misterfusion
Sr Member
Care to elaborate?
Not cool that Pitbull is asking legitimate questions or not cool that Mezco may have taken his work and not compensated him for it?
\S/
Recast by Mezco Toys?!
- Thread starter Indy Magnoli
- Start date
Care to elaborate?
Not cool that Pitbull is asking legitimate questions or not cool that Mezco may have taken his work and not compensated him for it?
\S/
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I would say PM that moderator who locked the thread that he DID go the right route, but the spineless a-ho's don't reply, 'cause they're chickens hiding behind their license rights.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I would think: not cool that they locked the thread.
CustomCreations
Sr Member
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074300758
HI,
I have been involved with this problem in the past, so as a newbie on the forums it would be nice to make my intro as helpful as poss!
The link above shows a piece on IP rights- thats ' Intellectual Property '
The piece goes on to say that if someone (in this case a freelancer) is hired to produce a piece of work- the rights are held by the person paying for the work- but only for the use intended or given.
So, if they ask you for an illustration for a leaflet- you do it, they pay it etc, then thats fine. If they then go on to use it for a poster campaign, and on the side of trains or something, they dont have the rights from you to do this, so you can block them.
The issue of it being a copy of someone elses design doesnt ever need be an issue here- its the work as a whole, its function/purpose, so its not design rights -its the usage of the work given. They have paid (presumably) for a one off piece being made for show. They are now profiting from reproducing that piece without Indy's permission, which is illegal really.
Only the initial 'contract' can determine whether they have abused Indy's good faith.
I hope this helps. :rolleyes
HI,
I have been involved with this problem in the past, so as a newbie on the forums it would be nice to make my intro as helpful as poss!
The link above shows a piece on IP rights- thats ' Intellectual Property '
The piece goes on to say that if someone (in this case a freelancer) is hired to produce a piece of work- the rights are held by the person paying for the work- but only for the use intended or given.
So, if they ask you for an illustration for a leaflet- you do it, they pay it etc, then thats fine. If they then go on to use it for a poster campaign, and on the side of trains or something, they dont have the rights from you to do this, so you can block them.
The issue of it being a copy of someone elses design doesnt ever need be an issue here- its the work as a whole, its function/purpose, so its not design rights -its the usage of the work given. They have paid (presumably) for a one off piece being made for show. They are now profiting from reproducing that piece without Indy's permission, which is illegal really.
Only the initial 'contract' can determine whether they have abused Indy's good faith.
I hope this helps. :rolleyes
Last edited by a moderator:
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Another thing: if companies begin to exploit the license and copyright rights like this I think they will have a very difficult time to hire sculptors to work for them in the future as these things spread and gives them a bad rep.
They should certainly think twice about messing with a sculptor like this, regardless of whether said sculptor produced unlicensed replicas.
Also... this buyer who is a sculptor in their employ - maybe he said he sculpted them and gave them permission to mold and cast them... basically lying... which puts the company in a bad spot. Who knows.
The buying of these items surely left a trail... so regardless of whether they hold the license, they should definitely not try to exploit it, as that will most likely only end up biting their own ass - 'cause who wants to buy from a company that screws people over?
Really hope they finally get some sense into their heads and gets gets worked out!
EDIT: btw - what are the rules for a company regarding commission work? Are there any rules at all they have to follow when not having in-house sculptors sculpt/create their products?
They should certainly think twice about messing with a sculptor like this, regardless of whether said sculptor produced unlicensed replicas.
Also... this buyer who is a sculptor in their employ - maybe he said he sculpted them and gave them permission to mold and cast them... basically lying... which puts the company in a bad spot. Who knows.
The buying of these items surely left a trail... so regardless of whether they hold the license, they should definitely not try to exploit it, as that will most likely only end up biting their own ass - 'cause who wants to buy from a company that screws people over?
Really hope they finally get some sense into their heads and gets gets worked out!
EDIT: btw - what are the rules for a company regarding commission work? Are there any rules at all they have to follow when not having in-house sculptors sculpt/create their products?
Last edited:
CustomCreations
Sr Member
Oh, almost forgot- one thing you can def do too is enforce authorship, which is a posh way of saying you can make them credit you on any packaging or use of the object during its use.
Hey Dan, exactly my thoughts, but ... everything seems to be a bit different across the big pond :\
I had to cope with a client that in the end didn´t hire me to work for him although my partner and I were already way deep into the design concepts for his planned space-themed theme and science park (first stage of design work, and already estimating costs and looking into how to have everything built !), because we told him that we would NOT sign away all of our copyrights based on our quote for payment. And we weren´t too bold about everything, but he was such a d!(5 about paying only once that we didn´t care too much in the end.
Our ex-client would always say that he sees it like what is done in the U:S.A. where he´d only pay once, and that´s it. Of course, everybody like´s to get a good deal, but when someone´s trying to rape the artist, the artist better turn around... to walk away and leave, that is, and not bend over
Anyway, Indy said that there was no real contract, just spoken word. So I think that he should at least hire a lawyer to see where he can go. There are ways to hurt a company without having to pay too much to a lawyer
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
Clutch
Master Member
you mean you can't read my mind? :lol The 'not cool' was about them shutting down the thread so quickly. However with him being a new member there, it did look like his only intention was to stir up trouble even though his intentions were good.
hey, i'm new to the forums and i just want to let everyone know that this was all my idea to let this be known on the mezco forums.Indy is a great prop maker along with everyone in here and i'de be damned to see someone eating off his work or any others in this forum for that matter.Indy had no idea about me doing this till i emailed him about the post i made so he now knows about it and he's not mad at me whatsoever about doing it.The way i see this whole thing is that indy replicated and didn't duplicate the original copperbone cast so that makes it solefully his own piece. If the copperbones were to be exact from the original cast then i could see it being a problem for indy taking action but it's not.If mezco is gonna attempt to make the copperbones than do it to the actual warner brs prop from the movie wich they state on their copperbones advertisement about mezco and warner brs teaming up with the project in so many words,so to me that's now false advertisement to say the least on mezco's part.I know indy and mezco had a verbal agreement and nothing written in contract but like everyone say's if indy can get a good enough lawyer to take this on i'm sure there's light at the end of the tunnel for indy.For the time being it's very important for everyone to let the public know that mezco are a bunch of theives and don't even credit indy for his work that they duplicated to say the least i mean it's a start for now.
i can see where your coming from and i had no intentions to start problems over on that forum.I made it perfectly clear i was curious about the 2 copperbones looking identical.I got no pm from the moderator about my post so they aren't that concerned in my opinion.All i was looking for was opinions on the matter from the public so who's to say it was wrong for me for speaking my mind it's a forum and it stated no rules on me posting my opinions.I know they could of looked at it as i'm a new member but what does that mean i saw a reason to post and that's what made me join up.They locked it up before i had a chance to speak my mind to the public about the moderators last reply.COWARDS THEY ARE I TELL YA :angry
Just checked the Goonie forums, and they were all excited buying up the Mezco copperbones, etc........
until I chimed in!:angry:love
Then they all started to sing a different tune!
They know who Indy is, and are starting to boycott the Mezco products.
until I chimed in!:angry:love
Then they all started to sing a different tune!
They know who Indy is, and are starting to boycott the Mezco products.
Interesting. Richard Donner brought something like this up at a screening Q&A here in Santa Monica just this past weekend. He was talking between screenings of "Ladyhawke" and "The Goonies." Somehow, the topic got onto licensing for a moment and he mentioned the sudden influx of "Goonies" related toys coming on the market and how he thought one of the reasons behind it was that, popularity/cult following aside, some 20+ years after its release, toy companies don't have to pay royalties to any of the actors to use their likenesses. Nobody from the film will really profit from the sales unless they are paid to do something like a signing or promotion. (I'll add that likely the studio made sure they got their cut.)
While this doesn't help Indy Magnoli in anyway whatsoever, (and I feel for the guy and had a really good prop experience with him a while ago), it does shed some light on the toy business. Personally, I feel that a boycott (or threat thereof) will be the only effective way to deal with this since legally, Indy appears to be in a difficult position. Want to support the artist responsible? Buy from him (or her) - only. Sadly, I feel that we RPF'ers probably make up but a tiny percentage of their customer base for it to have any lasting effect. Quite frankly, I don't see the appeal of "Goonies" action figures in the first place, and I think if the line were to tank, it would be chalked up to a variety of reasons and any boycott based on this situation would be low on their list.
I'll add my condolences and wish Indy good luck.
Gene
While this doesn't help Indy Magnoli in anyway whatsoever, (and I feel for the guy and had a really good prop experience with him a while ago), it does shed some light on the toy business. Personally, I feel that a boycott (or threat thereof) will be the only effective way to deal with this since legally, Indy appears to be in a difficult position. Want to support the artist responsible? Buy from him (or her) - only. Sadly, I feel that we RPF'ers probably make up but a tiny percentage of their customer base for it to have any lasting effect. Quite frankly, I don't see the appeal of "Goonies" action figures in the first place, and I think if the line were to tank, it would be chalked up to a variety of reasons and any boycott based on this situation would be low on their list.
I'll add my condolences and wish Indy good luck.
Gene
Last edited:
Similar threads
