Question about recasting ?

Weaselhammer

Sr Member
I need clarification so here goes, If someone builds something from a pepakura model obtained from the internet and uses that finished item to make molded copies, is that considered re-casting ?? for example, my Predator bio helmet was created from a pepakura build, although it looks somewhat different now. I have several people asking me to cast copies so they could buy them, but I'm just not sure about that. I'm just looking for some carification from the prop replica community.
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

My opinion is that if you are not the creator of the file, it would be the same as recasting unless you obtained the original designer's permission.

Point to keep in mind is that you are not the creator of the finished item from A to Z.

It would be the on the same lines as taking someone else's finished item, modifying it to the infamous X% of 'but it's different now', and casting it.

Do a search on the topic here. There are a gazillion threads that discuss recasting.
 
Last edited:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

I did search the forum about recasting, but found nothing pertaining to pepakura. I definately wouldn't want to do anything that would be considered cheating, stealing, and such so I will maintain my stance of not making copies of my bio helmet and feel more justified in saying no now that I have asked.
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

I did search the forum about recasting, but found nothing pertaining to pepakura.

I was specifically refering to this part

It would be the on the same lines as taking someone else's finished item, modifying it to the infamous X% of 'but it's different now', and casting it.


I don't recall reading anything about pepkura either actually. I just used general knowledge of my concept of recasting, and applied it logically to pepkura.


I am quite sure I am right in what I said, but please do wait for other experienced members to chime in here too.

I am by no means the last bastion of defence :lol
 
Last edited:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Alan hit the nail on the head.

Since we do not allow the redistribution of a Pep file without the permission of the original author and giving proper credit (see the first post in the pepakura sticky thread), the same is applicable for the result coming out of building and finishing such a file.

Michael
RPF staff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Michael, it took you 2 minutes to post. I really do need to watch out for that van outside my house :ninja


:lol
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

I think the rules go beyond the RPF and our members. I think it applies to any creation by an artist, be him/her a member of the RPF or otherwise. It is sort of 'understood/implicit' (?).
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

pep and the natural off-spring of CNC'd masters are a real mixed up can of worms.

credit the original modeller and unfolder is impt. As for 'permission' to cast, it is a weird one. the problem with pep is in how you use it. I use pep as a base. Truly as a base, like using a baseball helmet as a base. Aside from the normal smoothing and detailing, I often cut into the base pep and re-adjust shapes and angles.

original pep model vs my finished helmet
240420101961.jpg
IMG_20110528_153304.jpg


As the changes were so extensive, I considered this sculpt completely mine and felt comfortable with casting em. I did however credit the original modeller in my original WIP.

theres also the issue of free vs paid for pep files - some modellers have strict "no selling" my pep. BUT this applies to the pep file, not the finished product.

post up pics of your pep and finished product and lets have a look

Nate
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

As for 'permission' to cast, it is a weird one. the problem with pep is in how you use it.

Not weird I think.

I believe it has more to do with making a profit from somebody else's base-line design, no matter how extensively it is modified.

It would be OK if the original designer gave his go-ahead or had a share in the profits.

Just my opinion.
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Just saying lol

Ok so then pep files are they not copies of originals, lets say Marvel or George Lucas do the creator ask permission to make copies of helmets armor weapons from them ??
Green lantern ring copies??
Warner Bros Batman masks copies??
Maybe not always for profit but coping someone work is still coping my 2cents.. :confused
The worlds not perfect no reason to get all pushy and point fingers

look at the Bugatti story 1.5 million Dollar car made from fiber glass down to the mm Said in the beginning not for sale. Now it can be bought for 89,000$ so now he gains on a copy
Man builds his own million dollar Bugatti supercar by hand | Today in Tech - Yahoo! News

Respect is respect right or wrong??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

If you have to ask, then you probably should not do it. I think what Michael said pretty much says the same thing and he is the one I woud listen too in this case, even though there always seems to be someone that has to push the boundries and see what they can get away with.
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Not weird I think.
I believe it has more to do with making a profit from somebody else's base-line design, no matter how extensively it is modified.
It would be OK if the original designer gave his go-ahead or had a share in the profits.
Just my opinion.

thats where the grey starts to appear. and where the magical X% you mentioned early is very arbitary. Lots of the pep files are released for free to allow for fans to easily make stuff. Unfortunately, and this is recognised by the pep modellers themselves, that the pep models often need a LOT of work to make it look like a nice prop replica that you and I, and other rpfers would recognise as a "proper prop". Many dont see the need to do that extra mile, and just pep resin, and do a basic smooth and use - thats fine, I am all for various grades of completion.
In the old days I would have used a plastic bowl, or card board or something similar to shape, only diff is now I use pep. I often use pep files of the lowest detail - cos I know all that will be lost in the bondo and detailing phase anyways.

This isnt a black/white easy answer. For instance - look at TZA/lignolap RC file - both apparently made from Game files. But like all modellers, some parts need extrapolation. The TZA and lignolap helmets look remarkable alike - recast? And who recast from whom? Both from game, from each other?

The GM helmet I made - aside from the general shape, the dome is different, the flare is different, the eye holes are different, the level of the back vent is different, the face is different. if you used the pep file (which was a free release) - pep it, fibreglassed it and did a basic sand - it would not be troopable with the 501st. Mine is.

If you call that recasting - then what abt various people who charge for building pep models? Those are exact replicas of the pep. No mods to it at all. Just built and resined.

Like a lot of recast topics - very grey and murky area with everyone having their own opinion. So I am not saying mine is correct either.

to the original poster - I think at the very least let the original modeller know and credit him with the base, drop him an email to say what you are gonna do and ask him if its ok. Drop him a free cast if you want. But the finished product is often so far removed from the original that I think its quite rightly your own.

I asked this question a while ago on the 405th boards - and kinda got the same answer.
Theres a lot to be asked abt this new way of building props. Its seems to have moved from being poo-poo'd to being an accepted way of making a really nice prop in a short period of time. It really is much more like scratch building than modding if you do it well that is.

Nate
 
Last edited:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Afraid not i've bought this up before and the staff said they only deal with recasting if it's an RPF members original work, that's why i asked if that stance had changed.

To 'deal' with it on the board is one thing.

That still does not make is right, IMHO.

If that is the rules thinking, then it is, with absolutely no disrespect or intention to stir the pot, a little blinkered.


EDIT : Come to think of it, I think those are not how the rules are handled.

I remember a case where a prop painting was photographed by someone who is not a member of the RPF.

The person who was going to print that image and sell them on the board had actually gotten permission from the taker of the photograph to go ahead and do so.

The subject matter came about due to this exact same concept of using someone else's base-line work, and was not a member of the board.

So I don't think the rules apply to only somebody else's work who is a member of the RPF.

In fact, the rules seem to substantiate my original opinion :

I think it applies to any creation by an artist, be him/her a member of the RPF or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Question about re-casting ?

to the original poster - I think at the very least let the original modeller know and credit him with the base, drop him an email to say what you are gonna do and ask him if its ok. Drop him a free cast if you want.

'swat I said :thumbsup :)


It would be OK if the original designer gave his go-ahead or had a share in the profits.
 
Re: Question about re-casting ?

Ironically, what most people forget when this topic comes up is that even BEFORE you get to the debate or ethics surrounding the issue of recasting, 99% of the items traded on these forums contravene the intellectual property rights of the studios. Like it or not, almost every prop being sold here is being reproduced illegally simply through the fact that making copies of any item not originated by the artist involved in the sale will almost always run foul of the property rights ownership law.

The only reason the studios seldom take action (even against people who make their own Darth Vader masks from scratch), are because they are generally weary of embarking on additional legal action over and above, what they're already / usually embroiled in.

In private discussions I have had with the legal department of one of the large popular studios they admitted that, although it's not something they often do, at any time they can and will take action if they feel the benefit to the small artist is undermining the licensee contracts they have already in place - for which the licensee businesses pay the studios huge sums of money. Additionally, they generally don't worry about an artist making a 'one off' piece because they consider that art. The problem comes in when copies are made and sold because that then catapults the artist into the role of a licensed vendor - which he is not.

So, even though the issue of recasting is a volatile and oft times hotly debated one, its ironic that people who often trot out legal points arguments to defend or attack the practice, seem to forget that the action of making the prop copy with a view to selling it, is illegal in the first place…

Regards

MARK
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top