Prop Collecting for future gains???

[LeMarchand]

Investing in props for future gain is not the best investment i can think of. I think the only props that actually rise in value are the props that have some sort of movie historical value. Usually when you buy a prop, it looses it value straight away. Try selling a prop from the propstore on ebay straight away. You will probably only fetch about a third or half of the price 95% of the time.

I have some screen used pieces myself. I buy them because i want a piece of that particular movie or show, not as an investment.

The only risk replicas have toward screenused is indeed if the replicas are so good they are passed as screen used.

Honestly....you want to invest for future gain....buy Gold, Silver or a Rembrandt.

 

[Pappy]

IF i were an original prop owner,i dont care how much the value is on the market,how many copies being made,"i own the original" and im happy with it,its like flying to the moon with your two arms or whatever,i can see it aaallll day long,if possible,touch it and play with it,or i dont know........anything,and thinking of it......again,"this is what they use back in the day".
THATS PRICELESS!!

But its just me,a nobody
carry on:thumbsup

 

[theforce]

Some great points. I think they all are true.

The replicas I own make me happy and I buy them for that reason.

There is nothing wrong with buying something as an "investment" or for "financial gain". I understand sometimes it may benefit you, sometimes not.

I don't understand why someone would not be honest about it though.

 

[PHArchivist]

Well Gus hasn't called me yet...!

 

[franz bolo]

What would you guys do? If a prop collector of the original prop asked you not to sell a replica of that prop that you made from scratch, would you comply?

Tell him sorry but no, then ask him for close up shots of the original prop!! :lol

FB

 

[PHArchivist]

I think the ONLY time a prop should not be replicated and sold is when the original prop owner gives or sells you a copy of their prop and specifically asks not to replicate it. I have had this asked of me before. This is fair and I totally understand that. But if I came across a prop that I could either make from scratch or buy and replicate, I don't see an issue with that.


As most of you know I create mainly paper style props and that is where this discussion involves me.

BTW: This is in regards to my Terminator Police ID badges that I make



Brad

I think therein lies the concern.

There is a difference between a replica, and an attempt at a counterfeit.

With digital imaging technology, the ability to come closer to a counterfeit is more significant, and if true counterfeits fod the market, then the distinction between the real deal and the fakes is blurred, potentially effecting the intrinsic veracity of the original.

Or...

It makes it that much harder to tell the difference between the real and the fakes, making future buyers of the real one more wary, hamstrining the ability of future sales of the original.

 

[PHArchivist]

My DS is truly a replica.

I would never sell it.

It is built as a replica, not a counterfeit.

It has plainly obvious differences between it and the original.

To even the most miimally informed person, it could never be passed off as the original.

Gus and George needn't worry about a thing.

 

[theforce]

Tell him sorry but no, then ask him for close up shots of the original prop!! :lol

FB

Very good, lol.

After laughing, you should ask why he sold more than one of his originals for "financial gain" then later state he has never done that.

Can only the person who took issue with you, make "financial gain", deny he ever did that, then tell you not to make replicas for profit?

 

[Larry Young]

The Disney Auctions COA says at the bottom, in part: "The purchase of any item offered for sale from Disney Auctions entitles the buyer only to physical possession of the item and the right to resell the item, but does not give the buyer any other rights, including the right to reproduce the artwork, to prepare derivative works from the item or to profit from the purchase of this item."

Which I always found mildly hilarious. I can resell it, but I can't make a profit. Thanks, Mickey.

 

[PHArchivist]

The Disney Auctions COA says at the bottom, in part: "The purchase of any item offered for sale from Disney Auctions entitles the buyer only to physical possession of the item and the right to resell the item, but does not give the buyer any other rights, including the right to reproduce the artwork, to prepare derivative works from the item or to profit from the purchase of this item."

Which I always found mildly hilarious. I can resell it, but I can't make a profit. Thanks, Mickey.

That's bull****. I fully understand their right to control their IP, but what you can get for in in the open secondary market is between you and your buyer.

EDIT: Not calling bull**** on you Larry; but on Disney. And this is just my knee-jerk reaction - not based on any legal knowledge.

 

[Larry Young]

EDIT: Not calling bull**** on you Larry; but on Disney. And this is just my knee-jerk reaction - not based on any legal knowledge.

Ha! No worries; I knew what you meant.

I can't imagine how they'd enforce that one, anyway.

 

[Dpp1978]

The Disney Auctions COA says at the bottom, in part: "The purchase of any item offered for sale from Disney Auctions entitles the buyer only to physical possession of the item and the right to resell the item, but does not give the buyer any other rights, including the right to reproduce the artwork, to prepare derivative works from the item or to profit from the purchase of this item."

Which I always found mildly hilarious. I can resell it, but I can't make a profit. Thanks, Mickey.

It probably isn't intended to limit resale value as resale rights are dealt with separately. If it was it is unlikely to be enforcable. I suspect the primary aim is to stop people from profiting indirectly; charging people to look at it for example. It also put the purchaser on notice that Disney retain most of the rights in the object, and implies willingness to enforce them.

It isn't uncommon for unenforcable clauses to be put into contracts. A lot of people don't realise they are unenforcable and treat them as binding.

 

[Larry Young]

It isn't uncommon for unenforcable clauses to be put into contracts. A lot of people don't realise they are unenforcable and treat them as binding.

Oh, I know; I'm a graphic novel publisher and deal with IP issues every day.

The mildly hilarious thing to me is that this isn't a contract; it's a COA printed on some nice cardstock they provide with items they sell. It's obviously something they feel is mandated as it takes up most of the card. When I get to the office tomorrow, I'll scan it so everybody can point and laugh at Disney Legal.

 

[Dpp1978]

Oh, I know; I'm a graphic novel publisher and deal with IP issues every day.

The mildly hilarious thing to me is that this isn't a contract; it's a COA printed on some nice cardstock they provide with items they sell. It's obviously something they feel is mandated as it takes up most of the card. When I get to the office tomorrow, I'll scan it so everybody can point and laugh at Disney Legal.

Nevertheless it still may be a contractual document. It is possible (at least in the UK, I'd be shocked if it wasn't also the case in the US) to incorporate terms contained in a separate document into the contract.

It is very common in sale of goods contracts, especially where the sale is made on standard terms. It wouldn't surprise me if that is what the situation is here.

 

[Tan Djarka]

It occurs to me, apart from what you tell the insurance company, nothing has any value whatsoever until you sell it. So if you object to replicas, even those indistinguishable from the original, on the basis of it devaluing the original, it could only be because you want to preserve it's resale value. If you buy a prop, not to have, but for the purpose of profiting by it's resale, then you stink. Let someone who actually wants it get it, and invest in the stock market instead.

A simple solution, as far as we're concerned, would be to simply adjust RPF guidelines. From this point forward, anyone who does a run of anything and wishes to sell it here must put a distinguishin "tell" on his or her work, or it cannot be distributed here and their membership will be summarily revoked.

 

[Larry Young]

It is very common in sale of goods contracts, especially where the sale is made on standard terms. It wouldn't surprise me if that is what the situation is here.

There was no additional bill of sale, no itemized shipping invoice, nor any other document that any reasonable person could construe to be any sort of contract included in my transaction with Disney Auctions. The only paperwork besides their glorious, mildly hilarious COA received was a cash register receipt acknowledging my payment.

Of course, this is all a bit moot as I'm never selling the item I received. :lol

 

[Dpp1978]

There was no additional bill of sale, no itemized shipping invoice, nor any other document that any reasonable person could construe to be any sort of contract included in my transaction with Disney Auctions. The only paperwork besides their glorious, mildly hilarious COA received was a cash register receipt acknowledging my payment.

Of course, this is all a bit moot as I'm never selling the item I received. :lol

At the risk of drifting even further off topic, that is probably irrelevant (the bit about there being no additional documentation, not the bit about your intention to keep your item). In most sale of goods contracts you don't get as much as you did.

When you buy from a company as a consumer, unless it is agreed otherwise the sale will almost certainly be on their standard terms. These terms may have included the clause you mentioned, or referenced it. They don't have to tell you what their terms are up front unless you ask them to; they only need to make them available. Again this refers primarily to English law, and while English and US law share a common root, the two systems have travelled divergant paths for quite some time now. The situation over there may well be different.

On entering into the contract by buying the item you are deemed to accept them, and be bound by them;at least as far as they are enforcable.

The only reason I am continuing with this is that it is very easy to become bound by terms you have no up front knowledge of, and only find out about when it is too late. Hopefully there are consumer protection laws in place to strike out more extreme provisions, but it can still be an enormous pain to assert your rights. These rights may not even exist in private sales.

I don't mean to come across as a patronising ****; it is just an unfotunate habit I have picked up and am unable to shake. I'm sorry if this has taken the discussion off on too much of a tangent

 

[Larry Young]

I don't mean to come across as a patronising ****;

Not at all; I'm enjoying the discussion.

I also don't think it's off on all that much of a tangent as we're talking about collecting whether or not for future gains, and I'd imagine being contractually bound to something I've no awareness of nor been an active party to would certainly have bearing on my willingness to resell items in my collection.

Just not, you know, this Disney Auctions one.

 

[kevjh]

Well this is a hard one. I can see it from both ends on the one side if someone paid for an original I can see where he or she wouldn’t want 50 or 100 more being made. If your casting it off the real thing – then all you are is a copier. No skill was involved and your just doing it to turn a profit then that is wrong but if it isn’t cast off the real props you can only get so close to copying it. If some one wants to make a prop from (scratch) not cast it off an original I am all for it. I buy both originals and replicas and think they are both great.
Now to the investment part I can say to date I have never lost money when selling any of my props. They do hold a value and always will. But I don’t look at them as money makers. I buy props when I Love the movie.
Value also depends on the Movie if the movie is a mega hit like Star Wars or Indiana Jones the prop can only go up unless you paid way too much to start with.. I am always amazed what some props sell for and every time I think it can’t sell for more it does. I think it is because the buyer know that there isn’t 50 of them out there and they LOVE what they are buying because it is in some way there little part of the movie and because of that love or passion or whatever you want to call it they don’t want to share it. It could be called greedy but that’s just human ( like not wanting another guy looking at your girl) unless your into that kind of thing HA :lol HA :lol
But isn’t making a prop then selling them to make money greedy in a way too? It is one thing to make your money back and another making BIG money… Can’t we all just play nice

 

[Dpp1978]

Not at all; I'm enjoying the discussion.

I also don't think it's off on all that much of a tangent as we're talking about collecting whether or not for future gains, and I'd imagine being contractually bound to something I've no awareness of nor been an active party to would certainly have bearing on my willingness to resell items in my collection.

Just not, you know, this Disney Auctions one.

The purchase from Disney Auctions is different from most prop sales in that the vendor is also the holder of the IP rights. If you bought the same item from a third party who did not hold these rights it is unlikely they would have the same concerns.

They may have conditions they wish to include in the sale, but protection of someone elses property rights is not an immediately obvious one.

The absurd thing is that even if the clause in the COA is validly incorporated into the contract, it only confers rights onto Disney it already enjoys under IP law. This makes it practically irrelevant (at least in so far as Disney's ability to assert its rights), and this whole discussion largely academic.

It is an example of the "belt and braces" approach to legal practice by trying to keep as many avenues open as possible.