Recasting time limit?

[KnightAsylum]

I know people complain about questions like this, but hey, all the treads can't be 30 pages about the color of helmet lenses, and a few people suggested asking the question elsewhere when I saw an attempt at in the JY.

How long does a kit/prop have to be out of production when it is OK to recast it?
I know that it is always illegal, I am not taking about the legal choice, it is clear that it is illegal, but what about from the morality of the folks on the board. The RPF seems to have pretty strict standards about this (in most cases) I am not saying it is not OK, I am just a little lost on this "grey" area. What is the OOP age that makes recasting OK? There does seems to be one here.

I am not trying to argue for or against recasting, these threads tend to ge sidetracked easy but I just wanted to hear from folks that think it is OK after a certain time frame, as what that time is?
I am not out to argue with your opinion, just to hear it?

 

[rollerboi]

Personally, I'd try to get a group of the interested people together and approach the original artisan about the possibility of them doing up another run before even thinking about recasting something.

Hey, maybe they'd even give you permission if you did that. Or the molds. Or ask for a cut. You never know.

 

[Commander Max]

This is interesting, and hard to say. If you own the property(by copyright) it used to life + 75 years(I think this is what I last heard, I'm sure those in the know will chime in). If it's a unlicensed garage kit there really is nothing stopping you from recasting it at any time. But then the guys recasting could care less about it, they are going to do whatever they are going to do.

The appropriate thing to do is contact the artist. But in this community who knows how fruitful that would be. He could say yes he doesn't care what you do with it. Then turn around next week and drag your name across the boards.

 

[Gigatron]

Personally, I say under a year, if you've attempted to contact the original owner and haven't gotten a response either way, you're good to go.

After a year, it's pretty apparent that the original owner has no real interest in it - especially if potential customers have shown a continuing interest, so go ahead and cast away.

Short version:
0-12 months - if the owner never responds to repeated contact, go ahead

13+ months - unless the owner has shown interest otherwise, go ahead.

My main reasoning is this - 99% of garage kits (or even licensed kits) are based on someone else's designs anyway. Garage kitters never had the right to the design to begin with and if a licenscee has stopped making them, they've pretty much given up on making any further revenue from it anyway.

-Fred

 

[clayslinger]

Without the original creator of the items consent or permission, never.

Just because there is not a license to make something that doesn't make it OK to rip someone off.

That person still took the time to make it. If that's "no big deal" or "You shouldn't make it because you don't have a license", then YOU make it!

Take YOUR time to make it and YOUR money to mold it and YOUR time to cast it. And according to some, you didn't have the "Rights" to do it in the first place so if you get ripped off that's your tough luck and "No big deal" right?
Do you have the rights to this item? Then what makes it OK for you to have it?

Mold a piece from Mattel a year from now and see if that's OK.

I don't care if I made something 10 years ago,the idea that some Yahoo feels justified in molding my work because he doen't want to pay or wants to make back his costs makes me not want to make a damn thing for "The Community".

My two cents.....
Chuck...

 

[jlong]

Without the original creator of the items consent or permission, never.

Just because there is not a license to make something that doesn't make it OK to rip someone off.

That person still took the time to make it. If that's "no big deal" or "You shouldn't make it because you don't have a license", then YOU make it!

Take YOUR time to make it and YOUR money to mold it and YOUR time to cast it. And according to some, you didn't have the "Rights" to do it in the first place so if you get ripped off that's your tough luck and "No big deal" right?
Do you have the rights to this item? Then what makes it OK for you to have it?

Mold a piece from Mattel a year from now and see if that's OK.

I don't care if I made something 10 years ago,the idea that some Yahoo feels justified in molding my work because he doen't want to pay or wants to make back his costs makes me not want to make a damn thing for "The Community".

My two cents.....
Chuck...

Well said clayslinger.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I agree completely with Clayslinger.

 

[defstartrooper]

Personal sentiments aside it's clear that recasting out of production pieces is not frowned upon entirely, DP vader/scout/TIE helmets for example.
As with much in life a blanket decision is rarely workable.
Time limit i guess is an impossible question to answer as i guess the community will decide for themselves differently in every case.

 

[TazVader]

I agree there mate....I find it strange though. I have seen alot of folk who are well known, obviously selling re-cast kits or items with no thought to the heritage...usually with the um "I have no idea where I got this," line. Alot of these same folk seem to bag re-casters.

Try this scenario.......say someone had the licence to produce SW helmets. The licence expired. They continued to sell items. After a while they resold their business including molds ect. Maybe a SU cast helmet mold was included. Now....for the buyer of the old mold/s to start selling....is that wrong? Even if they resculpt? I mean lets be real. Intellectual propperty? I dunno. All these DP recasts or re-worked helmets. WHERE IS THE LINE!!!!!!!

The word Re-caster re-caster is slung about like an insult and a blackball theat. But what IS it!!!!

Comments welcomed. Let's keep it nice though? Bit of maturity? What is the official board stance MODS? Spell it out

Regards
TAZ

BTW Don't we all replicate someone else's work? Even if it is in tribute...Where do you draw the line? Especially folk selling stuff or runs? I mean hey. I am not preaching. If I want it I buy it. But it just reeks of stupidity to slam folk for doing the same thing you do, other than maybe to a different degree.

Fair enough copying another fan's sculpt/work to make money. That sucks. But where is the line. It's all dishonest isn't it? I just think it's rich to call folks out or accuse them of wrong doing....it's a bit too elitist in my opinion LOL Slam me if you like folks.....but I think in reality a lot of folk feel this way.

 

[LeMarchand]

This subject has been brought up time and again, and probably will be again in the future. In every thread the conclusion seems to be:

1)Everybody has it's own definition of re-casting and what is acceptable.

Personally, i wouldn't copy another member's sculpture or an item that is still produced or is part of an active license. A kit that hasn't been produced for a long time and will never be re-released again, for me that would be fair game and by the looks of all the offerings of DP, Poseidon, Fewture, Icons, Unobtainium, etc recasts a lot of other people seem to think that way.

2)There are a lot of hypocrits in this hobby

Too many times i have seen people take the moral highground on recasting, who then tend to forget their principles when buying a re-cast is their only way to obtain that highly coveted item.

The only way to say with a straight face your hands are entirely clean in this hobby, is by sticking to buying licensed or screen-used items, and even then you could be in the wrong. Bought a screenused resin star trek maquis phaser or rifle? Congrats, you bought an unlicensed resin recast of a japanese anime toygun. Bought a screenused foamrubber stunt gun from a movie? You sure the studios asked H&K, S&W or Beretta for permission to make copies of their intellectual property? Are you sure MR asked permission from Kango Jobo and Hama to use their designs for their motion tracker? after all, whether they recreated those shapes from scratch or not, the designs are intellectual property of those companies......

This debate never results in one agreeing mass, it just shows that like with all subjects in life, different people have different views and it is up to YOU what you find acceptable.

Marc

 

[rollerboi]

Try this scenario.......say someone had the licence to produce SW helmets. The licence expired. They continued to sell items. After a while they resold their business including molds ect. Maybe a SU cast helmet mold was included. Now....for the buyer of the old mold/s to start selling....is that wrong? Even if they resculpt? I mean lets be real. Intellectual propperty? I dunno. All these DP recasts or re-worked helmets. WHERE IS THE LINE!!!!!!!

Obviously, if I've bought the mold from the original creator, that implies consent for me to use it for reproductive works unless explicity stated otherwise. Not the best example.

Comments welcomed. Let's keep it nice though? Bit of maturity? What is the official board stance MODS? Spell it out

As a community, we all help decide what is ethical and unethical amongst this den of thieves, if you will. We don't need the moderators to tell us this.

Don't we all replicate someone else's work? Even if it is in tribute...Where do you draw the line? Especially folk selling stuff or runs? I mean hey. I am not preaching. If I want it I buy it. But it just reeks of stupidity to slam folk for doing the same thing you do other than maybe to a different degree.

It's all about degrees of respect. Let's say someone sculpted a pair of angels for an Ark of the Covenant, quite some time ago, and currently has no plans to reproduce them. That individual is still very much a part of our prop community here, and has earned our respect for his handiwork. To recast the angels without permission would be a slap in the face to him, as well to all of us in this little hobby of ours.

Looking at something and sculpting/carving/creating your own is not recasting. Recasting is when a person takes someone else's source object and copies it (usually by molding and casting - hence, the "recasting" term) without permission, sometimes with minor details altered in an attempt to call it one's own.

Fair enough copying another fan's sculpt/work to make money. That sucks. But where is the line. It's all dishonest isn't it? I just think it's rich to call folks out or accuse them of wrong doing....it's a bit too elitist in my opinion LOL Slam me if you like folks.....but I think in reality a lot of folk feel this way.

People unwilling to invest the time, energy, and money that it takes to acquire their collections in a socially acceptable (as defined by our community) way are going to be looked down upon, plain and simple.

 

[Tan Djarka]

Let's assume for a moment, that I made availale a studio scale kit of a TIE Fighter... Even if I did the research, accumalated and assembled all the requisite components, and cast them myself, I'd still technically be recasting, wouldn't I?

Considering a large percentage of the props we hold so dear are assembled from existing items, just producing a run of ANYTHING is often a violation of itellectual property on two counts. Drawing the line on reproducing the work of the violator that preceded you seems a bit...?

Think of it this way: What if I masterminded the theft of the Mona Lisa? Months of planning and logistics go into "the perfect crime". Then, while transporting it to my "safe house", when it's at it's most vulnerable, a competitor intercepts my transport, and steals it from me. Are they MORE wrong because they didn't lay the groundwork to aquire the illicit booty, instead of comitting what is essentially a crime of opportunity?

 

[TazVader]

yeah... I agree there Tan. Roller...thanks fo ryour comments. Gave me something to Mull over. Good to hear different point of view. Although I know we as a community may like to think we set the standar of what's acceptable. But if the MODS agree to kick someone off the board...the "we" of the community seems pretty moot. I don't think it is a democracy in that way. But then I am a bit unsure of protocols the MODS and ADMIN follow LOL

Regards
TAZ

 

[SithLord]

The bottom line at least personally for me is that if you know who it belonged to then it's courtesy to ask them before you make copies of what they owned because you won't know what "rights" they have to it. It's a matter of asking permission. Ownership doesn't necessarily mean rights, but at least within a hobby of replicas, one should ask if unsure instead of proceeding without asking. If they made it themselves it's obvious, ask permission and it doesn't matter when they made it...well unless you wait 75 years. Just my 5 cents....

 

[rollerboi]

Let's assume for a moment, that I made availale a studio scale kit of a TIE Fighter... Even if I did the research, accumalated and assembled all the requisite components, and cast them myself, I'd still technically be recasting, wouldn't I?

Well, why would it be recasting? Sounds like you did a heck of a lot of work there. If you went through all that, and someone bought your TIE fighter kit and then copied each piece and sold it as their own... THAT would be considered recasting.

If the same person went through the process of accumulation and assembly with their own found parts, then it wouldn't be.

Considering a large percentage of the props we hold so dear are assembled from existing items, just producing a run of ANYTHING is often a violation of itellectual property on two counts. Drawing the line on reproducing the work of the violator that preceded you seems a bit...?

I think most of us here draw a distinction between recasting and violation of intellectual property, which are not the same thing IMO. The easiest way for me to see it is the "honor amongst thieves" concept, and to keep in mind our community-oriented perspective here.

Also, here's the official word from the current version of the Code of Conduct:

7. Selling/trading of recast items:
Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without permission is something this community does not support. A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action.

Of course, this is all my perspective. Others' may vary, especially on what precisely recasting is.

Another interesting question to consider: Suppose someone got a copy of an original prop, like, say, a Dracula helmet, and made a limited run, casting the original. The person who made the initial run being no longer in good standing with the RPF, and unlikely to give permission to make copies - do we then sculpt our own, or do we see this as a recast of a casting of an original prop as opposed to a recast of a scratchbuilt replica?

Where's THAT line?

 

[Commander Max]

Like a lot of the other guys said, never recast another guys work. Time is irrelevant.

If it's something you really want to kit, sculpt a new one. And make sure you vary it enough so nobody could accuse you of recasting. (Some will make the accusation anyway.)

If you guys don't mind, I have twist on the same topic.
What if the GKer died? Is it OK to recast then?*



*(I would still say no, but then I'm a little superstitious.)

 

[CustomCreations]

If someone recasts an existing piece- then arent they are just lazy, and in it purely for the money ?
If the piece is that rare, then why make it available ? Isnt that the beauty of owning the piece in the first place ?

Recasting just devalues the hobby.

 

[philippes]

Without the original creator of the items consent or permission, never.

Just because there is not a license to make something that doesn't make it OK to rip someone off.

That person still took the time to make it. If that's "no big deal" or "You shouldn't make it because you don't have a license", then YOU make it!

Take YOUR time to make it and YOUR money to mold it and YOUR time to cast it. And according to some, you didn't have the "Rights" to do it in the first place so if you get ripped off that's your tough luck and "No big deal" right?
Do you have the rights to this item? Then what makes it OK for you to have it?

Mold a piece from Mattel a year from now and see if that's OK.

I don't care if I made something 10 years ago,the idea that some Yahoo feels justified in molding my work because he doen't want to pay or wants to make back his costs makes me not want to make a damn thing for "The Community".

My two cents.....
Chuck...

Perfectly said.

I've been recast many, many times, but only once said anything about it, and that wasn't even done at my insistence.

People have even come to me to ask for permission to recast, which I've always given when I could.

But there have been cases in which people didn't like my answer, so they the proceeded to recast me anyway.

And I don't think recasting simply means pouring rubber over something someone else made. I feel it also extends to a replica produced based on information only made available by someone's project. If one couldn't make something without data gleaned from someone's copy, a reproduction made with that information is a recast.

There are so many good movie props to be made out there. Move on to something else until someone's done with their project. And then ask them for permission if one can't come up with anything original.

Phil

 

[Darth Lars]

If someone recasts an existing piece- then arent they are just lazy, and in it purely for the money ?

Maybe that is one reason why we get so angry at recasters. They don't share our ideals. They don't express the love for the hobby that we do, and by recasting they dilute it instead of contributing to it.

One example of this is that recasters that are in it for the money in almost all known cases produce inferior casts. Pieces are missing, or have many pits, bubbles and other artifacts. Not only are we angry at them if we receive a piece of crap in the mail when we order from them, but in worst cases it can be detrimental to the original sculptor/caster's reputation if the recasts are mistaken as his.

How about the Icons Pulse Rifle? Icons has not existed for years and recasts of Icons items pop up every now and them.
Let's say someone offered a recast of the Icons Pulse Rifle's shroud in metal (as opposed to resin.) The surface finish is perfect. The two pieces fit perfectly, look great and are compatible with almost all other replica parts for this prop. That person would clearly have shown love to the prop and to the hobby. Would we be as angry at him?

 

[CustomCreations]

That would be what I would consider an improvement on the original, and an 'upgrade', comprising unique work....
However, it would be an abuse of the original research work by Icons, whos pulse rifle, if memory served me, had a plate on it saying about not to recast!.

There is/was a massive argument on the blade runner forum about this, and the PKD blaster, a certain R Coyle and a certain Sidkit.
There is no answer- itsa just as you said- recasters are normally no-talents who take advantage of those with an obsession like ours !
If you are going to remake/recast- it should at least be an improvement on the latter version.