Scuttling Recasters...
- Thread starter SgtFang
- Start date
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(racprops @ Mar 14 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]1439908[/snapback]</div>
Heh, Truer words....
It looks like somene else did indeed swoop in at the last minute and outbid him, so for the time being, I've dodged the (potential) bullet.
Anyone want to bid on this weeks copy and help me dodge it again?
Arnie bust
-Sarge
Heh, Truer words....
It looks like somene else did indeed swoop in at the last minute and outbid him, so for the time being, I've dodged the (potential) bullet.
Anyone want to bid on this weeks copy and help me dodge it again?
Arnie bust
-Sarge
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 13 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1439348[/snapback]</div>
*clap clap clap*
I love to read about posts on this and other boards who go on about recasting when they are using someone elses work to begin with. There is basically no difference between someone selling recasted items and someone making money off of someone elses intellectual property. It is shady? Yes but no different than stealing the image in the first place.
I know if I were to sculpt and cast something from a film that someone in preproduction worked a lot of hours to develop that prop or costume. Why is ok to make money off their work? I just find the moral ambiguity interesting.
*clap clap clap*
I love to read about posts on this and other boards who go on about recasting when they are using someone elses work to begin with. There is basically no difference between someone selling recasted items and someone making money off of someone elses intellectual property. It is shady? Yes but no different than stealing the image in the first place.
I know if I were to sculpt and cast something from a film that someone in preproduction worked a lot of hours to develop that prop or costume. Why is ok to make money off their work? I just find the moral ambiguity interesting.
Talisen
Sr Member
And yet, you're on a forum dedicated to prop replicas? Even licensed prop replica makers didn't necessarily develop "that prop or costume" and yet they are profiting, are you going to boycott that as well?
Just curious.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brien @ Mar 14 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1439960[/snapback]</div>
Just curious.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brien @ Mar 14 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]1439960[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talisen @ Mar 14 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]1439966[/snapback]</div>
Key words are "licensed prop makers". They were given permission to use someone elses intellectual property and to profit off of it.
I love this stuff, I am just commenting on the built in hypocrisy of what we do. We will freely steal others intellectual property and sell it on eBay but get upset when someone else buys the stolen work and steals it for themselves. I know if I reproduce something from a film, TV Show or any other medium and sell it without any rights to it, I am stealing.
I do not sell anything I make, which is very little. The things I have made were for my personal enjoyment. If I did sell something I would be upset if I were recast (though I think that would have to be a desperate recaster) but I could not take any sort of moral high ground when I know I did not have the right to sell it in the first place.
Again, just my opinion.
Key words are "licensed prop makers". They were given permission to use someone elses intellectual property and to profit off of it.
I love this stuff, I am just commenting on the built in hypocrisy of what we do. We will freely steal others intellectual property and sell it on eBay but get upset when someone else buys the stolen work and steals it for themselves. I know if I reproduce something from a film, TV Show or any other medium and sell it without any rights to it, I am stealing.
I do not sell anything I make, which is very little. The things I have made were for my personal enjoyment. If I did sell something I would be upset if I were recast (though I think that would have to be a desperate recaster) but I could not take any sort of moral high ground when I know I did not have the right to sell it in the first place.
Again, just my opinion.
Actually, according to the letter of the law, even making the item for your own use is technically stealing someones intellectual property. They are after all bootlegs. Which pretty much makes us ALL Criminals UNDER THE LAW. :angel
WookieeGunner
Well-Known Member
Actually, are you sure about that? I'm not a lawyer, but I do know there are Fair Use exceptions to the IP laws, just don't remember if personal use is one of them.
Well let me add this to the mix.
I was a pro-prop maker.
Used to work for the studios. (during the 80s)
Got darn good pay doing it when I could get the work.
And had to sign a non-disclosure and non-use contracts, which means I could not make copies of the work I did for them.
As did everyone I knew that did work for the studios.
So you not ripping off the propmakers work who did it for the film, first he got well paid (unlike most of us, now) and can not do them him self.
AND consider Gene RoddenberryÂ’s take on all of this: With out the fans, watching the reruns, making costumes, making props, going to conventions there may not even be any other Trek than the classic, which would only be a memoury, so our little hobby helps keep the dream and shows alive, and even George Lukas feels the same about Star Wars and us.
So during my years in Hollywood and doing props, we ALL felt the studio made props were Fair Game, and traded them back and forth among ourselves.
But once you spent hour and weeks making a model, that is new and personal work, to steal that and make copies it the same as if you when to work and found that some stole your paycheck, took your hard earned money that YOU WORKED for and does so for weeks and weeks and so on. It is your hard earned cash.
Yes we make unauthorized and unlicensed models, which is a matter between us and the studios, (which thank god most of the time do not care and can even see some benefit from our hobby) but to copy that work, is stealing and a dirty recaster.
Two wrongs do not make it right, stealing is stealing, be if from a honest man or a crook.
My 2 cents worth.
Rich
I was a pro-prop maker.
Used to work for the studios. (during the 80s)
Got darn good pay doing it when I could get the work.
And had to sign a non-disclosure and non-use contracts, which means I could not make copies of the work I did for them.
As did everyone I knew that did work for the studios.
So you not ripping off the propmakers work who did it for the film, first he got well paid (unlike most of us, now) and can not do them him self.
AND consider Gene RoddenberryÂ’s take on all of this: With out the fans, watching the reruns, making costumes, making props, going to conventions there may not even be any other Trek than the classic, which would only be a memoury, so our little hobby helps keep the dream and shows alive, and even George Lukas feels the same about Star Wars and us.
So during my years in Hollywood and doing props, we ALL felt the studio made props were Fair Game, and traded them back and forth among ourselves.
But once you spent hour and weeks making a model, that is new and personal work, to steal that and make copies it the same as if you when to work and found that some stole your paycheck, took your hard earned money that YOU WORKED for and does so for weeks and weeks and so on. It is your hard earned cash.
Yes we make unauthorized and unlicensed models, which is a matter between us and the studios, (which thank god most of the time do not care and can even see some benefit from our hobby) but to copy that work, is stealing and a dirty recaster.
Two wrongs do not make it right, stealing is stealing, be if from a honest man or a crook.
My 2 cents worth.
Rich
I am unsure of your point. Two wrongs do not make a right. Signing non-use agreements and freely violating those agreements is ok but someone recasting something you were not supposed to replicate is not ok?
I really did not want to upset anyone, I was just making an observation. I think it is great the studios, for the most part, allow this hobby to continue.
I really did not want to upset anyone, I was just making an observation. I think it is great the studios, for the most part, allow this hobby to continue.
I just looked up "free use under the copyright law "and it's vague in some places, but we are in fact violating the law. Fair use applies to comment , criticism, and parody. Anything else is opening yourself up to lawsuit. An artist got sued for using a copyrighted photo as the basis for a sculpt, He was ruled against. Rogers v Koons, 960F. 2nd 301(2nd cir. 1992)It's only by the good graces of the studios that we are ALLOWED to enjoy this hobby. The tables could turn and they could shut all this down if they wanted. I don't think they are going to send Gestapo troops to break down doors anytime soon ,but just a reminder that we're playing in some elses playground.
Raffles
Sr Member
It's customary in this country to denounce all dissidents in the newspapers before the witch trial.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
Recasting is an enevitability in this hobby but what we have to remember is that this is a hobby for the majority of us and not a job. What SgtFang is trying to get at here is that this is a job for him and is a substantial if not total part of his income (correct me if I'm wrong SgtFang, not sure if its your profession or not) and that what he is facing from this recaster is a massive decrease in his motivation and financial ability to produce more of his excellent pieces, which would be a loss to us all.
What SgtFang was suggesting with "sabotaging" his cast was only meant to be a suggestion on how he would stop this and potentially future castings from being copied.
Cancelling the bid would stop this seller from buying from SgtFang and some others for a while but he would find a way eventually. The original point of this thread was really "how do I stop this item being recast if it is accquired by a recaster? and how do we stop recasting in general?" and that he was really seeking advice and ideas on how to achive the holy grail of prop making and create an unrecastable(?) item that he could advise us all on how to take these measures to stop recasting.
My idea on this is that we create a sticky thread with a list of all e-bay sellers that we know for a FACT are recasters/deadbeat bidders or just plain crooks.
Plus we should start a register of all the original works created by RPF members and a list of all the well known "classic" kits and props. I now that this list may be a great source of info for vindictive studios and companies to fire out C&D orders so maybe it could be only accessable to moderators/senior members. (Just a thought that probably has a million problems with it.)
With regards to greasing an item with silicone or tampering with it otherwise SgtFang is a professional in how he conducts his work and I'm sure that he has a VERY good reason to believe that this guy is a crook and I'm sure that someone of his standing in the prop community would not just do this on a whim or out of maliciousness. He's not looking to ruin this guy's hobby, just to prevent his hard work being exploited and to try to minimise any threat to his livelihood and ability to create in the future.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
Recasting is an enevitability in this hobby but what we have to remember is that this is a hobby for the majority of us and not a job. What SgtFang is trying to get at here is that this is a job for him and is a substantial if not total part of his income (correct me if I'm wrong SgtFang, not sure if its your profession or not) and that what he is facing from this recaster is a massive decrease in his motivation and financial ability to produce more of his excellent pieces, which would be a loss to us all.
What SgtFang was suggesting with "sabotaging" his cast was only meant to be a suggestion on how he would stop this and potentially future castings from being copied.
Cancelling the bid would stop this seller from buying from SgtFang and some others for a while but he would find a way eventually. The original point of this thread was really "how do I stop this item being recast if it is accquired by a recaster? and how do we stop recasting in general?" and that he was really seeking advice and ideas on how to achive the holy grail of prop making and create an unrecastable(?) item that he could advise us all on how to take these measures to stop recasting.
My idea on this is that we create a sticky thread with a list of all e-bay sellers that we know for a FACT are recasters/deadbeat bidders or just plain crooks.
Plus we should start a register of all the original works created by RPF members and a list of all the well known "classic" kits and props. I now that this list may be a great source of info for vindictive studios and companies to fire out C&D orders so maybe it could be only accessable to moderators/senior members. (Just a thought that probably has a million problems with it.)
With regards to greasing an item with silicone or tampering with it otherwise SgtFang is a professional in how he conducts his work and I'm sure that he has a VERY good reason to believe that this guy is a crook and I'm sure that someone of his standing in the prop community would not just do this on a whim or out of maliciousness. He's not looking to ruin this guy's hobby, just to prevent his hard work being exploited and to try to minimise any threat to his livelihood and ability to create in the future.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
In the model kit community: a recaster is someone who takes an existing piece, molds it and sells it purely for financial gain. He doesn't care about the quality of the mold or the quality of the cast, but only cares about money and would sell garbage to get that money.
Even though that any molding and casting is in general recasting, the term "recasting" refers only to the unscrupulous people, who doesn't care about anything but the money they make from selling inferior quality casts of other people's work and what other people have made available to the community.
There are no need for more words... only a consensus on what the term "recasting" covers - whether it be all molding and casting or whether it only be for those molding and casting other people's work.
This is how I divide it... you are free to agree and disagree all you like... :thumbsup
Cast off Screen Used - good (unless there are accurate licensed equivalents)
Cast off Licensed1 (no longer produced items) - not so good, but still not bad. (but you are taking away the company's/other companies desire to do a re-issue)
Cast off Licensed2 (still in production) - bad (as who wants a copy when you can get a real one?)
Copy of a copy or of a private individuals original work (recast) - bad (I wanna grind somebody to a pulp fiction bad)
Even though that any molding and casting is in general recasting, the term "recasting" refers only to the unscrupulous people, who doesn't care about anything but the money they make from selling inferior quality casts of other people's work and what other people have made available to the community.
There are no need for more words... only a consensus on what the term "recasting" covers - whether it be all molding and casting or whether it only be for those molding and casting other people's work.
This is how I divide it... you are free to agree and disagree all you like... :thumbsup
Cast off Screen Used - good (unless there are accurate licensed equivalents)
Cast off Licensed1 (no longer produced items) - not so good, but still not bad. (but you are taking away the company's/other companies desire to do a re-issue)
Cast off Licensed2 (still in production) - bad (as who wants a copy when you can get a real one?)
Copy of a copy or of a private individuals original work (recast) - bad (I wanna grind somebody to a pulp fiction bad)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SgtFang @ Mar 13 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]1439340[/snapback]</div>
We really need more words for the practice of molding. Yes it would be "Recasting" since you're molding it, [/b][/quote]
Actually that isn't recasting. It's just casting. Re- comes in after the first generation.
We really need more words for the practice of molding. Yes it would be "Recasting" since you're molding it, [/b][/quote]
Actually that isn't recasting. It's just casting. Re- comes in after the first generation.
What if it was 'recasted' ?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Treadwell @ Mar 16 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]1441331[/snapback]</div>
We really need more words for the practice of molding. Yes it would be "Recasting" since you're molding it, [/b][/quote]
Actually that isn't recasting. It's just casting. Re- comes in after the first generation.
[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Treadwell @ Mar 16 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]1441331[/snapback]</div>
We really need more words for the practice of molding. Yes it would be "Recasting" since you're molding it, [/b][/quote]
Actually that isn't recasting. It's just casting. Re- comes in after the first generation.
[/b][/quote]
Now see, that's what I was talking about- The word "Recast" is just too generic these days. The Eskimos for example are supposed to have umpteen words for snow, to describe things like dry snow, slushy snow, falling snow, piled up snow, etc. I've thought for years that we need some more terms to describe the various manifestations of props that were originally created by someone else.
Here's some suggestions-
1. "DirectCast"- GOOD this would mostly apply to found items and original sculpts by the original maker.
2. "Reissued"- GOOD This would be where someone copies and molds a fan made prop with the original makers permission, or molds and sells copies of an item that is no longer in production, or from a company that is no longer in business or otherwise involved with the license. This would simply be making an item available again with no conflict with the original maker.
3. "MysteryCast"- Possibly GOOD, possibly BAD This would be where someone finds a 2nd hand prop at a con, or off eBay, wants to offer copies of it, but is unable to find the original maker (after of course making a REAL effort to FIND the original maker) This would apply to things like my Boba helmet- it was made off some something called the "lava helmet" that was slightly modified and cast from the original Pre Production 2 helmet which was stolen from LFL while ESB was still in pre-production. When I got my copy, I posted a thread here trying to find out more about it before molding it, that went on for at least 10 pages, and nothing ever came of it. I went ahead and molded it and now a lot of people have one of the coolest Fett helmets ever made. This whole theory could backfire though in that someone could jump the gun and "say" they tried to find the owner, mold the item, then have the original maker show up, fit to be tied, once word got out. This is why I've always left GreyZon's stuff alone- I don't know if he's out of the biz for good or if he's just taking an extended break. That and no one seems to have any contact info for him.
People would have to be really careful with this approach.
4. "Recast"- BAD This definition would remain pretty much the same since it's already so ingrained in the hobby's vocabulary. Basically someone gets a cool item, dunks it in rubber with little or no cleanup, NO attempts to negotiate molding rights with the owner, and starts flooding eBay with them.
These would probably need to be fine tuned for more clarity, but you get my idea.
What do you guys think?
-Sarge
Here's some suggestions-
1. "DirectCast"- GOOD this would mostly apply to found items and original sculpts by the original maker.
2. "Reissued"- GOOD This would be where someone copies and molds a fan made prop with the original makers permission, or molds and sells copies of an item that is no longer in production, or from a company that is no longer in business or otherwise involved with the license. This would simply be making an item available again with no conflict with the original maker.
3. "MysteryCast"- Possibly GOOD, possibly BAD This would be where someone finds a 2nd hand prop at a con, or off eBay, wants to offer copies of it, but is unable to find the original maker (after of course making a REAL effort to FIND the original maker) This would apply to things like my Boba helmet- it was made off some something called the "lava helmet" that was slightly modified and cast from the original Pre Production 2 helmet which was stolen from LFL while ESB was still in pre-production. When I got my copy, I posted a thread here trying to find out more about it before molding it, that went on for at least 10 pages, and nothing ever came of it. I went ahead and molded it and now a lot of people have one of the coolest Fett helmets ever made. This whole theory could backfire though in that someone could jump the gun and "say" they tried to find the owner, mold the item, then have the original maker show up, fit to be tied, once word got out. This is why I've always left GreyZon's stuff alone- I don't know if he's out of the biz for good or if he's just taking an extended break. That and no one seems to have any contact info for him.
People would have to be really careful with this approach.
4. "Recast"- BAD This definition would remain pretty much the same since it's already so ingrained in the hobby's vocabulary. Basically someone gets a cool item, dunks it in rubber with little or no cleanup, NO attempts to negotiate molding rights with the owner, and starts flooding eBay with them.
These would probably need to be fine tuned for more clarity, but you get my idea.
What do you guys think?
-Sarge
Oh Please. Most of the things done on this board are cool items that in no way, shape, or form will ever become a licensed product. And if said product will NEVER be licensed, where is the loss to the studio? If anything, we keep interest alive.
If that's your attitude, why do you even come here? To discuss MR and QMX upcoming releases?
If that's your attitude, why do you even come here? To discuss MR and QMX upcoming releases?
Styrofoam_Guy
Well-Known Member
When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it would have different content.
What are the hardest things to cast? If I was producing a kit, how can I design it in a way that a recaster would take one look at it and decide not to recast it?
I thought about adding photo etch but a recaster could just glue the parts onto the resin piece and cast it that way. Of course the quality would be bad but they donÂ’t care.
A photo etched name plate? Again the recaster would just omit it or cast it in resin.
A complex cast shape? A recaster would cut it up and make 2 parts to make casting simpler.
Is this a no win scenario?
Alex
Styrofoam Guy
What are the hardest things to cast? If I was producing a kit, how can I design it in a way that a recaster would take one look at it and decide not to recast it?
I thought about adding photo etch but a recaster could just glue the parts onto the resin piece and cast it that way. Of course the quality would be bad but they donÂ’t care.
A photo etched name plate? Again the recaster would just omit it or cast it in resin.
A complex cast shape? A recaster would cut it up and make 2 parts to make casting simpler.
Is this a no win scenario?
Alex
Styrofoam Guy
