using company logos as a selling point on a similar or identical items are re-use of copyrighted materials in the same medium for the same use: Not allowed.

 

[exoray]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

But a painting is a picture of an item, just the way a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Warhol didn't claim the can or the logo was his; it was a representation of it in 2d form.
This is duplicating the ITEM, not chronicling or portraying it in another medium. Copyrights favor the owner when you make the piece for use in the exact way the original was used, then it's plain duplication without permission. Sampling music without permission, recasting, using company logos as a selling point on a similar or identical items are re-use of copyrighted materials in the same medium for the same use: Not allowed.

Yes, thus back to my reference of 'sculpting' an item from scratch even though said items 'likeness' is copyright 'can' gain you new limited ownership rights to that particular sculpt only, not the likeness overall just that sculpt... Copyright is not a simple black and white law, and fair use is so undefined it's hardly even gray let alone black and white... But, yeah direct recasting of an existing work holds no water, and certainly creates no new ownership rights...

 

[JoeR]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

Yes, thus back to my reference of 'sculpting' an item from scratch even though said items 'likeness' is copyright 'can' gain you new limited ownership rights to that particular sculpt only, not the likeness overall just that sculpt... Copyright is not a simple black and white law, and fair use is so undefined it's hardly even gray let alone black and white... But, yeah direct recasting of an existing work holds no water, and certainly creates no new ownership rights...

There are other threads to argue about this. Phil was posting some info to make fellow members aware of the VERO scheme. @ Exoray here's a forum you might like. :rolleyes http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/

Joe

 

[exoray]

Re: Message to "all" recasters

There are other threads to argue about this. Phil was posting some info to make fellow members aware of the VERO scheme. @ Exoray here's a forum you might like. :rolleyes http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/

Joe

Thanks Joe but your point or contribution to the thread? VERO is nothing new it's been around for years... VERO is about Copyright owners and their rights to shut down auctions they feel violated their ownership rights... To file a VERO complaint you have to declare ownership rights or flat out lie about being the owner... Not real applicable to this hobby in most cases... But, my postings are right on topic discussing possible instances when in fact VERO might or might not apply... The purpose of your post?