Recast by Mezco Toys?!

[Indy Magnoli]

I was shocked to see this link someone e-mailed me:

http://www.mezco.net/products.asp?pline=goo-c07

I made one of these for them for use in one of their displays to promote their new figure line. So they then use my original sculpt to cast a replica for sale at the San Diego Comic Con!

Here is my original... just compare it to the one shown on their site:

So, now what?

Kind regards,
Indy Magnoli

 

[Apollo]

What was your Contract with them?

Sad to say if you did not have one, Good Luck you are going to need it.

 

[tgreco]

Unfortunately Apollo is correct,
if you don't have a contract, it will be tough for you to prove it wasn't work for hire... and if you do have a contract, or a cancelled check, it may very well be stipulated that acceptance of payment includes forfeiture of all copyrights to the piece produced...


the other thing is, well it now appears they are the legal license holder... it's a tough spot for you

the upside it, it does give you some leverage if you want more work, and leverage to negotiate a much better deal

just remember not to go off the handle, and I'm sure they'd be willing to work out something much more to your advantage...

 

[Jedifyfe]

I disagree, if you can prove that you sculpted this item and leased it to them, you may be able to get them to stop selling this particular piece. I would have an hour conceltation with an attorney and see what your rights. The one main snag here is you never owned the rights to replicate any Goonies property to begin with and therefore you are already in copyright violation...

 

[micdavis]

Are you sure it's recast?

Although VERY close it might not be.

The area between the eyes looks to be a different shape.

 

[Noeland]

I'm assuming from your post that your contract said nothing about them having the right to mold this piece and make copies, or you wouldn't have posted.

Even if you didn't have a contract, you still have every right to pursue legal action.

Get off the internet prop boards and call a frigin' rights lawyer!

I'm betting you have a case.

 

[RelicMaker]

I immediately noticed this ever since Mezco started selling these!
I thought you had struck a deal with them or something, or I would have told you long ago.
You better watch out Indy! They're probably going to start selling your map as well!

By the way, your recast copperbones is all over eBay.

Best of luck!
Brenton

 

[Forsaken]

Damn now we are seeing reputable companies Recasting.
That is a real B***H.
Don’t know who to trust anymore.

Bye for now
Al

 

[TridCloudwalker]

Are you sure it's recast?

Although VERY close it might not be.

The area between the eyes looks to be a different shape.

Looks absolutely dead on to me. The only difference I see is that little protrusion on the skull's brow on the Mezco piece, but that can very very easily be from a flaw in the mold.

Indy, if you happen to know or have a lawyer, run it by him/her and see what they have to say. Other than that, give your contact over at Mezco a call, and very politely ask if they'd be willing to offer you some compensation, as you were unaware they were going to be using an original piece of yours to "mass" produce. They may brush you off, they may offer you a few bucks or a handfull of the product, but without a contract, it's better than nothing.

 

[misterfusion]

I did a quick side-by-side to help compare:

Granted, the angles are different and the lighting is different, and they certainly are close, but for all the similiarities that would be inherent in reproducing an existing piece, I see a few subtile differences.​

Of course, that's not to say they didnt cast up your original and then make some changes to make it thier own, or use yours as a prototype to sculpt a new one.​

Only way to make sure is to get one when it comes out and compare the real items, not just photos.​

Take a deep breath, count to ten, get the facts. If they screwed you, there's time to fix it.​

Just my $0.02.​

Steve​

 

[Hecubus114]

hard to say for sure, but it looks to me like it was made to look as much like yours as possible, bur not a recast... could just be the lighting and such...

 

[Indy Magnoli]

Great side-by-side comparison. If this isn't a recast, I should be quite honored that they replicated my replica instead of the original prop! :rolleyes

Kind regards,
Indy

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

Without decent reference material to the ORIGINAL one, it is hard to say if it is a recast or not.

Was there an original prop that you took a cast from and then made the key, or was the key an original sculpt ? If the latter is the case, I´d say that there is not much leeway about the recasting issue.

I am pretty sure that you all agree that two original sculpts that were done using photo reference will never be of the exact same size, being it width and height, and more importantly the depth.

Just get one of those, and then a side by side comparison will reveal telltale signs.

I am pretty sure that especially if there is no contract that your rights are protected. Of course, a bad contract always is better than no contract. But if you have a receipt or an invoice that clearly states the use of the item, like "one skeleton key reproduction for displaying at a toy show" or something like that, a lawyer will eat the case up ! Unless it is one that has his bureau in a mall shop and is named lionel or hutz or a combination of both

I always thought that the folks at Mezco would be more like "us", i.e. young and relaxed artists with a strong moral compass :\

Michael

 

[Funky]

Have you even TRIED contacting them to get their side of the story? Granted, it looks damn near to yours, and it probably is, still, contact them. They may simply offer you compensation. All I'm saying is at least try to open the lines of communications with them.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

When a hobbyist prop maker builds (and sells) items from someone else's intellectual property, he really has nothing to fight with against the legal license holder. If he goes after the company for recasting his sculpt, they can probably go after him for making (and selling) the sculpt in the first place.

Sure, one would think a good and reputable company would work with that hobbyist prop maker instead of just copying his sculpt outright but we must not forget that our hobby exists in some part due to the graces of the IP owners and their willingness to ignore us as long as we keep things under the radar.

If a company copied my work (and it was based on someone else's IP), I would consider sending them a letter stating that I was flattered they liked my work enough to use it and that I would be very interested in being involved somehow.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

When a hobbyist prop maker builds (and sells) items from someone else's intellectual property, he really has nothing to fight with against the legal license holder. If he goes after the company for recasting his sculpt, they can probably go after him for making (and selling) the sculpt in the first place.

...

I don´t think so. If he made that piece and they want to use it for a display, that does not entitle them to use it further than that. He has no copyright for the actual design, but IMO he has a right to his work of art itself. So it is two different things that we have to look at.

First it is the design itself. A licensee buys the right to use that design and make replicas of that design and sell them.

To sell those replicas, they need an artist to actually produce a piece.
The artist is commissioned for a sculpt and then paid for his craftsmanship. The price for his work surely depends on how the piece is used later on, just as is done with graphics artwork.
In this case it sounds like they only commissioned JM to do a piece to use as a display piece for an upcoming product, no more no less.
It is something different if the piece JM sculpted was used to make the actual product.

So, IMO this is definitely NOT about the old "intellectual property and fanmade props"-discussion. This has nothing to do with this at all.

This is about making illegal use of a commissioned piece of art work quite further than initially agreed on by the client and the artist.

Michael

 

[Yorpheus]

I see a few subtile differences.

I think they're so close though that it's a 99% probability that they recast Indy's original sculpt.

 

[RelicMaker]

Here's a pic of the original sculpt from the Goonies Movie fan book. Indy Magnoli's copperbones has been definitely recast.
The differences you see in the side by side comparison in the post above are the reflected light directions, which are opposite of eachother.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

If there was a contract stating such and the piece (or derivative work) did not exist before the artist was contacted by the license holder, then I would agree.

However, if the derivative work already existed and was for sale and they just bought if from the artist without a commission-contract, then no. As I said... you might be able to formally take it somewhere, but the license holder would bite you right back for selling what is essentially a pirated product in the first place. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get messed up in that.

This is about making illegal use of a commissioned piece of art work quite further than initially agreed on by the client and the artist.

Michael

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

...

However, if the derivative work already existed and was for sale and they just bought if from the artist without a commission-contract, then no. As I said... you might be able to formally take it somewhere, but the license holder would bite you right back for selling what is essentially a pirated product in the first place. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get messed up in that.

I don´t think that it necessarily would be that complicated. The lawyers on this board may chime in, but I´d just take a wild guess and say that the licensee changed the situation about "pirated product" by actually buying the piece. He acknowledges IM´s craftsmanship as being worthy of reproduction as an official product by displaying as a stand-in for THEIR OWN product, without stating anywhere that it was a fan-made item.

You may have something there with the "derivative work existing before", but then again, they intentionally bought it for promotional purposes of a soon-to-be product.

I really think you can´t mix things up.

The relevant part is the use of IndyMagnoli´s original sculpt in a way that was not agreed upon by him as the artist.

Whether they want to go and accuse him of piracy of intellectual property, that is something completely different and IMO has absolutely nothing to do with the case of bootlegging Indy´s work in the first place.

Michael