themanwoaname
Sr Member
i dont think you understand.
if i take a graflex tube and cast the graflex tube its not mine. anyone can purchase a graflex tube and make a cast of it. my proof in saying "hey this guy recasted my graflex tube!" is bunk.
Sidkit and me, racprops
- Thread starter racprops
- Start date
i dont think you understand.
if i take a graflex tube and cast the graflex tube its not mine. anyone can purchase a graflex tube and make a cast of it. my proof in saying "hey this guy recasted my graflex tube!" is bunk.
themanwoaname
Sr Member
in the blatant case of its obviously a graflex yes. if its obviously a graflex tube, and not a blatant light saber. they dont own the rights to a graflex tube, and anyone can purchase and make a cast of a graflex tube.
its your own example. why cant you grasp this?
its your own example. why cant you grasp this?
jarvis
Sr Member
A lightsaber is not just a graphlex tube. there are other found components on it, like the t track and the calc bubbles,so it is you who do not grasp the example. It is similar to saying a bladerunner blaster is fair game because it's just made out of two existing guns.
Last edited:
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Apples and oranges my friend.
Scenario one:
Person aquires a studio production piece and produces replicas from it, studio doesn't like that, studio issues C+D letter, person stops the project or faces legal action.
Scenario two:
Replica prop guy makes a replica prop, person aquires replica prop and recasts it, replica prop guy says please stop, person says or what ? screw you, replica prop guy can't issue legal proceedings so the only recourse he has is to let his fellow prop makers/collectors know what's happened in the vain hope that these people are decent enough to have his back and not do bussiness with that person.
See the difference ? in scenario one the studio can if they want to stop someone copying stuff and nobody castigates them for that.
In scenario two the guy who's a part of the community you hang out with can't stop anyone from copying stuff but rather than show support people put the dollar before decency.
Making up any excuse they can find to justify themselves, oh well it's all the studios property anyway is always the chime, well you know what if the studio wanted to they could have stopped that prop ever being on the market or they could shut it down quickly or they could even sue for every penny that guys ever made from it and more.
The truth is they have no complaint so why should anyone else ?
If the studio want to protect their property they have the means and i for one would support it.
Just as i support any replica producer that's getting his stuff ripped off by someone else.
Mercury
Sr Member
You are correct, but whether intentionally or not, it comes across as other than just your opinion.
That's what the introduction thread is about and I think we all have seen you post it at least once so we are aware of it. Regardless the term noob or newbie, neither of which do I approve of, is aimed at being new in this community and not whether they are capable of building props.
Sadly, you probably never will. It's a gray area and always will be. I won't spout any "honor among thieves" to you because you have heard it before but don't understand the concept or don't agree with it. Yes, in the broadest use of the term, everything we do is a recast as we work off of other peoples ideas. Your Rocket Pack would fall right in that category. Yes it is selective, it always has been. Ultimately it's the best we can do to keep those who might leave and by doing so, lose a lot of great talent.
I can't explain that. Sid's kits were great, I had planned on getting his Trigun but sadly he passed away before I had the chance. I disagree with Rich about Sid's motives. I think he just didn't see the need to modify a Steyr the same way as Rich's when he could just copy his. Less work involved. Regardless, he was not a typical recaster. He had enough talent to do what was needed from scratch and did so on everything else he made to the best of my knowledge. So yes, his kits were highly sought after especially since after he died, those kits were no longer available. They were, then, very rare and everyone was seeing what others had and wished they had gotten one when they had the chance. Now it appears some more are coming out, at least of the BR gun. I wasn't aware of it as I'm not a big BR gun fan although I do have a RR PKDII. Rich is still around, his kits are still available, but they aren't cheap. I still can't explain how you haven't heard of Richard Coyle or any of his work. He's done quite a few different props unrelated to BR and again, I don't know too many people who would pass up a chance to get a RAC prop, especially an out of production one, if it was feasible. I, myself, hope to one day pick up one of his STIII Phasers if the opportunity ever presents itself and I have the coin for it at the time.
Anyway, through for the night.:cool
themanwoaname
Sr Member
thank you for a very clear response. i appreciate it.
androidandy
Sr Member
I disagree with Rich's basic assessment of the rules. They are over simplified, because recasting from the studio stuff, or even just trying to copy it is not okay if the studio cares enough to go after you for it. Most studios don't care because we inadvertently help promote their films and buy what they do sell. Most of us are also just fans making just a few copies for us and a few extras for our fellow fans at low profit margins. Those that are doing it as a main source of income though the studio does care about, and Rich should know this since he has been sued. If a studio got mad at someone making copies of a prop here, they could potentially have this whole site taken down. Many other prop makers here have also been sued. Also if another prop maker doesn't care and/or gives permission for you to make copies of their work it is absolutely okay to do so.
I think Rich's concept is stuck in the 60's/70's and is about sticking it to the man. It may have been the initial idea that the convention set prop/garage kit makers lived by, as do now the bootleg DVD movie makers use to justify what they do, but it is dangerous to say that is what makes it okay here. It is not really okay. Not if you are looking to make a business out of and not pay the license fees. Rich needs to say this for himself though, because he may be just a garage kit maker, but he is making enough profit to call it his business. It is a fine line, and the line moves depending on which property you are copying. The line can also move at anytime if a license gets sold, or if the holder decides it is time for them to be making more profit from it. Rich sees it as simple black and white, because it always puts him on the right side of the line in his mind. It will also usually put much of his competition on the other side of the line.
The "law of Prop recasting" though is less an ethical thing than a rule of order for this place and others like it. It is a way of showing respect for each others work, and not stepping on each others toes. But, we also need to show respect for those that hold the licenses, or this all could come tumbling down.
Andy
I think Rich's concept is stuck in the 60's/70's and is about sticking it to the man. It may have been the initial idea that the convention set prop/garage kit makers lived by, as do now the bootleg DVD movie makers use to justify what they do, but it is dangerous to say that is what makes it okay here. It is not really okay. Not if you are looking to make a business out of and not pay the license fees. Rich needs to say this for himself though, because he may be just a garage kit maker, but he is making enough profit to call it his business. It is a fine line, and the line moves depending on which property you are copying. The line can also move at anytime if a license gets sold, or if the holder decides it is time for them to be making more profit from it. Rich sees it as simple black and white, because it always puts him on the right side of the line in his mind. It will also usually put much of his competition on the other side of the line.
The "law of Prop recasting" though is less an ethical thing than a rule of order for this place and others like it. It is a way of showing respect for each others work, and not stepping on each others toes. But, we also need to show respect for those that hold the licenses, or this all could come tumbling down.
Andy
Is a replicar maker building product that actually competes with or undercuts real Ferrari sales? Of course not; doesn't stop Ferrari having people arrested. Aircraft companies have been demanding royalties from plastic model plane manufacturers. Copyright can be applied to a 'distinctive image' or whatever the correct legal term is. Anyway, what it boils down to is that IP is a slippery slope. Invoking it absolutely begs for comebacks, as we've seen in this thread. (Which has been really informative, btw.) :thumbsup
I absolutely agree. In fact his product can't be accurate if he doesn't. Pure common sense. Nonetheless this doesn't protect him from a vengeful manufacturer potentially coming after him should they so choose. People have been dragged out of German car shows by the police for similar reasons.
I'm not backing one side or the other, just saying that the water is at least a little muddy. It's a shame Sid copied parts, even if they derived from commercial items. But their appeal is understandable given the quality seems to be agreed as great. I second that sentiment that it would have been great if the parties could have worked out a deal. Bummer.
Oh and this isn't directed at you but for (not) the last time...it's not CASTED or RECASTED, it's RECASTEDEDED. Get it right you people!
Edit: Onigiri ftw.
Last edited:
Larry Young
Master Member
I always miss the good stuff.
goldenage
Well-Known Member
And that Ladies and gents, despite the endless posturing, is the general RPF attitude to recasting in a nutshell.
"It's bad and evil, unless it's good quality and cheap - or unless it's 2nd gen screen used and rare in which case the original owner has no rights and bring it on"
:thumbsup
Some people are willing to overlook anything as long as they get what they want.
Telling someone they should lower their prices or make a kit just because some moron has recasted their product is just plain stupid.
I'm really appalled at all the people who support Sid's work just because it was good and cheap. Does that mean if it was bad and pricey, they wouldn't be defending them.
Themanwithnoname - You come off like a know it all who does not like it all and when someone dares to disagree with you, you start in with the attacks. You have done this in almost every thread you have posted in since you joined. Grow up already.
I can offer an answer to why you might have seen more Sid kits:
They were/are kits, so anyone building them will be proud to show off their labors to complete a model.
MY model is mainly a fully built model and there is no builder pride in just buying it...
And Themanwithnoname you have said you’re trying to learn and understand, BUT instead of asking questions to learn: you make statements and pronouncements.
I for one did not see you as even a debater; you just keep coming down on us and me.
Andy I do not think of this as stick it to the man, and I am not stuck in the 60s.
I was stating the old rules as I operated, until recent deals with companies like Icons, MR and others, the studios only allow toys, really crappy toys to be made.
Many of us tried to get licenses, but I think the fear that if they granted us one, one of two things might happen, 1) they would lose a really big deal with a big toy company or 2) We might make millions..and they would not get as a big part as they wanted with the BIG deal.
So there was no provision for small prop makers.
I did come out of the 70s and 80s where Mr. Roddenberry was on record in saying he supported fan stories, (fanzines) costums, Valcum Ears, cons, and propmakers, as a part of enjoying his show.
Lucas has said and done similar things, and allows the R2D2 builders club as long as it remains nonprofit.
And yes it has also been understood, if a studio grants a license for a company like MR to make and sell a prop, we small propmakers better stop making the same prop or we might get a C&D to protect to profits of the company with the license.
Rich
They were/are kits, so anyone building them will be proud to show off their labors to complete a model.
MY model is mainly a fully built model and there is no builder pride in just buying it...
And Themanwithnoname you have said you’re trying to learn and understand, BUT instead of asking questions to learn: you make statements and pronouncements.
I for one did not see you as even a debater; you just keep coming down on us and me.
Andy I do not think of this as stick it to the man, and I am not stuck in the 60s.
I was stating the old rules as I operated, until recent deals with companies like Icons, MR and others, the studios only allow toys, really crappy toys to be made.
Many of us tried to get licenses, but I think the fear that if they granted us one, one of two things might happen, 1) they would lose a really big deal with a big toy company or 2) We might make millions..and they would not get as a big part as they wanted with the BIG deal.
So there was no provision for small prop makers.
I did come out of the 70s and 80s where Mr. Roddenberry was on record in saying he supported fan stories, (fanzines) costums, Valcum Ears, cons, and propmakers, as a part of enjoying his show.
Lucas has said and done similar things, and allows the R2D2 builders club as long as it remains nonprofit.
And yes it has also been understood, if a studio grants a license for a company like MR to make and sell a prop, we small propmakers better stop making the same prop or we might get a C&D to protect to profits of the company with the license.
Rich
guys i know ill get burnt writing this
but hay RICH have some respect mate this is below the belt
the guy ( sidi ) has passedaway !!!!
dont slag the dead you know they cant answer back
and this is not
very sportlike or gentleman like to bring this all back up !!!
Let sidi rest in peace man
thats all i have to say
but hay RICH have some respect mate this is below the belt
the guy ( sidi ) has passedaway !!!!
dont slag the dead you know they cant answer back
and this is not
very sportlike or gentleman like to bring this all back up !!!
Let sidi rest in peace man
thats all i have to say
Your correct, your going to get burnt.
Who the frack cares if the guy is dead. His partner to still profiting from the recasting the guy did.
If you can still buy the kit, then it is current business.
If you think it is okay to recast another prop makers work, then you don't belong here.
Grey
Sr Member
:rolleyes Let's all infer things nobody ever said.
Go tell that to the people casting studio pieces, they might get paid more from the studio but they're still "prop makers".
I also fail to see how his partner selling them = trashing on a guy whose already dead.
We are not talking about studio prop makers. If it wasn't for making copies of props in a movie, this forum and others like it would not exist.
And, unless you have the original prop, you are not recasting it.
As for trashing guy who is dead, so what, he still did it and Rich is still getting burned by what he did, so he has every right to be PO'd.
Similar threads
