Necronomicon (Evil Dead II) What's out there?

[exoray]

The one thing I would question in regard to your comments is whether or not Mr Sullivan truly falls under the umbrella of "license holder" or "licensee." I am not making a judgment one way or another because I simply don't know and only have his word that he is the true copyright owner (as opposed to Newline or Warner Bros?).

Interesting have any other 'licensee' been required to provide 'proof' beyond their word? Or is this instance being given unique attention?

IMO, pretty risky and skating on thin ice move if 'they' decide to 'prove' their rights... The legal repercussion would be the same as ignoring a C&D letter from anyone...

As I have said many times don't shoot the messenger, because you don't like the message...

 

[rollerboi]

Given the posts and behavior, I don't doubt that he feels he has certain rights and licenses. The responsibility to clarify these is between the moderation staff and him, we certainly don't need to force everyone to prove their bona fides. It's better for us to just accept at face value unless evidence shows otherwise, as in certain far-reaching individuals like Fred Barton.

In other words, it doesn't hurt us to assume that he's a license holder and treat him with the courtesy that comes hand in hand with that.

 

[exoray]

Given the posts and behavior, I don't doubt that he feels he has certain rights and licenses. The responsibility to clarify these is between the moderation staff and him, we certainly don't need to force everyone to prove their bona fides. It's better for us to just accept at face value unless evidence shows otherwise, as in certain far-reaching individuals like Fred Barton.

In other words, it doesn't hurt us to assume that he's a license holder and treat him with the courtesy that comes hand in hand with that.

Very well said...

 

[CB2001]

Honestly, I get where he's coming from and where everyone else is coming from as well.

Basically, he's worried about his product being ripped off. It's like those frakkin' recasters many of us had to deal with, buying a copy of something we've made and making copies to sell. He is worried that we are not just copying his work, but that we're selling these copies.

To Mr. Sullivan- I honestly can't apologize to you for the things we've said. But you have to understand, this is a replica prop forum. For us, we are here to talk about prop making, and many of users here have made screen accurate or close to screen accurate replicas for our collections. Now, some of the users have had some rough hardships, which have forced them to sell some or all of their collection due to the recession. They're not trying to rip off the copyright or anything like that. They're just trying to find a new home for the props they've taken their time to make. And there are those who are willing to make a limited number for just for the users here on certain items that are not available anywhere else.

Plus, the slandered remarks you've pointed out from our users were, in fact, made a year ago, when you weren't a member. You see, we tend to discuss and critique not just prop replicas, but also venders and makers. If you don't believe me, look at the discussions we've had about the official licensed Indiana Jones fedora, which many have questioned and critized the screen accuracy of the licensed item. Basically, you were critized as a retailer about how you approached the situation when it came to a user selling a replica he made of the Book of the Dead. You should learn from the comments, as your approach to handling the situation hasn't worked. And the fact that you have come here, insulted various users and trying to claim sole ownership of the Necronomicon (which was the brainchild of Sam Raimi, it being a variation based loosely off of the Necronomicon by H.P. Lovecraft) has only backed up the criticisms by the users who have encountered you. The users who make replicas of the Necronomicon are not trying to rip you off. In fact, there's an old saying that many here may know: imitation is the highest form of flattery. You should be happy that there are users here who love the Necronomicon and "Evil Dead" enough to make replicas. How many people are there in the world who remember any of the props from the Three Stooges shorts? Not a whole lot, unless they've recently seen it.

You're welcome to do and say whatever you want. All I can say is that we are all human beings here, and the moment someone begins to post things that come off as making the poster seem phallic-like in behavior, then any pleasances go out the window. If you had asked nicely, we would have responded nicely to you and maybe even explain our actions to you. I know may users may now disagree with me on this, but if you want to stay, I say you're still welcome as long as you're willing to keep an open mind and be kind. If you don't want to stay or wish to continue to disrupt things, than you are more than welcome to leave. I hope that you'll be willing to change your opinion and stay, and learn from the criticisms that the users you've encountered.

This is all, of course, my opinion.

 

[Art Andrews]

Given the posts and behavior, I don't doubt that he feels he has certain rights and licenses. The responsibility to clarify these is between the moderation staff and him, we certainly don't need to force everyone to prove their bona fides. It's better for us to just accept at face value unless evidence shows otherwise, as in certain far-reaching individuals like Fred Barton.

Actually this matter is not between Mr Sullivan and the staff. Mr Sullivan has not contacted the staff in any way (except when he initially had problems signing up, which we resolved for him). This matter is solely between Mr Sullivan and anyone he feels is encroaching on what he perceives to be his IP. We are not making a judgment or "taking sides" so lets not paint it as if we are.

 

[rollerboi]

My bad. I thought he'd contacted you guys when he was complaining about the CoC. I stand corrected.

 

[Scapey]

Would the logical, and correct, approach not simply be to require Mr Sullivan to adhere to the same standards of behaviour and code of conduct as every other user here?

In that if he feels he has a legitimate complaint against another user, he should get in touch with the mod team and have it dealt with politely and professionally - And if he chooses instead to resort to childish threats, and rude or abusive behaviour, then he'd be banned just like any other member here would / should be?

In other words - Everyone, Mr Sullivan included, should be afforded the same basic default level of respect... But we should all bear in mind that two wrongs do not make a right, respect deserves respect, and that respect lost through wrongdoing needs to be re-earned.

 

[CB2001]

Would the logical, and correct, approach not simply be to require Mr Sullivan to adhere to the same standards of behaviour and code of conduct as every other user here?

In that if he feels he has a legitimate complaint against another user, he should get in touch with the mod team and have it dealt with politely and professionally - And if he chooses instead to resort to childish threats, and rude or abusive behaviour, then he'd be banned just like any other member here would / should be?

In other words - Everyone, Mr Sullivan included, should be afforded the same basic default level of respect... But we should all bear in mind that two wrongs do not make a right, respect deserves respect, and that respect lost through wrongdoing needs to be re-earned.

Exactly.

 

[propologist]

Actually this matter is not between Mr Sullivan and the staff. Mr Sullivan has not contacted the staff in any way (except when he initially had problems signing up, which we resolved for him). This matter is solely between Mr Sullivan and anyone he feels is encroaching on what he perceives to be his IP. We are not making a judgment or "taking sides" so lets not paint it as if we are.

your the man Art , and make great points. I hate to see him bash the site , as I care about the place a bit.

 

[TheNickFox]

I just want to succinctly clear up my position so that it cannot be misconstrued:

I fully support the rights of creators and license holders, but disagree with the methods that Mr. Sullivan allegedly used in an attempt to defend his IP.

Remember, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Sometimes it isn't necessary to go to extremes to defend your rights. We're all people (I assume...maybe there's a dog on this forum somewhere) so let's all treat each other with the same respect, whether we replicate props or originate them.

-Nick

 

[Antrock]

Pointless bickering...Delete this thread.I'm out...

 

[toyman365]

No need to replicate "his" book, Ramiel could draw new pages with the suggestions from us. Throw in some edited Da Vinci dissectomi drawings, some odd and strange symbols and text...:thumbsup

Artists have always been touchy with their creations. I have never seen any of the pages from this book , but from what everyone has been posting if it's original artwork it is his property . BUT if you create anything similar and change it with additional drawings, style or even different materials it's YOURS. Even if it is close to the original.[/QUOTE]

As the BOOKBINDER of the dead, Similar works are are a violation of copyright, it has to be 90% different from the source material to not violate rules regarding copyright.

Most prop work is done as work for hire so the artist never own their work, but in the case of EVIL DEAD, Sam had no money to pay Tom so Tom's contract gave the rights for all the props he created for the film to him.

On EVIL DEAD II Tom got the same deal, created a new book and dagger as well as the winged deadite Ash shoots at the end of ED II.

Tom Sullivan and Bob Mees had a company called Illusion Engineering that made all the stop motion armatures for both films.

Shortly after ARMY OF DARKNESS started production Tom was in a major accident and as a result he received a head injury and could not work on the film so when they decided to do the big book in AOD some work for hire guy created his version of the ED II book and the pages are almost all just cut and paste of Sullivan's art.

Being the person that did all the copyright paperwork for Tom, I know he holds 6 individual copyrights just on the EVIL DEAD BOOK Of The DEAD that include Army of Darkness and EVIL DEAD The Musical.

I built the BOOK Of The DEAD props for the off Broadway Production of EVIL DEAD The Musical, worked on the Anchor Bay BOTD DVD's and also did the photo gallery on the BOOK Of The DEAD version of EVIL DEAD.

I currently build the replicas of the first film version BOTD that contain all the original artwork from the film plus many pages not seen. The cover is made of Dragon Skin and is heavy and feels like a slab of raw meat. (note: the first fifty book replicas are cast in self-skinning polyurethane foam.)

Tom also has restored the Kandarian Dagger from ED II and we are getting ready to take molds from it. He plans to sell many versions including cast in bronze and as a resin model kit.

Last thing here, if Tom doesn't go after copyright violations he looses control of his copyrights and if they make ED IV or the remake of ED they could screw him out of his rights to his work.

 

[toyman365]

This is PRICELESS!! I can't even begin...thus I won't.
All I will say is:
Hi Tom,
Glad to see you haven't changed one bit in 8 years since you called Social Services on my family.
I love how I am a "liar" but yet my comments are, in fact, based in truth. As, you, are simple re-stating everything with your own twist. LMAO
BTW, My ex-wife says "Hi" and "Thanks" for the signed copy of my book!!

Now, you did violate his copyright after you said you would stop. You also told him he was taking food from your children, so you brought your kids into this.

He told me he called your local police department and sent them a copy of your email. Sounds to me like you let loose the dogs of war on yourself.

 

[TheNickFox]

Now, you did violate his copyright after you said you would stop. You also told him he was taking food from your children, so you brought your kids into this.

Look, the copyright point is one that everyone is willing to give You and Tom, however, to insinuate that he was in any way "asking" to have his children brought into this is ludicrous at best.

That is a battle that no one can win, parents tend to protect their children to the death. The dogs of war are nothing compared to a P.O.'d parent.

-Nick

 

[toyman365]

I'm with you Flagg. It's fine to protect your interests, but he went way over the wall on this, and stil does.

Years ago, I was part of an Evil Dead forum. We started a section on the Necronomicon and talked about all aspects of it, from the art work, to how to make your own.
Needless to say, Mr. Sullivan showed up and was all over it, he came across as being a little nutty.
He also had issues with just about everyone that worked on any of the ED movies, even Sam Raimi himself. His work was stolen, wasn't paid for, was duplicated without his consent by everyone in the production and their great grandmother.:rolleyes

I think a run would be possible, it would have to be kept really really quiet, on the down-low, QT.

All Tom told you was true, I even read the letter Sam wrote to Tom after the BOOK AND DAGGER showed up in JASON GOES TO HELL in violation of Tom's contract, yes he is a little nutty but if you have never meet him in person he is a very nice guy. Having the only screen used version of the ED II book it is clear to me someone made a cover mold from stolen copy and sold a lot of replicas. Also we see most of the original cast a few times a year and Sam and Bruce are friends of ours.

 

[toyman365]

Look, the copyright point is one that everyone is willing to give You and Tom, however, to insinuate that he was in any way "asking" to have his children brought into this is ludicrous at best.

That is a battle that no one can win, parents tend to protect their children to the death. The dogs of war are nothing compared to a P.O.'d parent.

-Nick

Sorry Nick, but I saw the email and he said Tom was taking food out of his children's mouths.

Tom never called protective services, he filed a criminal complaint because your boy lied to him.

 

[toyman365]

Tom, if you are aware of the law, as it appears you are, then you must know how fruitless copyright suits end up being because they are essentially impossible to prove.

The major thing that must be proven is that the product being offered is A) directly affecting the ability of the original item to be profitable (Whether through sales or intrinsic value); and B) This is the tricky one that it actually infringes on YOUR work.

Even if someone is to charge for a replica, they can claim they are charging for parts and labor, not the artwork, as it is incidental to the process as a whole. It's a case of gestalt. Furthermore, point A is easily disproven through millennia of case history. Does having prints, or replicas of the Mona Lisa reduce its value? No, it increases the awareness for the art and thus increases its value by increasing the audience. The same can be true of the Evil Dead films. While popular for nerds such as ourselves, the percentage of people who are aware of its existence (And the necronomicon by extension) is tiny. People creating props and replicas can actually increase the value of the original by making it the sole original in a sea of replicas.

When it comes down to it, yes you have a right to defend your intellectual property, but the question becomes: to what end? Are you increasing your work's value by posting here and accusing people of theft? I'd argue for the opposite. So if I had one piece of advice it would be: relax and enjoy the fact that you created something so cool that people can't help but want one.

Copyright infringement is not a battle you can win. Even if there is a suit and you are the victor, court costs alone would far outweigh any financial settlement. So let's all just do what we all come here to do, enjoy and replicate props from our favorite films.

-Nick

PS: As a forum is a written medium, any defamation here would be "libel" not slander.

I would add that it's easy to stop copyright violations on eBay, you just regester your copyright and if you find a violation, eBay will remove the Item, contacting buyers is a violation of eBay rules and should be reported. Bad Tom...

 

[TheNickFox]

Sorry Nick, but I saw the email and he said Tom was taking food out of his children's mouths.

That is a common phrase...a VERY common phrase, and is almost never meant literally. And even if it was to be taken literally, the person taking food out of someone's mouth would be responsible, so Tom should have been visited by the authorities for petty theft [of food] and willful or reckless endangerment.

If someone places food into they're children's mouths and someone else takes it out, the person who put the food there in the first place is not responsible. It's like a burglar calling the cops on me for putting up a 46" flat screen TV on my wall. I should not be held liable for its theft, the burglar should. Since you apparently have never even heard the phrase "taking food out of my children's mouths" before, perhaps I should explain that the "burglar" in this extended metaphor is Tom.

In summation, this is ridiculous! Like I said, everyone is willing to give you and "your boy" the copyright point, just don't mess with people's kids and family, it's something that will ALWAYS come back to bite you.

Now, back to a less frivolous point, you said that you helped Tom file the copyright papers, would you happen to have the registration numbers that would have been issued by the Library of Congress/US Copyright Office? If you do, that would put all of this to rest in a heartbeat.

-Nick

 

[CessnaDriver]

I am the original poster/fan that started this thread. The question I asked has been answered.

Is it possible to have it closed now?

This is getting far beyond the scope of the prop itself and wouldn't a prop copyrights thread in the general discussion area serve those that wish to discuss that
better at this point?

 

[propologist]

I am the original poster/fan that started this thread. The question I asked has been answered.

Is it possible to have it closed now?

This is getting far beyond the scope of the prop itself and wouldn't a prop copyrights thread in the general discussion area serve those that wish to discuss that
better at this point?

It's just getting good now...We are trying to stretch Tom's 15 minutes to 20 minutes..lol