Note: I never introduced any notion of original prop "owners" having any "rights" whatsoever. So let's toss that aside.
All I'm talking about is the exercise of good will and consideration of consequences by those who introduce exact copies of props (castings from originals and original molds & scans and photos of original paper props) into the marketplace that are indistinguishable from the original.
As far as telling them apart, I can only say 'buyer beware'. Any original prop should have detailed lineage back to the set. If it doesn't, why risk dropping $30k on it?
Brads not responsible if 5 years from now someone passes off his copy as an original, he isn't selling these as originals and he can't be held accountable for someone elses actions in the future.
-
Anyone buying original props is responsible for themselves they are grownups and nobody else is responsible if they part with their money for a replica thinking it's original.
I see people buy fake $50 and $100 props on eBay every day. New and casual collectors (some of whom come from the replica hobby) are more easily duped, and "detailed lineage" and provenance can be and often is fabricated.
The people buying these pieces aren’t traveling the world on their private jets, sipping Dom Perignon, and eating caviar.
I’ve talked with a great number of people who have been defrauded of small and large sums of money who are of average and below average means, with a love of film and television.
It think the rather cavalier and dismissive “buyer beware” sentiment expressed is pretty disappointing, in that it would be nice to show a little more respect and consideration to fellow hobbyists.
As an original prop collector, I can tell you that original (identical) castings from original sources are a problem for the original prop hobby.
People who defraud others are often lazy - it is more typical that replica and off the shelf pieces are passed off with false provenance than someone would go through the trouble of making something themselves.
If replica collectors are buying something that they know to be a replica, what is the downside of marking it in some subtle way so that a person who handles it and examines it closely could identify it as a replica? It
is a replica.
Licensed replicas are marked with copyright and manufacturer information, and they seem to have no problem selling.
If someone is simply making a direct cast of an original piece or casting a piece from an original mold – there is no artistry involved in this - you are basically printing money without a license or authorization – don’t you at the very least have a moral responsibility to mark this in some way so that it is known to be a copy? Or are any and all considerations apart from profit and personal gain tossed aside?
You can’t put that on original prop hobbyists as “buyer beware”, as you are the one introducing exact copies into the marketplace. If not for your action, one would not have to "beware" of that piece - it is a consequence of the action of the one who makes these copies for personal monetary gain.
I’m not talking about scratch built pieces, but items cast from originals, items cast from original molds, and photographic/paper props copied, scanned, or copied from photographs.
Your actions have consequences, and I found my private dialogue with Brad to be disappointing, as he could not get past his own immediate needs and gratification – it is about him making money to fund his collecting, and if he altered his copies, nobody would buy them.
I believe that's a different discussion. A quick search of the OT forum should give you all the opinions that you could wish on the subject, but lets not bring it up here.
If someone is merely copying a high resolution photo of a paper-based prop, saving it to their hard drive, hitting the print button, then laminating it, how is that act materially different from “recasting”?
I'm really curious to understand the logic behind the "laws" of the replica hobby, and what constitutes good and bad behavior.
As I understand it:
- Copying/casting an original prop is encouraged and celebrated
- Copying/casting that replica copy is a hanging offense and an outrage
Why is that?
I assume it is because the person who made that first replica casting (the “original infringer”) expended time/effort/money ("resources") to buy and/or have access to that original prop or original mold or original photograph.
So the idea is that it is wrong to profit off of the work, or "resources", of other members - correct?
Yet if an original prop hobbyist (the “original owner/buyer”) spends “resources” to buy a photo-based original prop that can be copied and reproduced exactly from those photos, it is fair game for the “original infringer” to use those photos to make exact replicas?
How does the “resources” of the “original infringer” compare and measure up to the “resources” of the “original owner/buyer”?
Just to noodle out all of the variables:
- If someone (the “original infringer”) saves a photo off the net to his hard drive, hits print, and laminates it, he is an “artisan” and that his is original creative work
- If the person who originally posted that photo is not himself actively violating copyright by producing unlicensed bootleg replicas, then the “artisan” (the “original infringer”) is within the guidelines of the RPF
- If the person who originally posted that photo is himself actively violating copyrights by producing unlicensed bootleg replicas, then the “original infringer” is not an “artisan” but is a “recaster”, and his RPF membership is revoked
- If the person who owns the original prop buys one of the “artisan’s” unlicensed bootleg replicas, scans it, saves it to his hard drive, hits print, and laminates it, he is a “recaster” and his RPF membership is revoked
So, in essence, it’s akin to the “Rights of the First Infringer”?
If you infringe first, you are granted a “bootleg license” which makes you a “bootleg copyright holder”?
And all subsequent infringers are therefore “recasters” and the bane of the RPF membership and replica prop hobby at large?
If you are not an infringer at all, your opinion and concerns are not worthy of consideration?
Since Brad said his bootlegs aren’t selling, it would seem he is merely making a stand on principle – the principle of (as he puts it) exploitation - and the “Rights of the First Infringer”?
He wants to secure his “bootleg license” as the “bootleg copyright holder”?
I always like to believe that there can be some good will between the original prop collectors and the replica prop collectors, in that, as I said, we are all in this for the love of film and television.
In any event, it seems as though the morality in play here is built upon a foundation in which money and profit is not merely the primary consideration, but the
only consideration. Anything that serves as an obstacle to immediate personal gratification can be attacked, dismissed, or explained away with "everyone is guilty" logic and other fallicies?
I just think it is a shame to create an "exploitation" atmosphere in which original prop hobbyists fear sharing information and resources and photos believing that a possible consequence is that dozens of exact copies of one of their props end up on eBay.
Jason De Bord
