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

[micdavis]

<div class='quotetop'>(Sidewinder @ Sep 7 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]1314833[/snapback]</div>

Micdavis - As Howard said to another member "You're either in the wrong thread or on the wrong forum."

I think we should all calm down, step back a bit and wait to see what happens. Clearly there are things occuring in the background here and they will probably sort themselves out one way or another. This will be either RAC or Phil or someone making an announcement I guess...
In the meantime we've waited years for such revelations as this and i'm sure a few more days/weeks/months won't make much difference.
Also, those who want the pics can still get them from those with the foresight to right click away at the beginning.

SAS
[/b]

Just asked a couple questions. How are they not relevant to this thread?

Simple ones too.

Who is not calm? (Don't read your anxiety into my posts please.)

Why anyone is bitching about not having the picture is nuts. They were there, you should have them (or you're stupid).

But why they're gone certainly bears a little examination.

 

[SethB6025]

This thread certainly has taken a turn, then landed in the gutter.
Why all the cloak & dagger lurking & behind-the-scenes conspiring? It's a shame that these people get so upset over something so trivial. Information wants to be free, and the proverbial cat is out of the proverbial bag.

 

[Sidewinder]

<div class='quotetop'>(micdavis @ Sep 7 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]1314846[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Sidewinder @ Sep 7 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]1314833[/snapback]

Micdavis - As Howard said to another member "You're either in the wrong thread or on the wrong forum."
This comment was replying to you saying "Build your own stuff and don't obsess over the minutia." Also there is a big smile smiley at the end indicating it was a non-serious comment.

All of this bit below was just a general opinion of mine and not aimed at you Mic, hance it is a different paragraph altogether
I think we should all calm down, step back a bit and wait to see what happens. Clearly there are things occuring in the background here and they will probably sort themselves out one way or another. This will be either RAC or Phil or someone making an announcement I guess...
In the meantime we've waited years for such revelations as this and i'm sure a few more days/weeks/months won't make much difference.
Also, those who want the pics can still get them from those with the foresight to right click away at the beginning.

SAS
[/b]

Just asked a couple questions. How are they not relevant to this thread?

Simple ones too.

Who is not calm? (Don't read your anxiety into my posts please.)

Why anyone is bitching about not having the picture is nuts. They were there, you should have them (or you're stupid).

But why they're gone certainly bears a little examination.
[/b][/quote]
See my comments above and would you kindly refrain from pretending to know how I feel in a given situation 'cos you don't.

SAS

 

[eltee]

I guess I still don't get it. Owner "A" displays and allows photographing of his prop at a public venue attended by prop lovers and fans. Owner "B" (and possibly owners "C" though ?) who own similar/identical props, but not the one owned by Owner "A", find the posting of the photos objectionable. Owners "B" etc. express their displeasure through a third party who did not post the pictures (and had nothing directly to do with them). Owners "B" etc. are never identified, no evidence other than testimony is presented to show that they even exist.

Where is the nexus (legal term, not a trademark name for a brand of replicants) ?

Hypothetically, I own one of the only original Model T Fords left around, display it at a car show, allow (even help) people (car fans) to photograph it. One photographer / fan posts detailed photos on the ACF (Antique Car Forum) website. The owner of another rare Model T, who remains anonymous, goes through a third party, who is known for building Model T replicas, to relay his displeasure over the photos being posted and coerces, intimidates, pursuades, whatever the photographer to take down the photos despite them being viewed and downloaded by many, many Model T fans.

Then, another person known for researching and promulgating information and marketing replica products relating to the Model T steps in and declares that due to his affiliation with the other Model T (mystery) owner/s he has been asked to speak on their behalf.

So what legal basis does the other Model T owner have to ask/demand that the photos be taken down? This is someone whose existence hasn't even been irrefutably established. Am I missing something or does the photographer have the absolute legal right to post his photos?

If the photographer sold the rights to post the photos to another website member who was not willing to be coerced, bullied or harassed into pulling them down, what could be legally done by the other Model T owner/s?

Sounds like the plot of a B-grade film noir. The regrettable part is that some people on the Antique Car Forum are taking stands, asserting positions and making things personal, and feelings; friendships and reputations are being tested. I just don't get it.

 

[Eagle]

<div class='quotetop'>(acerocket @ Sep 7 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1314845[/snapback]</div>

Don't blame the RPF, Karl, RAC, or any of the other players here. Blame the owner of the prop. How stupid can you be. You take a treasure like that to a public convention where (by chance one member of a nearly 4000 member group who is quite interested in this subject matter) sees, photographs, and shares his photos with the group. Then you have the gall to aks that the pics be taken down. If there was a problem with details of this prop becoming public then it should never have been in a public place in the first place.
[/b]

Absolutely.

This is quite simple:

The owner of the prop allowed photos to be taken.

The photographer OWNS copyright and can post/use/print/sell them anyway he pleases.

 

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(eltee @ Sep 7 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1314864[/snapback]</div>

I guess I still don't get it.
[/b]

I think you get it - great post.

Here's another. If I print the pics Karl posted and then take pics of them and post them - what happens to me?
Are they then my pics to post?
Or do I get an email from the BRMafia, making me an offer I can't refuse?

Don't worry, I'm not going to - I just had to ask.

 

[PHArchivist]

<div class='quotetop'>(Eagle @ Sep 7 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1314870[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(acerocket @ Sep 7 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1314845[/snapback]

Don't blame the RPF, Karl, RAC, or any of the other players here. Blame the owner of the prop. How stupid can you be. You take a treasure like that to a public convention where (by chance one member of a nearly 4000 member group who is quite interested in this subject matter) sees, photographs, and shares his photos with the group. Then you have the gall to aks that the pics be taken down. If there was a problem with details of this prop becoming public then it should never have been in a public place in the first place.
[/b]

Absolutely.

This is quite simple:

The owner of the prop allowed photos to be taken.

The photographer OWNS copyright and can post/use/print/sell them anyway he pleases.
[/b][/quote]


Not necessarily...

If I recall, wasn't the attendant at the con a custodian, or representative of the owner? Was the owner actually there?

Though not previously suggested nor disputed, is it not possible that the permission to allow photographs granted in error? Or perhaps the dictum not publicly post photographs mistakenly ommited?

I'm not certain we're in a position here to call the owner "stupid".

 

[Eagle]

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

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.

 

[Howard]

<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Sep 7 2006, 05:21 PM) [snapback]1314876[/snapback]</div>

I'm not certain we're in a position here to call the owner "stupid".
[/b]

Well if he/she decided to display the prop publically and not make it clear photography was under no circumstances allowed, then I think we are.
Hell - there was even a picture of Karl posing with the prop. If if were mine there would be no way anyone would be allowed to hold the thing.

Howard.


<div class='quotetop'>(Eagle @ Sep 7 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]1314878[/snapback]</div>

<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]

Yes Mark, I'm only playing around - hence the ' '
Okay - so if I flip em in Photoshop and then hit 'invert' are they then MY creation?
Don't bother to answer - I'm just upping my post count.

 

[Serafino]

We do not have any business calling the owner stupid.

He is caught in a difficult situation involving his peers.

Here at the RPF we all experience what it is like to have peers we want to get along with but whose judgments we don't necessarily agree with. Shifts in perception can happen quickly when someone finds out their connections in the peer group where they get the things they want are threatened. It happens.

In this case, the owner didn't make the call, RAC did. We have to take him at his word that he was simply trying to calm things down to give a chance for the owner to calm down.

The strategy has backfired, but this whole thing is a result of different agendas, lack of empathy, misperception, "us against them-ism" (on both sides maybe), and the terrific difficulty of restraining oneself from posting when probably the best thing would be to just leave it alone.

 

[Aegis159]

<div class='quotetop'>(Howard @ Sep 7 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]1314872[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(eltee @ Sep 7 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1314864[/snapback]

I guess I still don't get it.
[/b]

I think you get it - great post.

Here's another. If I print the pics Karl posted and then take pics of them and post them - what happens to me?
Are they then my pics to post?
Or do I get an email from the BRMafia, making me an offer I can't refuse?

Don't worry, I'm not going to - I just had to ask.
[/b][/quote]

...Hence my reference to Warhol there Howard, hehe

 

[PHArchivist]

Perhaps its time to expound upon some of these thoughts, comments, or concepts...?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillippes
Jul 28 2003, 07:03 AM
There is definitely enough new material on this prop to write a lengthy, interesting, and comprehensive treatise.

Unfortunately, there are some issues with this piece. Therefore, many of the details of the prop will remain secret until most of the propmakers involved in the project have passed.

In the meantime, I've already begun an outline for an article that will cover all of the new data. With luck, the stakeholders will allow an Internet expose to be published sooner than later.

Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another RPF member
Jul 29 2003, 11:38 AM
Phil, I'm wondering if you can comment on WHY there is so much secrecy surrounding this prop Why is it that people who were involved in it's creatioin will only give out the dope under the promise of secrecy? Is it a personal thing? Did Ridley Scott put a Kaiser Sose style death threat on their families and friends??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillippes
Jul 29 2003, 12:26 PM
There are some legal issues involved.

Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillippes
Aug 18 2003, 07:31 PM
The DVD special edition is on indefinite hold. The Blade Runner Partnership can't reach agreements with Scott Free or Warner Brothers. In fact, I've heard the Partnership is currently feuding with Warner.

Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Bold added)

 

[Aegis159]

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

<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.....

 

[SFPROPS]

<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Sep 7 2006, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1314891[/snapback]</div>

....The DVD special edition is on indefinite hold. The Blade Runner Partnership can't reach agreements ....


(Bold added)
[/b]

My guess is that this would be a bark up the wrong tree. These guys likely care less about memorablia collectors.

 

[juno]

The Blade Runner Partnership.

Tee hee.

 

[acerocket]

The phrase "How stupid can you be." was not meant to imply the owner of the gun is stupid, but rather question his judgement in allowing this prop to be publicly displayed. This is a common phrase used to point out a person's apparent mis-judgement for a given situation. Surely at some poinit in your life you have had a lapse of judgement and someone has said "how stupid can you be" to you as well (I hear it at least once a week from the wife).

Yes I do believe the prop was shown by a third party 'custodian' but that person should be well aware of the owners intent if the prop was to be shown. I doubt very seriously the custodian would risk showing the props without first receiving permission from the owner. This is the type of action that can get a curator/custodian fired. I think the owner was fully aware the prop was to be displayed and possibly photographed. As far as allowing photos and then not allowing them to be displayed, this is outrageous. I walk into a public room, take a picture of any item on display and am then told I can have to picture for myself but can never show anyone else. We are not talking about taking pictures of a secret spy plane on a protected government base, we are talking a prop on display at a public venue.

If the owner truely did not want the prop displayed/photographed then the custodian needs to answer for his misdeeds. The damage has been done and the damage control has made a bad situation even worse.

 

[PHArchivist]

<div class='quotetop'>(SFPROPS @ Sep 7 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]1314900[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Sep 7 2006, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1314891[/snapback]

....The DVD special edition is on indefinite hold. The Blade Runner Partnership can't reach agreements ....


(Bold added)
[/b]

My guess is that this would be a bark up the wrong tree. These guys likely care less about memorablia collectors.
[/b][/quote]


I know reference to the home video world is out of place here. But what the hell is The Blade Runner Partnership?

I've never heard of The Fried Green Tomatoes Partnership, or The Terminator Partnership...

Though perhaps I'm being naive'... Perhaps there are specific business partnerships geared soley at the home video angle of film entertainment. Certainly there is some form of partnership at Lucasfilm tasked with creating umteen releases of SW on (to re-capitulate) home video.

But my wonder is this -- is this Blade Runner Partnership solely involved in home video, or "All things Blade Runner"...?

 

[Aegis159]

<div class='quotetop'>(SFPROPS @ Sep 7 2006, 12:45 PM) [snapback]1314900[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Sep 7 2006, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1314891[/snapback]

....The DVD special edition is on indefinite hold. The Blade Runner Partnership can't reach agreements ....


(Bold added)
[/b]

My guess is that this would be a bark up the wrong tree. These guys likely care less about memorablia collectors.
[/b][/quote]


Well that quote is of course quite old and we all know about the upcoming Ultra DVD collection coming out next year....

Which brings up ANOTHER thought regarding the sudden showing of these props and now all of the hooplah that has followed....
Could this be part of a design to bring the BR community out of the closet for the just-released remastered standard version of the film and the upcoming deluxe set next year??

 

[PHArchivist]

If "The Blade Runner Partnership" is merely a benign group invovled only in the home video element, then please simply ignore its inclusion in my previous post

<div class='quotetop'>(acerocket @ Sep 7 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]1314904[/snapback]</div>

The phrase "How stupid can you be." was not meant to imply the owner of the gun is stupid, but rather question his judgement in allowing this prop to be publicly displayed. This is a common phrase used to point out a person's apparent mis-judgement for a given situation. Surely at some poinit in your life you have had a lapse of judgement and someone has said "how stupid can you be" to you as well (I hear it at least once a week from the wife).

Yes I do believe the prop was shown by a third party 'custodian' but that person should be well aware of the owners intent if the prop was to be shown. I doubt very seriously the custodian would risk showing the props without first receiving permission from the owner. This is the type of action that can get a curator/custodian fired. I think the owner was fully aware the prop was to be displayed and possibly photographed. As far as allowing photos and then not allowing them to be displayed, this is outrageous. I walk into a public room, take a picture of any item on display and am then told I can have to picture for myself but can never show anyone else. We are not talking about taking pictures of a secret spy plane on a protected government base, we are talking a prop on display at a public venue.

If the owner truely did not want the prop displayed/photographed then the custodian needs to answer for his misdeeds. The damage has been done and the damage control has made a bad situation even worse.
[/b]

Your points are all valid, and probably correct. On the other hand, ultimately we do not know. Maybe this agent DID get fired (or otherwise relieved of his duties).

And to your point, even if so, then the owner should have been more clear or exercised better judgement.

Your underlaying theme is right on: In the end, if you want to keep it a secret don't tell ANYbody. And especially don't shoe it of at a convention.

<div class='quotetop'>(Aegis159 @ Sep 7 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]1314907[/snapback]</div>

Well that quote is of course quite old and we all know about the upcoming Ultra DVD collection coming out next year....

Which brings up ANOTHER thought regarding the sudden showing of these props and now all of the hooplah that has followed....
Could this be part of a design to bring the BR community out of the closet for the just-released remastered standard version of the film and the upcoming deluxe set next year??
[/b]

Again to clarify, the focus of the quote is not on the DVD release...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(Aegis159 @ Sep 7 2006, 12:45 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]



Personal use is one thing, claiming ownership is another. Saying that you can reproduce another's copyright material and then claiming that you can do with it what you want is violation of copyright. It doesn't matter how you reproduce it....reproducing it and altering it is still reproducing it = copyright violation.

Frankly I don't think it's anyone's business why the images were taken down, as it deals with personal issues between the prop owners. If such images are to be shown ever again of original props, the forum itself has to respect such wishes of the prop owners. 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.