You have never seen the Blade Runner blaster before - PHOTOS RESTORED

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(Serafino @ Sep 7 2006, 05:34 PM) [snapback]1314886[/snapback]</div>

We do not have any business calling the owner stupid.
[/b]

Okay - it was stupid of me to agree the owner acted stupidly over this, and could be called such.
Irresponsible would have been a better word to use, having knowingly displayed the piece publically, being aware of 'us' at the RPF, and, as Phil suggested, seeing us in a bad light. Then, going on to change their mind over pressure from peers (playground antics - your not part of our club any more cos you told) and taking Karl to task after not informing the custodian in detail how the prop should be treated in the owner's absence.

Questions.
Why couldn't Karl be contacted by the owner - why was it up to RAC to do such?
How was RAC 'protecting' Karl?

Perhaps the whole darn thing's one big hoax.

 

[Eagle]

<div class='quotetop'>(Aegis159 @ Sep 7 2006, 05:45 PM) [snapback]1314899[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Eagle @ Sep 7 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]1314878[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>(Howard @ Sep 7 2006, 05:19 PM) [snapback]1314872[/snapback]

Here's another. If I print the pics Karl posted and then take pics of them and post them Are they then my pics to post?[/b]

I think you were jesting but If anyone's interested; no...

It would be classed as direct violation of copyright or at the very least 'derivative work' if you altered them slightly.
[/b][/quote]

Actually eagle in the art world it's a common (and somewhat accepted) practice..... Warhol first brought this to bear many moons ago. I can bring them up on my monitor, then take pictures of them and the images that I have created are now mine no matter what's in the images. Now I'm not debating whether that's ethical or not, but there would be no "violation of copyright".

That's not even taking into account something that someone else pointed out to me about them being used under the freedom of information act.....
[/b][/quote]
I agree (to a limited extent) that it's "accepted practice" but that is more ignorance on the part of those who reproduce art/photography for their own means. However, when commercial interests are concerned, if the copyright owner chooses to claim royalties, they can - and the courts will fully support it. In a case where a copyrighted image (every image belongs to someone) is copied - it's either a direct copyright violation or, if modified, a derivative work; against which royalties and/or damages can be rightfully claimed. Period.

Freedom of Information has nothing to do with it. The fact that an image is on the internet does not make it "public domain" or "free"- copyright of an image belongs to the author. End of story.

Anyway, this is not the place to discuss my profession at length.

 

[micdavis]

I am not sure if all this "stupid" stuff was about my comment. I admit this thread is too long to re-read all of it.

My "stupid" comment was directed at any one who didn't grab the pic when they were up and are now bitching that they are gone.

Too many unanswered questions here. It is starting to stink of money to me. Certainly ego.

 

[racprops]

Rich

 

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 7 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]1314916[/snapback]</div>

Arguing about it the way people have here only reinforces the views of the prop owners as to the amount of trust they can place in the forum.
[/b]

I don't think it's about trust Thomas.
If anything it proves we share a passion for this prop equal to their own.

 

[philippes]

The Blade Runner Partnership is made up of Bud Yorkin and Jerry Perenchio. They own all of the rights to Blade Runner. In fact, they purchased the music rights from Vangelis a few years back.

Lookup the names in Google to get a better idea who these people are.

Time Warner's only role in this is distribution. Of course, they might also be called upon to enforce the copyrights, but no one knows if that'll be the case.

Oh, and of course, Scott Free Productions is doing the production work on the new film and DVDs.

Phil

 

[Serafino]

Has anyone posted an actual case of an original prop's value being lowered by the production of replicas? Did I miss that?

Because that still seems to be to be an extremely mistaken expectation.

 

[PHArchivist]

Thanks Phil -- very intriguing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Perenchio

A quote of a 'net entry:
"Interesting guy, Jerry. Love him or hate him, there's no doubt he has big-time influence."
(source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/779584/posts)

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(Serafino @ Sep 7 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]1314948[/snapback]</div>

Has anyone posted an actual case of an original prop's value being lowered by the production of replicas? Did I miss that?

Because that still seems to be to be an extremely mistaken expectation.
[/b]

From my experience, (and I've had plenty) when replicas of a prop exist, it's much harder to sell the original. Consequently, a copy indeed has an effect on the price.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the owners of the Blade Runner blasters are worried about the replica guns, but rather, the wide dissemination of very detailed photographs of the prop. That makes it much easier for a less-than-honest, but talented gunsmith, to make a copy to pawn off as an original.

Considering the value of the real prop, it would make economic sense to a forger to spend the needed time and money to make a reproduction.

Phil

 

[Kevin]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]1314937[/snapback]</div>

The Blade Runner Partnership is made up of Bud Yorkin and Jerry Perenchio. They own all of the rights to Blade Runner. In fact, they purchased the music rights from Vangelis a few years back.

[/b]

Didn't Warners acquire all worldwide rights? Isn't that the way they broke the log jam ethat prevented a DVD being released?

DVD Review article

Just curious. Warners securing the rights should allow them a clearer route to sell merchandise, too. :confused

 

[Walter]

<div class='quotetop'>(racprops @ Sep 7 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]1314931[/snapback]</div>

It seems the Blade Runner Collectors were here all along and are more upset with the prospect of a model going on eBay that would harm the value of their collections.

I am very flattered by this.

But I would say this, I cannot really do such great work, and I do not plan on doing so...

...Karl understands that he did no wrong, and in fact I did no wrong in taking and posting these pictures, but I could be making some very powerful people upset by offering to make these models and Karl was/has been very kind in pulling them as we try to learn the lay of the land.

Rich
[/b]

Rich, what in GODS name are you talking about? That entire post did not make any sense.

-Bryan

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(Kevin @ Sep 7 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]1314962[/snapback]</div>

Didn't Warners acquire all worldwide rights? Isn't that the way they broke the log jam ethat prevented a DVD being released?

DVD Review article

Just curious. Warners securing the rights should allow them a clearer route to sell merchandise, too. :confused
[/b]

It's always been my understanding that Warners only had distribution rights.

All copyrights remain with The Blade Runner Partnership. That means that the actual owner of the film and all its associated trade dress is The Partnership. So, if someone wants to license something from the film, one needs to speak with them.

Phil

 

[micdavis]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 10:44 AM) [snapback]1314957[/snapback]</div>

From my experience, (and I've had plenty) when replicas of a prop exist, it's much harder to sell the original. Consequently, a copy indeed has an effect on the price.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the owners of the Blade Runner blasters are worried about the replica guns, but rather, the wide dissemination of very detailed photographs of the prop. That makes it much easier for a less-than-honest, but talented gunsmith, to make a copy to pawn off as an original.

Considering the value of the real prop, it would make economic sense to a forger to spend the needed time and money to make a reproduction.

Phil
[/b]

Yes, certainly.

But are not ALL the Hero guns from the film accounted for?

Buyer beware. Who in their right mind would spend $20K on a prop they are not 100% sure of?

Do we have to not get pictures to make our plastic toys just so some guy with to much money to spend gets his jollies without doing his own "due diligence"?

 

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 06:44 PM) [snapback]1314957[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Serafino @ Sep 7 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]1314948[/snapback]

Has anyone posted an actual case of an original prop's value being lowered by the production of replicas? Did I miss that?

Because that still seems to be to be an extremely mistaken expectation.
[/b]

From my experience, (and I've had plenty) when replicas of a prop exist, it's much harder to sell the original. Consequently, a copy indeed has an effect on the price.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the owners of the Blade Runner blasters are worried about the replica guns, but rather, the wide dissemination of very detailed photographs of the prop. That makes it much easier for a less-than-honest, but talented gunsmith, to make a copy to pawn off as an original.

Considering the value of the real prop, it would make economic sense to a forger to spend the needed time and money to make a reproduction.

Phil
[/b][/quote]

Sorry, but I just don't understand this.
You're saying because a GH Vader helmet exists, then it's more difficult to sell an original?
We've discussed provenance and its importance at lengh here. Anyone (group) with a supposed original with provenance would simply disprove any claims by your hypothetical gunsmith wanting to make money on eBay.
Please - if it's an original there's plenty of collectors who can afford the original, and the simple fact copies do exist, make the original even more desirable by the masses and the guys who can afford them.

So in this case, no replicas will be made so as not to effect the value of the original/s which is not for sale.
Mmm.

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(micdavis @ Sep 7 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]1314972[/snapback]</div>

Yes, certainly.

But are not ALL the Hero guns from the film accounted for?

Buyer beware. Who in their right mind would spend $20K on a prop they are not 100% sure of?

Do we have to not get pictures to make our plastic toys just so some guy with to much money to spend gets his jollies without doing his own "due diligence"?
[/b]

No. Not all of the guns have been accounted for with certainty.

I know of cases in which collectors have spent large amounts of money on a piece they were certain was real, only to discover much later it was a fake.

Phil

 

[Bryancd]

Wow, my best friend works at Univision and has met Jerry Perenchio. His older brother also works there and knows him even better.

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1314957[/snapback]</div>

From my experience, (and I've had plenty) when replicas of a prop exist, it's much harder to sell the original. Consequently, a copy indeed has an effect on the price.
Phil
[/b]

Can you please name a prop that this happened to? Was it the Kurtz sabers? Or maybe a screen used Trooper helmet? ** see quoted post at the bottom.

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1314957[/snapback]</div>

And for what it's worth, I don't think the owners of the Blade Runner blasters are worried about the replica guns, but rather, the wide dissemination of very detailed photographs of the prop. That makes it much easier for a less-than-honest, but talented gunsmith, to make a copy to pawn off as an original.
Phil
[/b]

This will NEVER happen. That's a sad myth that people who want to control things make up. We will NEVER see an identical BR gun prop ever. Even with all these pics it is impossible.. By Richards own admission, he can't even do it and he is apparently the resident expert and premier maker of this gun.


**<div class='quotetop'>(franz bolo @ Sep 6 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]1314239[/snapback]</div>

Let's put this in perspective.

You have a White 1968 USA buit stratocaster. They make a pretty accuarate one in Mexico nowadays but the USA built one will always be worth more. Plus yours is a vintage 1968 one. We won't even consider the cheap copies that other makers try to pass off. I'll give you $5,000 for it.

Oh, yours was owned by Jimmy Hendrix and was played at woodstock? Why didn't you say so. It will now be worth $1,413,103

The above scenerio is pretty much the same thing but of different items.

FB
[/b]

 

[philippes]

<div class='quotetop'>(Howard @ Sep 7 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]1314978[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but I just don't understand this.
You're saying because a GH Vader helmet exists, then it's more difficult to sell an original?
We've discussed provenance and its importance at lengh here. Anyone (group) with a supposed original with provenance would simply disprove any claims by your hypothetical gunsmith wanting to make money on eBay.
Please - if it's an original there's plenty of collectors who can afford the original, and the simple fact copies do exist, make the original even more desirable by the masses and the guys who can afford them.

So in this case, no replicas will be made so as not to effect the value of the original/s which is not for sale.
Mmm.
[/b]

Yes. When replicas exist, potential clients are much more skeptical. Even if the prop has excellent provenance and the seller is reputable.

<div class='quotetop'>(franz bolo @ Sep 7 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]1314989[/snapback]</div>

Can you please name a prop that this happened to? Was it the Kurtz sabers? Or maybe a screen used Trooper helmet? ** see quoted post at the bottom.[/b]

I'm currently brokering a Jurassic Park John Hammond cane, and the issues of copies is a serious problem.

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1314957[/snapback]</div>

This will NEVER happen. That's a sad myth that people who want to control things make up. We will NEVER see an identical BR gun prop ever. Even with all these pics it is impossible.. By Richards own admission, he can't even do it and he is apparently the resident expert and premier maker of this gun.[/b]

Go here:

http://props.steinschneider.com/brblaster/metalinit_02.htm

If Craig had the new information at the time, the SL-DAPAS would almost be indistinguishable from the original.

Phil

 

[PHArchivist]

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 7 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]1314993[/snapback]</div>

If Craig had the new information at the time, the SL-DAPAS would almost be indistinguishable from the original.

Phil
[/b]

If he was able to 100% perfectly replicate all the real-world wear and tear, that is...

 

[Aegis159]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I'm currently brokering a Jurassic Park John Hammond cane, and the issues of copies is a serious problem.
[/b]

If I remember correctly, the main problem is that there isn't any type of provenance with the cane other than who you're brokering it for correct (BTW, if you want me to edit this part out that's fine since it deals with information from elsewhere)? Is this the issue with the pistols then? the owners are worried about when/if they ever decide to sell the pistols that the only provenance for the piece they have will be their word? I understand back when the film was finished how props and whatnot were not coveted and documented like they are today. So is this the problem then?